Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solution to the Federal Deficit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Solution to the Federal Deficit

    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.
    meet the new boss, same as the old boss

  • #2
    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.
    When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      meet the new boss, same as the old boss

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
          G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"

          Comment


          • #6
            reduce drastically the amount of money spent on your shiny new army ?
            "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                act contrary to the French, their deficit for this year is 4% of GDP

                Comment


                • #9
                  Eliminate the NEA!

                  ACK!
                  Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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
                      meet the new boss, same as the old boss

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Make 'em work for a living, then they can pay taxes as well.

                          ACK!
                          Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Solution: cut all federal funding (of anything and everything)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X