NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – Cut the budget! That was the rallying cry for many candidates of both parties, but if you listened closely, you heard little in the way of specifics. Enter the co-chairmen of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission. On Wednesday, they recommended 58 ways to cut spending. And their cuts are downright specific. Email Print CommentThe report from Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson – experienced Washington hands – recommends reducing discretionary spending to 2010 levels in 2012, and then cutting discretionary spending by 1% a year through 2015. After 2015, inflation-adjusted growth would be allowed. Overall, Simpson and Bowles are recommending that total spending not exceed 22% of GDP initially, but no more than 21% eventually. 0:00 /2:16Deficit plan is in the details To show how Congress could hit those targets, Bowles and Simpson offered examples of cuts totaling $200 billion for the year 2015. Here are their top 10 money-saving proposals, six of which come from the defense portion of the federal budget: Streamline the Defense Department: In May, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a plan to cut defense spending and reallocate the money within defense. But Bowles and Simpson say that $28 billion in savings could be used to reduce the deficit. Reduce defense procurement: The co-chairmen proposed cutting $20 billion in defense contracts. On the chopping block are two next-generation fighting machines: the V-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Cut 250,000 non-defense contractors: There are simply too many government contractors (2.4 million added between 2002 and 2005), according to Bowles and Simpson. Cutting 250,000 jobs would save an estimated $18.4 billion. Eliminate all earmarks: Long the whipping boy of government spending, cutting these handpicked pork projects would save an estimated $16 billion. Freeze pay for non-defense workers for 3 years: The wages of federal employees have continued to climb during the recession, despite the fact that private-sector wages have stalled. A three-year freeze on government pay would net $15.1 billion in savings, according to the co-chairmen. Cut non-defense workforce by 10%: If the government hires only two workers for every three that leave their jobs, the federal workforce will decline by 200,000 by 2020, saving the government $13.2 billion. Freeze non-combat military pay: Regular military pay is expected to grow by $9.2 billion from 2011 to 2015. The report recommends a three-year freeze at 2011 pay levels (excluding combat pay). Cut overseas military deployments: Reducing the 150,000 military personnel on overseas deployment by one-third would save an estimated $8.5 billion. Both former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Jim Jones have supported similar proposals in the past. Reduce military R&D: A 10% reduction in military research and development would save an estimated $7 billion. Bowles and Simpson argue the cut is consistent with the military’s move away from major weapons system research. Modernize military health care: Reforming the DOD’s health care systems would save an estimated $6 billion. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/11/news/economy/commission_top_10/index.htm?hpt=T1
- Stop jailing Joey. It just costs money and is no fun for anyone.
^ Charlie Sheen?
I have no problem with any of them except reducing military R&D.
Defense will need to be cut significantly in the future. R&D along with it. Cutting the V-22 Osprey may be a mistake as it does seem pretty useful. What should be on the chopping block is reducing the number of Ford Class a/c carriers that will replace the Nimitz class. Reducing the number of F-16s from the 1000+ that are there currently would also be good. The F-22 was cut on the premise that it costs too much, however the F-35 is costing about a 100M itself and is less capable…so that program will likely get smaller as the foreign purchasers will probably prefer the EF Typhoon. What should be increased is funding for more unmanned systems like UCAVs, border security, airport security, and coast guard etc. Now granted, this depends firmly on making sure allied nations are strengthened and asked to play a larger role in the security situation.
Fixing entitlement programs are the only way to curb long term spending. These options are fine, but ultimately just a drop in the bucket.
I like Friedman’s take on social security. "What you should do, in my opinion, is to give every person who now has a claim on Social Security bonds equal to the value of the claim, and set them free. Let them save. Let them do what they want with it. That would not add a dollar to the debt we now have; it would just convert an unfunded debt into a funded debt. " Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fixing entitlement programs are the only way to > curb long term spending. These options are fine, > but ultimately just a drop in the bucket.
I didn’t even have to read the article to know it was going to be about defense cuts. I agree that defense spending needs to be trimmed, in some areas pretty dramatically (hopefully not to R&D). However, without serious reform to entitlement programs the budget problems will never be solved. You could wipe out all military spending and still we’d be deep in the hole.
murders&executions Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like Friedman’s take on social security. > > "What you should do, in my opinion, is to give > every person who now has a claim on Social > Security bonds equal to the value of the claim, > and set them free. Let them save. Let them do what > they want with it. That would not add a dollar to > the debt we now have; it would just convert an > unfunded debt into a funded debt. " > > Sweep the Leg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Fixing entitlement programs are the only way to > > curb long term spending. These options are > fine, > > but ultimately just a drop in the bucket. Sounds good in theory, but you know that most people would just blow it all right away, then we would have to bail them out in the long run anyway.
yea the sad truth is, way too many people are not able to take care of themselves in the long run. Don’t plan ahead. Social security essentially forces you to do it.
I wholly support a person’s right to fail miserably. monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sounds good in theory, but you know that most > people would just blow it all right away, then we > would have to bail them out in the long run > anyway.
I wish I could opt out not paying the social security. I would probably getting nothing by the time I retired ( retirement age most likely will increase) or I might not even live till I retire. Health care system is a big mess too! I went to chat with a doctor in the hospital for half hour the other day and I can’t believe they charged the insurance company $400 for that half hour talk! Unbelievable!
First off, as I understand it, cutting earmarks does not reduce spending. That is, there is an allotted amount proposed for discretionary spending and earmarks just direct that spending in certain directions. If one simply says don’t allow the earmark process to take place, then the decision on where the allotted capital is directed would be kicked to the executive branch and they would make the decisions on where it is spent. I don’t think that we want that now do we. However, the earmark process needs to go, and the useless spending needs to go to… I’ll get to that. There are a bunch of ways to discuss cutting the deficit; but, any discussion that doesn’t revolve around entitlements is a waste of time. Sure, a penny saved is a penny earned, but all of the other stuff won’t matter unless we address this problem… Period! Let’s take cutting the defense budget… While I agree that we should reduce it, it isn’t quite that simple. If you just start slashing spending, then this will effect all of the company’s that are forecasting these contracts into their budgets. If there is a sharp reduction in expectations this could result in company’s reducing spending on outsourced contracts themselves as well as in-house budgeting. the labor force in this area would probably see a hit… Is tis something that the country can truly afford on a net/net basis right now? Maybe/Maybe Not We also spend a lot of money protecting other nations. In return we are granted a number of trade agreements and benifits that aren’t accounted for simply in the defense budget. While this is an area that I think needs to be scrutinized harshly, it does play a role. As you see, while everyone agrees we can cut back, to do it properly will take some time. We do need to get on this thhough. Let’s take the new healthcare bill. First let me start by saying that I would love for everyone in this country to be coverd 100% I would like evveryone on this soil (travelers alike) to be able to walk into a hospital at any time a get the treatment that they need. However, this just ain’t possible… and that’s reality. While healthcare cost do need to be addressed, the government does not belong in the space. The gov. should do what it needs to to insure maximum compitetion, but participating in the market will be costly and devistating. We need to open the international/intranational borders to free competetion. We all know that increased compitetion will drive down cost. If the gov. participates, overtime private insurers will charge more, or the cost will be kicked the gov. As cost are driven down and the ins. cos. margins get squeezed, they will then have to look more carefully at how they are investing there premiums. After they account for reserves they invest their money how they please. Sure they have allocation models/policy portfolios & andjust for risk, but after that… it’s a pure search for yield. If their margins are squeezed then they will, or should, look into investing alongside the other medical companies to help innovate and drive down the industry cost… this will help to get their margins back to where they were. I think I read one of you say that we should cut R&D spending… In my opinion, this is a horrible idea. This is a good way to spend gov. money. We should be investing is science, math, etc. The return on investment that the gov. would get from helping invent new drugs, procedures, and tech. equipment in the healthcare space would be far greater than just paying for everyones healthcare. You see… In my opinion it’s not just looking at where we can cut cost, it’s a much bigget conversation than that. We need to talk about what the role of gov. should be. We need to reframe the debate. We need to accept that we all have views and wants, but that having it exactly how each of us wants it probably isn’t going to work that well. We need to discuss what the role of gov. should be underr the guise that gov. is not inteded to participate in the market as opposed to help direct it/regulate it RESPONSIBLY. We need to start by going across the board and est. a policy for each industry. Health Care Policy Industrial Policy Energy Policy Manufactoring Policy Education Policy Trade Policy Defense Policy Infrustructure Policy Agriculture Policy Government Policy Tax Policy Union Policy Subsidy Policy Entitlement Policy Immigration Policy Etc, Etc, Etc We need to establish real life, real time, encompassing styled policies with the notion that gov. is there to assist in the process, not to participate. While I believe in a smaller gov., it’s not that easy. I believe in an effective government, one that represents the people, and one that is fiscally and economically sound. As big as it needs to be, but NOT a participant. Our educational system, esp. k-12, needs to be completely overhauled in a major way. Throwing money at the system and teachers unions is rediculas. We need to look at what we are teaching at these stages and how we are teaching it. We also need to consider how private business can play a role in this process. Most importantly though, we need to understand that the world is different, tech. is differrent, learning styles are different, what needs to be learned is different and what these children really mean to the future. Putting P.E. back in schools a teaching kids good habits will help too. (Will help will healthcare too. Most healthcare cost are preventative cost) Some of these kids are too soft (emotionally) and need to be taught the right way to go about things. Our tax policy is crap!! In, short it needs to be completely overhauled. I personally think that on the personal side we should focus on taxing consumption and not production. On the corporate side we need a more “incentivized” process. I won’t elaborate on diff. things, but I will say tis much, whatever is decided upon needs to be set in stone. these are the tax rates and this is what you are paying… Period! All of these loop holes and credits amount to a bunch of crap. While we all take adv. of them… most are crap and a waste of gov. money. If we cut that b.s. out we can have a simpler policy with lower rates b/c the rates that are set will be the rates that are expected. We also need to cut down on the damn subsidies. Some of these are decedes old a pointless. You can either make it or you can’t, it’s that simple… Subsidies and tax credits take up the majority of lobbying that is done in this country. You mean to tell me that we can’t have a good R&D policy where we spend money investing in the future while helping to innovate and cut cost at the same time, but we can hand out subsidies to industries tha are killing it… Whatever. I won’t go throough the list, but you get the drift… Decide on a proper role, a proper policy and run with it. Outside of that, gov. needs to get out of the way. This country will never be a true free market or a true socialist market, but I’d rather have the market decide the winners and losers that a few politicians. These people would have to be pretty solid/altruistic characters to set us right… not to mention there would have to be a host of them throughout time to keep “planning” things… Doubt that’s possible. Which leads me to one more point… term limits. We need term limits for these people; 2 for the senate and 2 for the house. I know you want “experience,” but the more experience in this case leads to more corruption. Policy needs to be decided on a high level that isn’t prone to incitivize the motivations of a few. the longer these people are in office, the more easily thay are to corrupt. One should not be able to make a career out of politics… that will always corrupt the system. Not to mention, we might get better people running if the dialogue became more high-minded. They get paid too much too! Enough of the righ vs left. What ever happen to leadership? You know, where “cooler heads” prevail. I have my views, but I am not so arrogant and naive to think that they are right for everyone all of the time; I am one of 330mm+. I know what I think, I don’t need to surround myself with just likeminded people, learning/growing/developing is in it’s truest for when we are surrounded by a diverse set of views and now burdened by the thought that ours is the only/best way all of the time… this goes for both sides of the spectrum. “Convictions are more dangerous enimies of the truth that lies.” - Friedrich Nietzsche We need to stop being small minded. We need to expect more from our leaders and our government. We need to expect more from our communities and our neighbors. Most importantly though, we need to expect more ffrom oursleves. Until we truly live underr the light from which we wish to be seen, we will not progress. Then and only then will we be able to accurately address the problems of our nation and our society. Perpetuating the status quo results in maintaining the status quo. We need better, we deserve better… but it starts with us. … well, that’s my two cents anyway
i just read what i wrote… sorry for the mispelled words, etc… typed it fast and hit post. i say that, b/c i’m sure one of you crackers will probably say something in that regard… to which i reply “blah blah blah!” … have a nice one folks!
countmein Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i just read what i wrote… sorry for the > mispelled words, etc… typed it fast and hit > post. > > i say that, b/c i’m sure one of you crackers will > probably say something in that regard… to which > i reply “blah blah blah!” > > > … have a nice one folks! Good stuff man. I too am really getting sick of “left vs. right” and would like to see more objectivism. Also, really like your take with government; I generally like it to be smaller, but realize that there are times when more effective means bigger. Cheers!