Trimming the Fat

from JoeUser Forums
We all know that the government could spend our money better. Cries of fiscal responsibility from both parties can be heard throughout our country. Since it is your money being spent, I would like to know what programs you would cut and why.
politics
37,498 views 67 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
       Don't pay congress/president/other high elected positions. At least the ones that are already wealthy. If they can't manage to keep the cashflow on the positive they shouldn't be paid, that's what I think. I guess it's a more local thing, but New York state (where I live) hasn't passed an ontime budget in something like 15 years. So why should we pay them when they can't even do the most basic part of their job? And it would seem to me that not having a huge deficit is kind of the same idea.
       I'm currently unable to come up with any other simple ways to cut money. I'm sure there are lots of programs (all of them?) that should be looked at as to ways to spend less, but nothing jumps out to me. Mayhaps I'll come up with something more later...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't pay congress/president/other high elected positions. At least the ones that are already wealthy. If they can't manage to keep the cashflow on the positive they shouldn't be paid, that's what I think. I guess it's a more local thing, but New York state (where I live) hasn't passed an ontime budget in something like 15 years. So why should we pay them when they can't even do the most basic part of their job? And it would seem to me that not having a huge deficit is kind of the same idea.


Great idea in theory, but not in practice. We would end up with no politicians and a lot of homeless people, and still no balanced budget.

Mayhaps I'll come up with something more later...


Please do. I am seriously interested in ideas. I am fascinated with what others would find an acceptable cut.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Perhaps there are a few outdated programs still receiving funding that could be dropped. I can't name any off the top of my head but maybe someone else knows of some.

Sincerely,
DNCdude
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
iamheather: I must respectfully disagree, we would either end up with bribed politicians or those that did the job solely out of the desire to help others. So a great idea in theory, and potentially in practice, but just as likely disasterous. In either case there would still be politicians around, someones got to run the place
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, now I am admitting up front that I am very ignorant when it comes to this, and what follows is me talking out of my ass about things that I know nothing about. Here goes:

Within the Dept. Agriculture -- the US is providing a 50% increase in food and education assistance in developing countries. IMO, America first. This would be something I would scale back.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) -- $139 million for the core programs and the new American Masterpieces initiative. WTF? Trim that sucker!

Everglades -- $125 million for restoration work in the everglades plus $106 million for Dept. of the Interior's everglades restoration work. Yeah. Let's put that one on a diet.

National Endowment for Democracy and Middle East Partnership Initiative -- $80 million plus $150 million. Cut, cut, cut!

AIDS Assistance in Africa and the Caribbean -- $2.8 billion. Call me cold-hearted, but I say trim that baby up.

Millennium Challenge Account -- $2.5 billion sent overseas. Let's keep our money at home.

NASA -- $16.2 billion. 'Nuff said.

Studies on crap that is of no consequence whatsoever (why turds are brown, will a Timex float, etc.) -- cut, cut, cut!

Basically, if it's not directly in our own interest and won't benefit Americans in a tangible way then I'd like to see it trimmed down. Also, I don't really care about the Everglades. Maybe I should. But I don't.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps there are a few outdated programs still receiving funding that could be dropped. I can't name any off the top of my head but maybe someone else knows of some.


The point is to research and find out for yourself. Must you have someone else tell you what is outdated?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, Tex. That is exactly what I am interested in. Great research and have an insightful on me!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
heather: Thanks. I really need to be more informed on this, and my reply was not even remotely thorough, but those are some things I would consider trimming at first glance. I think this article is a great idea. I hope plenty of folks will reply to this -- it will make for some excellent discussion and likely a bit of education for us all.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
really need to be more informed on this, and my reply was not even remotely thorough, but those are some things I would consider trimming at first glance. I think this article is a great idea. I hope plenty of folks will reply to this -- it will make for some excellent discussion and likely a bit of education for us all.


We all really need to be more informed about these things. We yell and yell about cutting pork-barrell spending, but we never want to give anything up. I hope lots of people do respond so we can open up a dialog and learn!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any program that benefits only the inhabitants of one particular state should be cut. It's one thing for Congress to build a military training base in Texas, it's quite another to spend federal funds on a Tourism Center for Arkansas. That should be done with state funding.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any program that benefits only the inhabitants of one particular state should be cut. It's one thing for Congress to build a military training base in Texas, it's quite another to spend federal funds on a Tourism Center for Arkansas. That should be done with state funding.


I agree. I think states' rights get usurped too often by Big Brother government. I don't think that was what our founding fathers intended when they formed The United States, as the name implies.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Debt.

Debt. It is the one thing that we don't need. Last year the interest on the national debt was $321,566,323,971.29. That's interest! That's what we pay before one penny goes to paying down the debt. That's 321.6 Billion dollars that we had to pay in taxes that didn't go to schools, roads, Social Security, NASA, or any other program, pet project, or pork.

Debt. Every dollar we pay off lowers the deficit for every following year by a few pennies. It's one of the surest ways to fix the budget.

Debt. Easy to say, tough to do. The US Government can't just declare itself bankrupt. Business would collapse. Ripples would go through the world economy. A depression to make the 1930's look lame could result. So, there's no escape. We have to pay it off, or at least down, eventually. Those in Washington keep hoping that the economy could grow faster than we pile up debt so the evil day doesn't have to fall on their watch. But with the Baby Boomer retirement parties just around the corner, I don't think that's going to happen.

I once heard a saying that applies. The First Rule of Holes: When you find you are in one, stop digging.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #12 By: Genghis Hank - 11/29/2004 2:45:14 AM
Debt.


Agreed Genghis, but what program(s) would you cut to devote more money for paying off that debt? Where would the money come from?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Agreed Genghis, but what program(s) would you cut to devote more money for paying off that debt? Where would the money come from?


OK, the very short answer is, if Congress and the President made paying down the debt their highest priority, the money would come from somewhere. They would work out what can be cut and what could be underfunded. There is no incentive to do so. There is no pressure to lower spending, and lots of pressure to increase it. I know that it sounds like I am dodging the question. If we were really serious about the debt, there are lots of things we could do without for the short term. For example:

All elected and appointed officials take an immediate 10% salary reduction. Pay to be restored when debt target levels achieved. This should light a fire under them.

Smithsonian - Closed to public. Critical staff and caretakers kept but subjected to 10% salary reduction. All other employees layed off. To be reopened when targets are reached.

NASA - All future civilian/scientific missions suspended. All future military missions subjected to a need now/need later test before being funded. Ongoing missions funded, but examined for possible budget reductions.

Post Office - ALL ADVERTISING BUDGET SUSPENDED! Sorry, just a pet peve of mine. How can they sponsor Lance Armstrong when they have to keep raising my postage?

Research grants - All new grants suspended. Current projects evaluated on basis of amount of disruption an interruption would cause, how critical the research is, and how close to completion the research is. To be restored when budget targets reached.

These are just examples. I think that all the agencies in government could be subjected to this kind of reduction for the purpose of lowering the debt. The beauty of debt reduction is that every year afterwords it pays you back. So there would be more money net to restore these programs with. Are these radical suggestions? Sure, but maybe if you started waving some of these around, some of the Congressmen would start paying attention to what they are approving in those spending bills. And BTW, I think NASA is a high priority for this country, so it's not on the chopping block lightly.

A while back, didn't Congress have some kind of rule that said that if you couldn't submit a balanced budget that some knid of automatic cap kicked in? I think they started ignoring it when they changed the discussion from "debt" to "deficit" and "surplus". Now there was a deception. They started talking about a surplus like we banished the debt. Anyway, we need to get back to those kind of rules - with a constitutional ammendment if our government can't control itself.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smithsonian - Closed to public. Critical staff and caretakers kept but subjected to 10% salary reduction. All other employees layed off. To be reopened when targets are reached.

NASA - All future civilian/scientific missions suspended. All future military missions subjected to a need now/need later test before being funded. Ongoing missions funded, but examined for possible budget reductions.

Post Office - ALL ADVERTISING BUDGET SUSPENDED! Sorry, just a pet peve of mine. How can they sponsor Lance Armstrong when they have to keep raising my postage?

Research grants - All new grants suspended. Current projects evaluated on basis of amount of disruption an interruption would cause, how critical the research is, and how close to completion the research is. To be restored when budget targets reached.


Excellent, Hank! Thank you so much for your detailed answer. I guess I am just trying to see if we can all agree on anything to cut back on, or if "fiscal responsibility" is just an idle mantra.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like Genghis' suggestions. They make sense.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Do any of you know how different the world would be without NASA? No satellites for your TV, cell phones, weather prediction. Home computers and miniaturization came about because of the space age.

Cut the Smithsonian? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Research grants, as William Proxmire proved a couple of decades ago there are certainly some duds out there, but there also may be the cure to cancer. Much of industrial enterprise in this country comes about because of governmnent aided research. You don't just slash the whole thing. Put a concerted study into it.

Post office, there's some fat there, but the Post Office is one of the few areas of the government actually in the black. The advertising they do for their overnight service makes sure your postage is not what it is in Europe and other countries throughout the world.

I am surprised noone has mentioned the National Helium reserve, research on the impossible dream of Star Wars (not to mention any country would be suicidal to attack us with nuclear weapons), bunker busting nuclear weapons.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
whoman: If you've got the answers, then spill . . . elaborate. It's easy to judge others, but difficult to stick your neck out there with an idea.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, woman...please elaborate. Unfortunately, I think you are making my point for me.

It's easy to judge others, but difficult to stick your neck out there with an idea.


Exactly, Tex. Thank you. Anyone can complain. Who can help be a problem-solver?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Star Wars

Allowing mining and drilling on federal lands for free, or next to free

Abstenence Only education

Corporate welfare, including tax cuts for stadium construction, tax breaks to companies who outsource overseas and those who relocate their offices oversees or the islands to avoid taxes

Revoke the provision that makes it illegal for the government to negotiate for cheaper drugs under Medicaid, particularly while pharmaceutical companies are making money hand over fist

Repeal the massive corporate tax cuts until the debt is paid down

Faith based initiatives

Nuclear weapons and testing

Make congressman pay for their own health care, like the rest of us

Outsource and privatize Bush and Cheney
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
Okay, I can roll with the other punches but NASA...no way no how.

Budget cuts...can you say bad rockets, equipment failures, another Columbia disaster, plus Hubble...not say another Columbia might not happen, but NASA over the past decade has spent their money wisely even more so than the rest of the government. The only failure that has happened so far is the first Mars rover, but heck the Mars rover was designed on a very tight budget because they want something less expensive and more cost effective than a manned space shuttle.

Do you know how much the Mars rover cost compared to the rest of the equipment NASA buys?
You do know Houston (NASA) is the main contact point for the international space station or should we forget the people up there from OTHER countries?

Hubble telescope is aging, needs constant maintenance but because of Hubble we are able to look further into space and also predict if any meteor is headed at Earth.
Plus that is the tip of the iceberg for NASA, I suggest you read up on every little thing NASA does before just throwing a suggestion about cutting the budget for NASA more than it has already been cut. Until the civilian sector catches up NASA must be there to maintain it's studies, missions, etc. Raytheon and Boeing have just got around to launching their own satellites give them enough time and NASA can start to be phased out to Civilian Contractors but until that time comes, NASA must stay.

Cutting NASA would be like taking all funding away from the Red Cross and if you don't believe that than you underestimate how vital NASA is to our future that people seem to worry so much about.

Anyways, the rest of the budget cuts are sound but I would also add in Social Reform programs since they neither provide Social or Reform effectively enough to benefit their existence, along with phasing in privatization of Social Security. The biggest cut would be in the salaries and retirement packages of Congress, Supreme Court, and President salaries.
Do we really need multi-million dollar Senators earning an extra tax free $140,000 to $199,000? Also, they retire and get a nice juicy tax free retirement package that provides almost as much pay, do they really need it?

I know some will argue about that will allow them to be corrupted, but damn people already complain about them being corrupted so why pay extra for a corrupt official or uncorrupt official? It should be a service to the country not a service for a fat paycheck...damn I need to go into politics and make some big bucks (no whammies!!), so screw what I just said I am going to run for office, in fact increase it!!

- Grim
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe, this is not a Bush bashing thread. Stick to actual programs that need to be cut or abolished, please. I am looking for answers, not problems.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Social Reform programs since they neither provide Social or Reform effectively enough to benefit their existence, along with phasing in privatization of Social Security. The biggest cut would be in the salaries and retirement packages of Congress, Supreme Court, and President salaries.
Do we really need multi-million dollar Senators earning an extra tax free $140,000 to $199,000? Also, they retire and get a nice juicy tax free retirement package that provides almost as much pay, do they really need it?


Good ideas, Grim. Thank you.

I am going to run for office


I'll vote for you!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #23 By: iamheather - 11/29/2004 8:58:47 PM
Dabe, this is not a Bush bashing thread. Stick to actual programs that need to be cut or abolished, please. I am looking for answers, not problems.


Sorry

I guess I'd have to remove the "outsourcing and privatizing bush" line. The rest, I'd leave.