Trimming the Fat

Published on November 29, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 3)

Danny Bassette

on Nov 29, 2004

It leaves us where we are, with a budget deficit, ever growing debt, and a falling sky. Quick, duck and cover

iamheather

on Nov 29, 2004

It leaves us where we are, with a budget deficit, ever growing debt, and a falling sky. Quick, duck and cover

Exactly, and the same people screaming "CUT CUT CUT...but nothing I want!"

Genghis Hank

on Nov 30, 2004

Reply #17 By: whoman69 - 11/29/2004 8:30:13 PM
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...

I think you might have missed my point. I don't want any of these cuts to be permanent. I even said in my post that I consider NASA a "high priority" to the country. I'm saying that if we want to cut the debt, we need to make some hard choices in every area of government. When the debt gets back under control, we would restore these services. The hard part is forcing our leaders to apply the money saved to the debt and not more spending.

The other point I was trying to make is this. When you start cutting things like NASA and the Smithsonian, people notice and start asking questions that congressmen don't really want to answer. This can be used as political leverage to make Congress provide a more responsible budget in the first place.

iamheather

on Nov 30, 2004

When you start cutting things like NASA and the Smithsonian, people notice and start asking questions that congressmen don't really want to answer. This can be used as political leverage to make Congress provide a more responsible budget in the first place.

The problem, as I have said before, is that these Congressmen and women represent their constituents. JU is but a small sampling of some constituents. Even our small sampling cannot agree on sacrifices to make...whether long term or short term....everyone has their "pet" programs. I am not so sure it is our Congressmen and women who do not want to answer the question. It is us that do not want to hear the answers.

Pam Johnson

on Nov 30, 2004

Grim - Good points on the pay for congress, judges, senators, and the president. These are elected individuals who have choosen to fill these position; no one asked them to run, so why should they earn more than say $85,000 a year. A also agree on NASA it is only funded with around one percent of the national budget. A large part of the funding for NASA comes from private companies, and other countries who like us want to place special types of satellites in orbit for TV, phone, etc. services.

Now for the cuts. Before you can start cutting anything the first thing you will have to do is to get a bill through the house and senate then signed by the president that would put all the pac's out of the governments decission making. lol This has been tried several times, and guess what. . . ?

Now sorry if this appears to spinning, but here are a few more things to think about: Where is the money going to come from to do these studies some of you are proposing? Do you really think that the states are going to want to lose federal funding in the areas of new housing, road improvements, and support for welfare programs?

There was a heated debate the last couple of days on the supposed reduction in pell grants. Think of the fight you will have here.

I would love to see some of the reductions that have been posted, but as long as you have people (on both sides) fighting to against your ideas this will never happen. This is not something that any one party can say wasn't there fault; we have all had a hand in the situation that this country is in at the present time.

You want to pay down the debt, okay where's one situation:

Over the next six years vote out all the senators (one-third voted out each year), and replace them with completely new senate, then over the same period elect new representatives. Thus, at the end of the six year period you will have seen a clear cut message; Balance the budget and start paying down the national debt. Again lol. People will not do this, and I think all the individuals who write or comment on this site know this for a fact.

Its nice to dream, but as long as people creed for something better (hopefully given to them by a generous government) no cuts will be forth coming.

Pam

Genghis Hank

on Nov 30, 2004

The problem, as I have said before, is that these Congressmen and women represent their constituents. JU is but a small sampling of some constituents. Even our small sampling cannot agree on sacrifices to make...whether long term or short term....everyone has their "pet" programs. I am not so sure it is our Congressmen and women who do not want to answer the question. It is us that do not want to hear the answers.

I agree with what you are saying, iamheather. That's why the cuts have to be in every area of government. Only when everyone sees that the cuts are hitting everyone's pet program will they be willing to accept cuts to their own. That goes for us the American public, too. Maybe Draginol's solution of blanket reductions is best. I just think that that lets Congress push the problem off to the agency directors instead of forcing them to be responsible - which is where the Constitution puts the responsibility.

iamheather

on Nov 30, 2004

Pam,

It seems you have understood the whole point of the article. We cannot expect the debt to decrease without sacrifice. It was the Pell Grant article (written by me) that gave me the idea for this article. The cynical side of me knew we would end up arguing over what programs were important and which ones weren't. The optimistic side of me thought I might end up being pleasantly surprised.

So far....cynicism is ahead. :/

iamheather

on Nov 30, 2004

agree with what you are saying, iamheather. That's why the cuts have to be in every area of government. Only when everyone sees that the cuts are hitting everyone's pet program will they be willing to accept cuts to their own. That goes for us the American public, too. Maybe Draginol's solution of blanket reductions is best. I just think that that lets Congress push the problem off to the agency directors instead of forcing them to be responsible - which is where the Constitution puts the responsibility.

So far, Draginol's approach seems the only reasonable one.

I also doubt the cutting of Congressional salaries would affect anything. Their salary isn't where they make their most money.

you will have to do is to get a bill through the house and senate then signed by the president that would put all the pac's out of the governments decission making.

That's where all their real money comes from...Pam hit the nail on the head!

on Nov 30, 2004

I would simply institute a cross the board spending reduction on all programs. Right now, most programs grow annually by 3% automatically. I would just require that these same programs only increase at a rate of 2% annually until the debt was under $1 trillion.

Hmm I would go for null growth. that would have a result of 3 times faster recovery.

Only when everyone sees that the cuts are hitting everyone's pet program will they be willing to accept cuts to their own. That goes for us the American public, too. Maybe Draginol's solution of blanket reductions is best.

Indeed. That would be more fair. I'm sure there's some parts that's nothing but pork barrel, however.

I have to add something to this solution... government should pay same rate for stuff as people. We pay about $100 to $200 for a toilet. Why should we pay $3000 bucks for government's toilet?

iamheather

on Nov 30, 2004

We pay about $100 to $200 for a toilet. Why should we pay $3000 bucks for government's toilet?

Ehrmmmm...they have a bidet?

Secret Squirrel

on Nov 30, 2004

"We pay about $100 to $200 for a toilet. Why should we pay $3000 bucks for government's toilet?"

"Ehrmmmm...they have a bidet?"

How do you think we secretly finance reverse engineering the crashed alien hardware we have?

dabe

on Nov 30, 2004

Right now, most programs grow annually by 3% automatically. I would just require that these same programs only increase at a rate of 2% annually until the debt was under $1 trillion.

Well, the 2005 Omnibus Bill, about to be signed by Bush has a 0.8 reduction in most government agencies. This will be very tough for the agencies, because last year's budget was impossible to work under. You're goning to see lots and lots of reductions in services across the board - less agriculture inspectors, less national park programs including full closures of some facilities, less enforcement of environmental, health, safety and industrial regulations, etc. etc. etc. These are some tough times, because all the increases are going to the military. That's the part that's very sad - fact that we got into this unwinnable and unconcionable war, and have to spend billions just to maintain and protect our troops. All of this on top of the huge corporate tax cuts and corporate welfare programs. A top priority to cut the fat has to be to repeal the tax cuts, at least until the war is over.

Pam Johnson

on Nov 30, 2004

Sorry about writing something that does not pertain to the subject matter, howerer, this is something that has to be said.

Dade - do you really beleive that raising taxes on the wealthly and larger corps is really going to help. Sorry if you do. It may help in a small way, however, it isn't going to help the buying and paying public. You think gas prices are high now what do you think will happen when these large oil companies get hit with a tax increase. They are going to pass that increase on to us along with other business that require fuel to move their products. I think with your intelligence you should be able to carry this on out to a conclusion. If you think this is not the case look at how prices have climbed in the past couple of months with the increase (average .70 a gallon for fuel) of fuel prices.

Example: Last year at this time I spent $565.00 for heating fuel (455 gals) this year for the same amount it cost me $896.00.

Pam

jeblackstar

on Nov 30, 2004

Tex, you're upset about 16.2 million dollars being spent in a program which has already revolutionized the world twice? When the national deficit measures in the hundreds of Billions? That seems a little silly.

But moving onto Jeblackstar's plan for the National Economy. Implement a national sales tax on luxury items. That means prepared foods, cars, maybe, TVs, computers, etc. No idea how much money that would raise, but it can be looked up on the internet somewhere, with wildly differing, equally inaccurate claims.

Eliminate as many tax loopholes as possible.

Greatly reduce the audits on people who don't pay enough in taxes to pay for the auditor's salary. Let's face it, a guy who makes $20,000 a year might be off by a dollar, but a dollar ain't going to pay for the auditor. Send more auditors to BIG corporations. Enron probably wouldn't have happened if someone in the IRS or the FTC hadn't been sleeping on the job.

Make fines for corporate malfeance so large that the corporation wouldn't even think about doing the criminal activity. For instance, when the blockade in Iraq was in effect, there was a fine for any shipowner that was discovered to be carrying Iraqi oil. However, the owners got the ship and the oil back after they paid the fine. The fine was so small that it was dwarfed by the profit of the oil. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Decrease personal income taxes and increase corporate income taxes. Most small companies wouldn't be effected, because as both canidates explained during the last election, most small business's file as individuals anyway.

Take a long, hard look at the national budget, there are a lot of things in there that are rather silly. And silly to everyone. The United States is a pork Barrel Nation, to be sure, but there ought to be paygo rules, as there have been in the past. Further, the budget should not be based off what might be received in the future, but instead should be based off what was received in the last year. For instance, let's say, using smaller, easier to grasp numbers, the US received $1 last year, but projections show that it's going to receive $1.50 next year. Now, since the US has that dollar from last year sitting in it's wallet, it goes out and spends, that dollar. Not the dollar and a half it might receive later.

And, if that doesn't solve the problem, eliminate everything, and I mean everything, figure out how much money the US has, and then, you fight over who gets the pickings. And for God's sake, don't raise the debt ceiling, if the US can't solve it's economic problems with 8 trillion extra dollars, then somethings wrong.

Cheers

EdMcK515

on Nov 30, 2004

Trim the Intelligence Budget. I don't think throwing more money at it makes it better. Our Intelligence is given a lot more funds then any other nation in the world, yet we feel the need to spend more. Also trimming the social programs and outdated progeams.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!