Trimming the Fat

on Nov 29, 2004

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...

2

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

3

DNCdude

on Nov 29, 2004

Perhaps there are a few outdated programs still receiving funding that could be dropped.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

4

Danny Bassette

on Nov 29, 2004

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

5

Texas Wahine

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

6

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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?

7

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

Thanks, Tex. That is exactly what I am interested in. Great research and have an insightful on me!

8

Texas Wahine

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

9

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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!

10

citahellion

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

11

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

12

Genghis Hank

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

13

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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?

14

Genghis Hank

on Nov 29, 2004

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.

15

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

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.