Only in the mind of the American Left is $28 billlion in earmarks, $7.8 billion in useless ethanol subsidies, and the elimination of total departments or privatization a “drop in the bucket.” Therein lies the problem–our spending is so totally out of control that tens of billions of dollars in proposed cuts is pointless to some (and, as stated, this is just what I, a nobody, has thrown together in about 30 minutes). America doesn’t need NPR and other public radio stations (that get a substantial sum of money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is federally financed). We don’t need gov’t funded political speech. It isn’t healthy for democracy to have gov’t funding political speech and the fact that we could save $1 billion de-funding it is icing on the cake. This is just the tip of the iceberg in government waste. The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools has been basically eviscerated and is a proven failure. It’s just $1.2 billion in additional unneeded bureaucracy. There are all kinds of places to save money in government.
In 2009, the federal budget was about $3.6T, so your $28B in earmarks is less than 1% of the total. More importantly, the elimination of earmarks doesn’t always reduce spending. Earmarks are often a specific appropriation of funds that if not appropriated in that manner, would still be spent anyways. I have no real problem with earmark reform, but it’s far from a panacea. The idea that we can cut our way to prosperity is ludicrous. I like to talk about defense cuts, and ending these pointless wars would be a good start, but beyond that, large defense cuts will probably mean job losses in the private sector. I don’t have a good answer for that.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only in the mind of the American Left is $28 > billlion in earmarks, $7.8 billion in useless > ethanol subsidies, and the elimination of total > departments or privatization a “drop in the > bucket.” Therein lies the problem–our spending is > so totally out of control that tens of billions of > dollars in proposed cuts is pointless to some > (and, as stated, this is just what I, a nobody, > has thrown together in about 30 minutes). > > America doesn’t need NPR and other public radio > stations (that get a substantial sum of money from > the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is > federally financed). We don’t need gov’t funded > political speech. It isn’t healthy for democracy > to have gov’t funding political speech and the > fact that we could save $1 billion de-funding it > is icing on the cake. This is just the tip of the > iceberg in government waste. The Office of Safe > and Drug Free Schools has been basically > eviscerated and is a proven failure. It’s just > $1.2 billion in additional unneeded bureaucracy. > > There are all kinds of places to save money in > government. Yes, lets start with the Bloated and corrupt DoD along with the numerous useless military programs, shut down a bunch of overseas military bases and put an end to the double dipping of military generals who come back as “advisors” and pocket the retirement bennies along with their riduculous compensation levels. All on the backs of taxpayers. That will be WAY more than a drop in a bucket, more like one third of the bucket.
PBS is a puzzle. I’ve never quite understood how it is that government funded news sources seem to present the most level-headed facts-based news of pretty much any news source I’ve seen. Compare that to Fox News, MSNBC, and even CNN. You’d think that PBS would end up supporting every administration by the end of any 8 year terms, but it doesn’t. And aside from news, we now have 500 channels of pure crap on television these days, and yet Nova, American Experience, Nature, and heck, even Masterpiece Theatre and Masterpiece Mystery seem to pretty much the only broadcast things worth watching, now that Battlestar Galactica is over.
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think the family of 10 year old who > accidentally > > breaks a bone playing sports or something > should > > not have to worry about being made bankrupt by > a > > hospital bill, or by an insurance company’s > > premiums. I think the reform really needs to > be > > about how much of the end-of-life care is going > to > > come out of the public pocket… that’s the > part > > that needs to be reformed, and most likely cut. > > this is another major problem that needs to be > addressed. one of the major factors here is the > amount to which a doctor can be sued for > malpractice. since so many doctor have been sued > for millions and put out of business, the rest > have to use every safeguard possible for patients > to ensure they are not liable, increasing the > average cost of care exponentially. > > i think everyone is aware that social security > needs to be addressed, but i don’t see any dems > trying to tackle it any time soon. maybe michelle > should run next year so we can have someone with a > pair in office. The reason they are liable for millions is that certain doctors *should* be put out of business if the malpractice is endemic. But I do agree that the incentive of lawyers is to push the limits as far as possible even if the problem was misdiagnosis of a hangnail. I don’t know how to solve that problem but: 1) I think it’s a legitimate issue, 2) I think that even if it is resolved, it’s not really at the heart of the cost increase problem, 3) because the problem is that we have an aging population of people who are vulnerable to gouging by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies, and who have a history of being the “me generation” who will be happy to screw the kids as long as they get their drugs.
- NakedPuts, that’s a red herring argument that it’s less than 1% of the budget, primarily because it’s not the only proposed budget cut. For example, 10 $5 billion cuts = $50 billion. You have to start somewhere in balancing the budget or cutting the deficit given the fact that the Democrats have refused any kind of entitelment reform that would relieve the fiscal pressure on the federal government. If you reform entitelements, the rest of the “personal preference” cuts would be unnecessary. 2) Marcus, I actually DID propose cutting the military budget. 3) Bchad, you’re right. We have thousands of TV and radio channels–we don’t need government funding speech. These public entities were formed when there were 5 tv channels. They served a purpose at one point. Now NPR is a mouthpiece of political speech by government. That’s not healthy for democracy.
Conclusion! it’s time to bail the US, just to a country, start a farm, live happily ever after.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1) NakedPuts, that’s a red herring argument that > it’s less than 1% of the budget, primarily because > it’s not the only proposed budget cut. For > example, 10 $5 billion cuts = $50 billion. You > have to start somewhere in balancing the budget or > cutting the deficit given the fact that the > Democrats have refused any kind of entitelment > reform that would relieve the fiscal pressure on > the federal government. If you reform > entitelements, the rest of the “personal > preference” cuts would be unnecessary. > > 2) Marcus, I actually DID propose cutting the > military budget. > > 3) Bchad, you’re right. We have thousands of TV > and radio channels–we don’t need government > funding speech. These public entities were formed > when there were 5 tv channels. They served a > purpose at one point. Now NPR is a mouthpiece of > political speech by government. That’s not healthy > for democracy. Why do you want to shut down NPR just because you don’t agree with some of their viewpoints? You can go ahead and cutoff their federal funding which is barely 10 percent or so, and will easily be made up by donors. In addition, PBS, C-Span are pretty neutral and have a lot of other interesting non political programs which none of the other media outlets bother to show nowadays. How can you suggest that we just shut down something you don’t agree with? Should we also shut down Fox News? In any case I predict Wikileaks will grow so much in the coming future that all these so called “investigative journalist” working for major news corporations will be scurrying for cover.
Uhh, Marcus, I don’t want to shut down NPR. I want them to stop using tax payer dollars. I agree 100%–they’ll make up their lost revenue by private donations. They already got $1 million from George Soros, at which point they turned around and fired Juan Williams the same week. So yes, I agree NPR will be just fine. But political speech should not be financed by tax payers.
Fine, cut fending for NPR but for pete’s sake leave PBS, the endowment for the Arts and Smithsonian alone just because the had an exibit with “Jesus covered in ants”. Do you have any idea how much tourism and money the arts and museums bring to the DC area? These are institutions that define America.
In fairness, I said cut funding to the Smithsonian Channel, not the Smithsonian. Although further research tells me that the Smithsonian Channel is virtually all privately funded.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3) because the problem is that we have an aging > population of people who are vulnerable to gouging > by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies, > and who have a history of being the “me > generation” who will be happy to screw the kids as > long as they get their drugs. make the insurers compete.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1) NakedPuts, that’s a red herring argument that > it’s less than 1% of the budget, primarily because > it’s not the only proposed budget cut. For > example, 10 $5 billion cuts = $50 billion. You > have to start somewhere in balancing the budget or > cutting the deficit given the fact that the > Democrats have refused any kind of entitelment > reform that would relieve the fiscal pressure on > the federal government. If you reform > entitelements, the rest of the “personal > preference” cuts would be unnecessary. You certainly have to start somewhere, and the argument that’s “it’s small so who cares” isn’t a good one. I have never said I believe entitlement reforms should be off the table. Here’s a rough take at how I would do it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=419k44q2 Obviously the hot button issues would be the estate tax and Bush cuts for people earning over 250K. I think increasing the payroll tax cap above $106,000 is a no-brainer.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here’s a rough take at how I would do it: > > http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/week > inreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=419k44q2 > > Obviously the hot button issues would be the > estate tax and Bush cuts for people earning over > 250K. I think increasing the payroll tax cap > above $106,000 is a no-brainer. that’s a really neat tool - this is how i would do it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=ggdtm00l
People are failing to adress one huge elephant in the room: Can we afford to have ANY tax cuts whatsoever with such huge deficits, whereby tax cuts for everyone are projected to add 4 Trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years. Combine that with making spending cuts in such a weak economy is an recipe for financial ruin.
I agree that all Bush tax cuts should be removed – it’s pretty obvious that the tax income / economic growth sweet spot was hit during the Reagan / Bush I / Clinton eras. Unfortunately, Reagan set the terrible precedent that any tax increase is political suicide and deficits don’t matter (which they really don’t politically).
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People are failing to adress one huge elephant in > the room: Can we afford to have ANY tax cuts > whatsoever with such huge deficits, whereby tax > cuts for everyone are projected to add 4 Trillion > dollars to the deficit over the next ten years. > Combine that with making spending cuts in such a > weak economy is an recipe for financial ruin. Not saying tax cuts should be passed, but I think you’re ignoring that fact that people/businesses that pay less taxes will push that money back into the economy. Its certainly slower than just pumping money, but its not like the money is just stashed away forever in some vault.
Well he Obama has comprimised with with the Repubs and is extending the tax cuts for all. People should now stop b*tching about him now and wait and see what kind of effect this has on the economy. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/07/tax.deal/index.html?hpt=T2
Republicans are in a political win-win situation. If the economy goes well, they argue that they forced the administration to do the right thing and deserve power in 2012. If it goes badly, they argue that the administration screwed up the economy and therefore deserve power in 2012. Not necessarily good for the country, but definitely good for the GOP. So we’ll be back to more of the Bush years soon… except the bank account is already empty.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Republicans are in a political win-win situation. > If the economy goes well, they argue that they > forced the administration to do the right thing > and deserve power in 2012. If it goes badly, they > argue that the administration screwed up the > economy and therefore deserve power in 2012. > > Not necessarily good for the country, but > definitely good for the GOP. > > So we’ll be back to more of the Bush years soon… > except the bank account is already empty. Which presents a fundamental problem with our current system. Its very short-term oriented and often those elected are not always the most suitable for a variety of reasons (uneducated voters, lobbyists, etc…). But not really sure what system could realistically replace it.