Solution to the Federal Deficit

[mrmitchell]

This is an elaboration of what I posted in another thread.


Mrmitchell's 5 Step Plan to Eliminate the Budget Deficit
1. Repeal the Bush-initiated tax cuts.
This is obviously a campaign no-no for the 2004 hopefuls, but everyone knows that tax cuts have never worked before and they aren't going to now.
Savings: Salon.com reports that the tax cut cost $330 billion in lost federal government revenues.
2. Close the Department of Homeland Security.
Another no-brainer. The Homeland is not any more Secure than it was before the DHS's creation, and arguably the only things it has done are created paranoia and an easy-to-parody color chart.
Savings: The DHS's Website reports that it has a budget of $36.2 billion for the FY 2004.
3. Speed up Iraq.
Accept as much UN help as they'll give into Iraq. Speed up the process of rebuilding it, too--go ahead and get however many billion (I've seen $36billion as an estimate for restoring water and power) in there, ASAP. The United States was started with a Declaration of Independence, why does Iraq have to be so difficult? Immediately start pouring money in--this cuts the time we have to spend occupying it--and establish a "democractic government" for it, basically copy pasting the US Constitution with a find and replace for "United States" = "Iraq". It's difficult to understand why this is so hard to do, though I'm sure someone will come up with a complicated reason against my idea.
Savings: Not really measurable. Initial high costs as we rebuild, but leveled off by the drastic reduction in time we spend occupying the damn place.
4. Return military spending to pre-Bush levels, at least after Iraq is done.
This is another campaign no-no for 2004 hopefuls: Even a $1 deduction will surely result in smearing as "unpatriotic" "America-hating" etc. However, how is it possible that pre-Bush military had a smaller budget but still dominated as much as the current military?
Savings: Council for a Livable World reports that 2000 FY military spending was $274.1 billion in "Projected Military Spending". (I'd look up the actual number but am a lazy ass.) The same Council reports the request for FY 2003 was $396.1 billion. Inflation accounted into the 2000 FY spending makes it about $290 billion now. So, the Savings are about $106 billion.
5. Put Bush, Cheney, and the gang of warmongerers in the Stocks and let people throw tomatoes at them for a dollar a throw.
Unlike the other four points (all budget cuts) this one is a new source of revenue, and I'll bet there's lots of Savas out there that'll buy at least a dozen throws.
Revenues: There are 600 million people living in the world that are in "first world" countries, i.e. they have enough money to travel to the location of the stocks. Assuming that 200 million of them (half of America counting as 300M + 50M of foreigners who support Bush) like the fools and won't do so, this leaves 400,000,000 to throw the tomatoes. If each takes 5 throws, that's 400,000,000 * 5 = 2 billion dollars. Not as much as compared to the other steps listed here, but a bundle of money when you're $400 billion in the red.

Total Savings - $388 Billion[/b], almost enough to pull us out of the red. Surely nothing that adding a couple more Congressmen to the stocks couldn't fix. (I know, my math looks screwy. However, I counted in the $36 I mentioned for restoring water and electricity in Iraq. Also, IIRC the budget hit for every week of occupying it is $1 billion so I also counted in $50 billion loss for staying there almost another full year.)

Note: For the sources, I just Googled and got the first thing I saw that looked relevant. So if one of my links has a code name "Flaming Liberals that Hate America" then tell me and I'll find another source.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It helps if you have a brain, first.

DHS didn't create any new enforcement agencies, and it's own budget is very small (not it's component agency budget).

You won't save 36.2 billion unless you get rid of all the component agencies such as INS, Customs, TSA, etc.

If you move those component agencies back to where they came from, you end up reopening a bunch of assistant and deputy assistent secretary spots in the old agencies such as DoT, Treasury and DoJ where DHS' component agencies come from.

Net effective savings - about zero. The only difference with DHS is that you see the budget total for the component agencies in one place, rather than having to extract it out of DoJ, Treasury, etc's budgets.

Re: the military. The "pre-Bush" military didn't "dominate", it didn't get deployed much. Some parts of Bush & Rummy's increases could be cut back, but there's a lot of areas where more, not less, spending is needed, and a huge portion of the increase in the budgets is due to operations costs, which vary with the extent and durations of troop deployments.

You could cut the military budget way down though, if everyone decides to grow a beard, learn Arabic, and figure which direction Mecca is from wherever you are.

[mrmitchell]

Okay, okay, okay

However, tax cuts + stocks still leaves us about $332 billion better. I should've counted in a standard x% / year budget increase for the military in addition to inflation, but it still wouldn't equal the $396 billion it is now.

If I can't come up with a solution, someone sure as hell needs to, ESPECIALLY before all the baby boomers retire in 10 years.

[Oerdin]

I'd go the John McCain way and propose an accross the board 10% reduction in government spending by all departments except Social Security.

Further, I'd negotiate with the EU and try to find some way to flank the French on the Farm Subsidies issue; by agreeing to get ride of our own subsidies in exchange for kill the EU's CAP. That will save a bundle.

Lastly, it's time to cut the pet programs and junk spending in the military. We have to many projects that duplicate each other or which cost to much and deliver to little. There's no need for 3 new jet fighters or for Rumies light APCs (which he's been unsuccessfully pushing since the Reagon years). The new super assult rifle is a total peace of junk and should be killed ASAP. A 40 lbs rifle which needs batteries maybe a generals wet dream but it nearly doubles the weight a soldier must carry to 150 lbs. That's to much for 90% of the people out there and we need to lighten their packs not make them heavier.

The military is full of crap like this and C-130's the Air Force doesn't want but keep getting readded to the budget because a certain senitor has the factory in his district. Simply by slashing the duplication in R&D and by making them repair existing equipment before new purchases are paid for will greatly lessen spending and the rate of spending growth.

[The diplomat]

There is a much simpler solution to the deficit: restrict budget growth to inflation. In other words, the budget can allow grow by the same amount as inflation.

Keep spending under control, and the deficit would go away by itself when improving economic growth brings in more tax revenue collected.

[dannubis]

reduce drastically the amount of money spent on your shiny new army ?

[Odin]

1. repeal the Bush tax cuts.

2. Cut the fat out of those useless pet projects senators toss around to get elected.

3. Eliminate farm subsidies

4. Eliminate corporate welfare

5. Increace the estate tax.

6. raise the pre-bush top tax bracket % from 39% to 45%

7. Reduce millitary spending by 1/3

[Ecthy]

act contrary to the French, their deficit for this year is 4% of GDP

[Tuberski]

Eliminate the NEA!

ACK!

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is a much simpler solution to the deficit: restrict budget growth to inflation. In other words, the budget can allow grow by the same amount as inflation.

That's great if you've got 20 years to end the deficit, but, we already have a monsterous national debt and a half trillion dollar per year deficit. Combine that with the balloning social services costs which are already happening due to the baby boomers retiring and you see why we can't take this approach. Social costs are going to sky rocket so we will have to make substantial cuts just to stay where we are.

More cuts will be needed in addition if we want to make progress.

[mrmitchell]

In an idea akin to Diplo (long term solution), an amendment forcing Congress to pass a budget no more than 2% of GDP in the red. However, something tells me Senators will fire teachers instead of giving up their pet projects

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Eliminate the NEA!

I'd be game on this. Most of the stuff they toss out isn't art and the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing people's political messages.

[Tuberski]

Make 'em work for a living, then they can pay taxes as well.

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

Solution: cut all federal funding (of anything and everything)

[Oerdin]

Lefties like to pretend there was no art before the 1960s when the Government started give money to "artists" who bash their political enemies for them. There are many better things to spend money on then to have one party hire "artists" to do political hit jobs on the other party.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is a much simpler solution to the deficit: restrict budget growth to inflation. In other words, the budget can allow grow by the same amount as inflation.

Keep spending under control, and the deficit would go away by itself when improving economic growth brings in more tax revenue collected.

Budget deficits are useful in times like depressions and recessions. Pumping government funds into the economy can create new jobs. That being said, the current American budget deficit is a little bit extreme.

My solution: eliminate farm subsidies. In the entire world. The world is paying dearly to support the family farmers in North America and Europe. If the governments of the first world stopped paying to resuscitate a bankrupt economic ideal, not only would it immeasureably help the budgets of many countries, especially France, the US, and Canada, it would also make feeding the third world far more feasible.

[David Floyd]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The ONLY moral solution to the budget deficit is to cut spending, the same as you and I have to do if we have a budget deficit.

My recommended areas for spending cuts?
1)The military
2)Social Security
3)The War on Drugs
4)Health care and other social welfare/social services
5)Education
6)NEA/Public Broadcasting

If we cut all of this spending to nothing (except for the military budget, which we can and should cut at least 70-80%), we'll suddenly have a MASSIVE budget SURPLUS, which we can use for MASSIVE tax cuts.

[mrmitchell]

6. Legalise Marijuana with a Government Tax and end the War on Drugs.

Thanks for reminding me Dave. Anyone got numbers on how much it will save / create?

Cutting social security or education, no thanks, though.

[David Floyd]

Why tax marijuana? There's plenty of money to be saved simply by ending the War on Drugs - investigations, busts, raids, court costs, DEA salaries, prison costs, etc. No need for a silly, punitive tax.

As for exact savings, I don't know, but I bet that Berzerker has some idea.

As to social security and education, at least admit that cutting those would help balance the budget. Probably not in the way that you would like, but if eliminated, billions would be saved.

[Nubclear]

Here's the solution to solving the US deficit:

1. Surrender all holdings sans Utah to Russia
2. Grant Utah independance.

The US deficit will no longer be.

[Skanky Burns]

Why tax marijuana? There's plenty of money to be saved simply by ending the War on Drugs - investigations, busts, raids, court costs, DEA salaries, prison costs, etc. No need for a silly, punitive tax.

More money is its own reward.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by dannubis
reduce drastically the amount of money spent on your shiny new army ?

Or maybe reduce the social programs that are out of control?

[Victor Galis]

I'd like to see the retirement age pushed to 70, Bush's tax cuts repealed, Military spending cut, and the legalization of marijuana.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
However, something tells me Senators will fire teachers instead of giving up their pet projects

That'd be hard to do since they don't pay them.

As to social security and education, at least admit that cutting those would help balance the budget.

You have a point on Social Security but most education spending comes from State coffers not Federal.

[Case]

How about a move towards reducing the insanely high number of people in American prisons? I imagine that it costs a fortune to keep the best part of 2 million people behind bars (yeah, I know that a lot of this is actually payed for by the states, but I imagine that the Federal government could save a fair bit of money as well).

Other then that, as everybody else is saying, nix the Bush tax cuts - they're insanely big and too poorly targeted to actually do the economy much good.

[Odin]

Wefare and education are goining to be cut over my dead body. Diplo, social programs are only out of control in the minds of you repugnant Social Darwinist Libertarians and Conservatives.

[mrmitchell]

I think most people agree that SS (no, not the Nazi kind) and Education are the two "sacred" budgets. Cutting them is a no-no--in fact, we're trying to save SS by cutting other budgets, yes? And cutting education would only result in a pittance as a result--there has to be something there in the first place before you can save off it.

[:) Smiley]

True welfare and education should be kept at the maximum sustainable levels, however, currently Social Security is unsustainable. If handing out money like we're doing in Social Security today leads to economic collapse down the road, then down the road there ain't gonna be social security at all.

Education's problem isn't so much funding, it's attitude. In the US when there's a recession the government encourages people to spend money. In Taiwan the government encourages people to learn new skills.

[David Floyd]

Skanky,

More money is its own reward.

So you admit that the tax would simply be punitive in nature? And, I might add, an encouragement to greater federal spending, something that by definition we want to avoid if we are serious about cutting the deficit.

DinoDoc,

You have a point on Social Security but most education spending comes from State coffers not Federal.

Not necessarily, at least not if you consider grants to universities and university students. Although I don't have figures, I could easily be wrong as to the scale - but not on the point that eliminating this would cut at least some of the deficit.

Odin,

Wefare and education are goining to be cut over my dead body.

So you admit that you aren't serious about cutting the deficit when it comes to some projects you like? That is, it isn't OK to go out of control on military spending, but the more out of control we go on social spending, the better? And I thought this was a debate about cutting the deficit...

mrmitchell,

I think most people agree that SS (no, not the Nazi kind) and Education are the two "sacred" budgets. Cutting them is a no-no--in fact, we're trying to save SS by cutting other budgets, yes?

That's very true, which just goes to show that no one is really serious about balancing the budget. Hmmm, a massive federal program that is going bankrupt anyway? If this was my budget, it'd be the first thing to go. I'm not going to be saving for retirement when I can't put gas in my car or food on the table.

Smiley,

True welfare and education should be kept at the maximum sustainable levels,

Not if we're serious about cutting the deficit.

[mrmitchell]

That's very true, which just goes to show that no one is really serious about balancing the budget. Hmmm, a massive federal program that is going bankrupt anyway? If this was my budget, it'd be the first thing to go. I'm not going to be saving for retirement when I can't put gas in my car or food on the table.

There are other more serious budget leaks than SS that can be cut to save it. It's an important program itself, though I'd like to see the benefits age pushed back to 70 or 72.

The other budget leaks are not charitable or generous, thus they go first. SS is a program that attempts to help people, so .

What we could do is loosen up copyright laws so Big Pharma couldn't keep out generics for as long--this would allow seniors to buy more cheap drugs, which would reduce the need for all this whining about a prescription drug benefit.