Budget cut proposals

[Martin Blank]

OK, here's your chance to name some things that you would cut to save money in the next federal budget. The rules are simple:

1. You must provide a basic explanation of what it is. No essays, but a sentence or two would be good.

2. You must provide as exact a number as possible. Rounding off to the nearest major fraction (thousands, millions, or billions) is fine, but just saying that you would kill an entire program and leaving it at that are not enough.

3. You must provide a reason why.

Citations of data would also be nice so that figures can be verified.

I'll give a couple of examples of places I would look.

1. Trim agricultural subsidies -- $2.67 billion (based on 2003 payouts)
Corn, cotton, rice, wheat, soybean, peanut, sorghum, apple, barley, sunflower, canola, and dry pea subsidies would all be cut by 25% ($2.62B), mostly by capping payments to larger corporations and collectives. Tobacco would be removed entirely ($51M). (Source)

2. Mothball the aircraft carrier USS Kennedy -- $135M
The Pentagon believes the Kennedy to have outlived its usefulness as a fleet carrier. She's conventionally fueled, which requires additional resources to replenish her underway, and has had a recent history of mechanical issues and accidents. The temporary loss of a single carrier would not severely hamper the overall fleet, and a new carrier class (the CVX) will be coming in long before Russia or China can put one to sea. (Source [PDF warning]) (Note that these savings do not include decommissioning costs, which could be on the order of half of the savings, according to some things I've read.)

Other items I would look at include additional low levels of unilateral removal of land-based nuclear ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, I can't find solid, recent numbers on the cost savings that would come from something like this. However, with our ballistic missile submarines each fielding more than 100 warheads each, and with eight or so of them at sea at any given time, I'm not so worried about the ability of the US to mount a retaliatory response.

So, any others? (Retrieving forces from overseas has to detail savings. Do your research.)

[StruckingFuggle]

Any good research resources for people who're not the best with looking up statistics?

[Dr. Tower]

I would be kind of disappointed to see CV-67 (The Kennedy) go, but that is soley for personal reasons. My father was the meteorological officer (weatherman) for it for a 6 month tour.

[SunTzu]

Cut the armybudget and pull out of Iraq. Need i explain why that would save money?

[Bigity]

Too bad it wouldn't save lives. Or make it easier to protect ourselves and others from harm.

[SunTzu]

IMO your army is bloated, and a few foreign policy changes could make the world hate you less, and thereby lessen the need to have the largest army in the world...

[Bigity]

lolololololololololol

I'd prefer not to be at the mercy of the "world" myself. You know, that whole protecting your sovreignty thing.

It's more jealousy then hate anyway. We already give more to charity then any other country...what else should we do? Make our taxes and health care more like everyone else?

Let's cut welfare, social security, free health care for illegal immigrants. That'll save some money too.

[Kuronekosama]

Cut NEA funding back to a proposed and defeated legislation
http://www.backstage.com/backstage/news ... 1000549770

Approximate savings of $70 million


I'm not that big into the arts. How is the government going to determine what is appealing to me? Grants and such create an artificial demand for art, which not many people may be interested in. An artist that appeals to the masses will be able to sell art directly. If what they do does not appeal to them, it may in the future and that person may be known throughout time. If nobody likes it ever, then it really wasn't that good, or, you were the only person interested in it, so why give you money for it? I'm interested in plenty of things and not looking for handouts =P I really think that this is something that states can handle for the most part. I don't think all art funding should be removed, but I definitely think it's something that can stand to be trimmed.

[Hylius the LC]

[quote="Bigity";p="548300"]Let's cut welfare, social security, free health care for illegal immigrants. That'll save some money too.[/quote]

I say cut anything that is there to help illegal immigrants. The fact that someone is getting something for free/discount is enough to annoy me, but for that person to be illegal really makes me mad. However, that's for another topic.

[peter-griffin]

[quote="SunTzu";p="548220"]Cut the armybudget and pull out of Iraq. Need i explain why that would save money?[/quote]

yes, cockring.

2. You must provide as exact a number as possible. Rounding off to the nearest major fraction (thousands, millions, or billions) is fine, but just saying that you would kill an entire program and leaving it at that are not enough.

here, i'll make it easier for you

2. if you're going to troll the thread by saying things like "lol the amerikkkan army is bloated" and "pulling out of iraq would mean instant peace so stop slaughtering iraqis ok" don't bother posting.

by the way, we don't have the largest army in the world because the french and germans like to mock americans as cowboys. we have the largest army in the world to protect the french and germans who mock americans as cowboys from unrational enemies who do not obey formal diplomatic syntax, do not fight under a flag or nation and who do not provide quarter to prisoners of war or civilians displaced by combat.

[The Cid]

Note: This idea is hardly feasible in any way. The United States Government would never, under any circumstances, do this. That does NOT mean it's a bad idea.

Let's set aside a team of accountants. Let them break down every iota of the budget, detailing where this money is going.

We all know that there are programs that never really took hold, people taking some money off the top, ineffeciencies and other general wastes of tax dollars. I don't mean agencies, I mean black hole money. Some here, some there. Let's start cutting these black holes out of the budget. Military projects that never got off the ground (like the Osprey). Money overspent. Money everywhere that is just going unused anyway.

Cut all that useless money from the budget, and put it back in the pockets of the taxpayers who will then use it to float the economy.

Use that freed budget to cut taxes on startup businesses, benefitting the entrepreneurs who make Capitalism work. Use it to ease federal income taxes.

Start aiding companies who could potentially help privatize some of our institutions like Social Security. Let's see if we can use these budget cuts to further cut the budget (and to give YOU more money).

It's worth a shot. Isn't it?

[peter-griffin]

not necessarily, the cid. federal spending is not something that can simply be "audtited" by setting aside a team of accounts. it's a massive, intertwined cluster of red tape. you may look at what seems to be money going nowhere, but it's been reinvested into the fund to fulfill section b of article 67 or whatever. and because a lot of the funds depend on chains, saying "hay i dont like this one" could cripple a grant that doesn't even seem to be connected with it.

there was a large uproar in my town a few years ago because the counsel, according to the local newspaper, bought one of the fire departments a $120,000 pickup truck. they interviewed a bunch of citizens and the $500 hammer theory was all the rage until the high school newspaper called the accusatory press out on it. the $120,000 pickup truck was actually a ford f-350 with $85,000 worth of necessary equipment on it for wildfire situations, such as a mobile radio base, cascade SCBA replenishment system, water pressurization systems, thermal indication cameras, telescopic floodlights, a 45,000lb-rated winch, and high power deck gun just to name a few. in fact, just 2 weeks after its purchase, which was when the high school paper printed its investigation, the truck had already been involved in 11 fires, including 2 in a region which was inter-district with a neighboring town. this town's fire chief agreed to be interviewed and said that the supposedly ritzy truck had gotten into situations otherwise impassible without clearcutting parts of the involved forest. it also independently operated from a lake and was therefore able to manuever with the fire, greatly reducing the damage done.

but this was just one of the black holes the public attacks.

[Deacon]

The problem is that government waste doesn't usually come from people stealing from the slush fund or skimming off the top. Not that it never happens, but it doesn't happen often, and when it does it's not in any amount that would so much as nick the national debt.

Government waste really comes from three things:

1) The money that's burned up on re-entry, so to speak. the money lost in the tangle of red tape, absorbed into the massive bureaucracy whose only purpose is to regulate the massive bureaucracy.

2) Pork, or perhaps the more accurate term "corruption" wherein federal monies are distributed to localities for some project or improvement or whatever. Spending a couple hundred million to build a new bridge and name it after yourself, for instance.

3) Government programs. The government runs all kinds of programs, everything from the military, to NASA, to monumental money pit known as Medicare and Medicaid, to all sorts of stuff. Some of this is necessary. Some of this isn't, and everyone can agree on those parts. Some of it isn't necessary--sometimes specifically where the government should specifically not be dealing--but are up in debate between people of differing world views. Most of the stuff that continues to lead America toward being a full-fledged welfare state is, in my opinion, waste. What's sixteen billion dollars, for instance, compared to several trillion? Imagine if Uncle Sam got his nose the hell out of stuff that isn't any of his business, thereby freeing up trillions of dollars back into the economy. Or maybe even used it to pay down the national debt, which I also wouldn't mind.

[The Cid]

Deacon, "audit" isn't a word that was invented by the Internal Revenue Service. Their idea of an audit is one thing. But the word itself means pouring over something, itemizing it. Basically, take inventory of where the money goes.

I don't understand how people can even work on the budget without this sort of detailed report on where the money goes. But I know the effect of doing budgets without auditing the existing spending. That effect? Defecit Spending.

So your follow-up is on the right track. And you might not believe this, but we actually agree on the basic points here. If we were to look closer and find out what we think can and cannot go, that's where we're bound to disagree.

[minsx]

The Cid, I get the impression that you think that all governmental agencies are run with nary an audit - ever? I know that on the state level, there is almost always a position of state auditor, who does nothing but audit the state governmental system.