So, how come the GOP hasn't solved the world of debt and trouble the Bush administration left us yet? They won the election last week, right? How long do they NEED??
Just kidding.
Looking at what direction Congress might take, I have seen some shots fired at public broadcasting already.
"Washington is borrowing 37 cents of every dollar it spends from our kids and grandkids. Given that, I think it's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network — and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is."
"We need to face facts — our government is broke," Boehner added.
With a $13.6 trillion national debt, and the Obama Administration proposing to raise it by approximately $1.06 trillion every year for the next ten years, ALG's Wilson is emphatic about getting the nation's balance sheet in order. He believes public broadcasting is the right place to start.
"If Congress cannot cut public broadcasting when we must balance the budget, it cannot cut anything," Wilson said...
I've said it before and will say it again: They'd be more believable about wanting smaller gov't if they were talking about across the board cuts and not ones they perceive to be "liberal" programs. When a conservative/libertarian comes out supporting slashing our bloated military budget (~$1 trillion a year), NASA, auto and oil industry funding, roadbuilding funding, things of this nature, THEN I will believe that they are genuinely concerned about gov't spending in public broadcasting (~$30 million a year).
Until then, it's hard to take them seriously.
45 comments:
Indeed. And when red states start handing back some of the money the rest of us in the donor states give them, maybe I'll buy they're serious.
After all, if they hate government handouts so much, perhaps they'd be willing to give back some of the billions they get from the government for education, roads, etc.
It's being asked for:
One thing was very clear: Rand Paul wants to drastically cut how much money the United States spends. Which specific programs will get the axe? That was a bit fuzzier.
"Give me one specific cut, Senator-elect," This Week anchor Christiane Amanpour asked Paul in an exclusive interview Sunday morning.
"All across the board," Paul said.
Typical response from the media/liberals:
"But you can't just keep saying all across the board," Amanpour pressed.
"No, I can," Paul replied. "I'm going to look at every program, every program."
Headline is, "Rand Paul Long on Budget Cuts, Short on Specifics". The press won't let you say "across the board" without this accusation.
Add to that Pat Toomey, Mark Kirk, and Johnny Isakson (who says cuts should start at the DoD and go "all the way through".)
Just like your call for the Tea Party to publicly reject racism, when that had been done a number of times, this, too, has happened but you just haven't been noticing. Two of the four links above are to ThinkProgress, a liberal blog that is noticing.
C'mon Dan. Just a little credit where credit is due?
The military is one area where the federal government has a duty to spend money. It has no such duty to fund public television or radio. I have no doubts that there are areas within their proper areas of concern, such as the military, where they couldn't cut costs, eliminate waste, etc. But since they have their fingers in so many areas where they shouldn't have had them in the first place, all of those that have no real beneficial impact, such as public broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, and similar destinations, these all should be eliminated immediately. It is true that they each are small by comparison to, for example, the military. But we can start with them with very little concern that people are dying or starving as a result. And we can likely find enough of them so that when added together, the savings would be more substantial. THEN we can look at what's left and go from there.
It's pretty easy to talk about who's accepting what and then ragging on those who oppose the high taxes and federal handouts. Few would take the handouts if they hadn't been victims of the federal theft of their profits. The left favors taxing for all sorts of things, and regulating all sorts of things, then pretends that because someone balks that they should deny themselves even though their situations are negatively impacted by those policies.
However, I am just as eager to see what the new House majority seeks to do and how they hope to try as anyone else. This whole wave of discontent began when the right wing forgot why they were elected in '94 and the LAST midterm and subsequent presidential elections were both in response to that forgetfulness. The hope on the right is that they don't forget again. We'll see.
Love the military spending, the single biggest social program in the history of the world and all the republicans support it. Its their "socialist" adgenda creeping in!
For the record.. the NEA and NPR hardly get any money from the govt. Its an embarassment to our nation. Cutting them to save our imaginary future budgets would amount to removing a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean.
Wow.. and that is what happens when cold fingers try to type.
Everything should be on the table to be cut. Personally, I'd love to see zero based budgeting and evaluate every program on a regular basis.
Cuts in the rate of growth are not enough, I would like to see actual cuts.
Isn't federal support for Sesame Street, Barney, Thomas (who make a pretty fair chunk of change from merch) just more bad corporate welfare?
Marshall, have you actually looked at the DoD budget? I have, the unclassified portion of it is available on line. It's long - over 800 pages across several .pdf files - but you can skim through various line items if you wish at least to get a sense of it.
My sense is simple - it is not so much bloated as it is out of whack. As I wrote on a post earlier this weekend, there have been a series of deliberate policy decisions to create a hi-tech, highly mobile, and much smaller military. For that reason, it is high front end costs, not just in terms of equipment allotment, maintenance and repair costs, but also R&D. At just over 1.6 million men and women, the force is actually too small to meet all the demands placed upon it.
In other words, I would love to see the Defense budget addressed from a policy standpoint, rather than cutting it willy-nilly. Also, removing certain demands from the military - the constant desire to send our troops hither and yon that has been a part of every Administration since Reagan - and actually listening to what they think they are capable of doing under current force structure would be nice.
Actually, no where in the Constitution does it say a military is necessary. It only says the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military. Period.
In the early 1880's, during the Presidency of the Chester Arthur (R) there was a move by a Republican Congress to eliminate . . . the United States Navy. Seriously. It almost passed.
Point of interest. In 5 years, the projected interest on the national debt will approach that year's projected defense spending. Just an idea of how far into debt we've gone in just 2 short years.
Yes, because under Bush and Republican Presidents, federal spending was under control and the economy was sound.
Or, maybe not so much.
See, that's why Alan, and I, do not believe all the fiscal hawkishness from Republicans. The actual facts are against them. They like government spending just fine, just a different kind of government spending.
It should be no secret, since it is constantly stated over and over again, that Repubs lost control over their own spending problems. They were not supported by their own constituents because of it. We are very much concerned that this new majority does not fall into the same pattern, though that's why it's called a pattern.
"Actually, no where in the Constitution does it say a military is necessary. It only says the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military."
Do you think the founders had a pretend military in mind over which the president is commander? I would guess they felt each state, which were independent of each other, would have their own armies that would be lead by the CIC, but there was no guarantee every state would have one. Needless to say, in this day and age, a military is essential, and as it defends the nation in total, it needs to be maintained and funded to make sure we are always the baddest kid on the block.
Just the same, streamlining is no doubt possible. But to put aside the military to look elsewhere for cuts is pragmatic, especially as we are engaged in a war on two fronts.
I have not read the DoD budget, but I would expect I'd agree with your comments as stated here.
For other comments, I can't believe anyone would say anything so silly as to consider the military a "social program". That's just goofy. And as far as NPR and other such spending, I believe I mentioned that each such program is greatly insignificant by themselves. But gather all such spending measures and eliminate them from the federal budget and it's likely substantial. I would put it this way: If the feds spent one dollar per year on NPR, I would insist they stop doing it. The point is not how much one single program costs. The point is if it isn't necessary and a Constitutional function of the federal government, we simply can't afford to keep spending money on it. To not consider cutting it out simply because its cost "is only" some lesser amount than another program is goofy.
Yes, because under Bush and Republican Presidents, federal spending was under control and the economy was sound.
Or, maybe not so much.
Absolutely. I have called spending under Bush and the Republican Congress that of "drunken sailors", and was nowhere near alone in that assessment.
However, that still doesn't diminish the fact that Obama and the Democrat's spending has far, far exceeded anything their predecessors had ever dreamed or imagined. The lion's share of that debt belongs to the current administration, with previous administrations contributing, to be sure, but to a much smaller extent.
"The lion's share of that debt belongs to the current administration, with previous administrations contributing, to be sure, but to a much smaller extent."
Um. No. The debt didn't start with Obama, or Bush II, so attempting to parse it out that way is obviously just stupid.
But it's a nice meme. Everyone needs some fairy tales to believe in, I suppose. Even if it were true, "But you do it too!" is the excuse of a child.
There is no evidence that either party is better than the other at controlling spending. Electing either one to do so is like electing someone because they promise to finally, once and for all, are going to eliminate their own salaries.
There might be all sorts of good reasons to vote for one candidate over another, but spending reduction is not now, nor has it ever been, one of those good reasons.
Maybe the newly elected Congress will actually do something, but using the past as a guide to conclude that they will do something is nothing but insanity....doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I said:
"The lion's share of that debt belongs to the current administration, with previous administrations contributing, to be sure, but to a much smaller extent."
Alan said:
Um. No. The debt didn't start with Obama, or Bush II, so attempting to parse it out that way is obviously just stupid.
Well, that's right, and that's not what I said. I mean, what you quoted of me acknowledges contributions from past administrations. So parsing it out the way you did is...well, you know.
I've referred to graphs here before showing how the Obama spending has been so enormously more than any previous administration, whether in absolute number or percentage of GDP, even during wartime. You've ridiculed them as merely "pretty graphs", but they say something that apparently you don't like to hear. Hence the ridicule instead of engagement.
If you're going to respond, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to what I actually say (heck, at least what you actually quote), and not hand wave away those points with a little snarkiness.
"You've ridiculed them as merely "pretty graphs", but they say something that apparently you don't like to hear. Hence the ridicule instead of engagement."
Just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't engagement.
As I said, even if it were true that both parties are equally responsible (obviously ignoring the *fact* that Republicans have been in the White House 20 out of the last 30 years, that Reagan's increases in federal spending were the largest in history at that time, and that Bush II's were the largest in history at that time) that's hardly a good reason to believe they're going to *cut* anything now.
BTW, I ridiculed your graphs because they do not tell the reader anything about the assumptions built in. And I said so. That you don't or can't see the difference between dismissing them as "pretty graphs" and also giving a concrete reason (lack of context) is your problem, not mine. I also wrote, "I've seen other pretty graphs that give other numbers and are pretty damning regarding the Bush tax cuts. They're pretty too." So not only did I give one, but two reasons to dismiss your pretty graphs. What you choose to focus on is your problem, not mine.
So, just because you don't like my response doesn't mean it isn't engagement. My comments just say something that apparently you don't like to hear. Hence your ridicule instead of engagement, and dismissal of my point as "pretty graphs". If you're going to respond, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to what I actually say, and not hand wave away those points with a little snarkiness.
BTW, Doug, reading down further, I see that I responded again to your graphs in that discussion with some of my own.
So why the lie? Why try and fail to make it sound like all I did was call your graphs pretty rather than tell the truth that I 1) gave several reasons for critiquing them (not dismissing), and 2) presented other evidence of my own?
Do you think it isn't easy to google the actual conversation and see that you're wrong about what was said?
You can do better, Doug.
(BTW, anyone want to take a guess which party the only president to have a budget surplus in the last 30 years belonged to? Anyone want to guess which presidency Doug's pretty graphs omitted? Heh.)
Alan, we discussed all that, and the "pretty graphs" show that the huge deficits today dwarf any President you want to compare them to. It's not even close.
And a Democratic Congress with a willing President is what we have today, giving us these deficits. When we ran a surplus it was a Republican Congress (noting, again, that Congress controls the purse strings) and a Democratic President properly contrite over the shellacking he got in a mid-term election. If Obama will follow Clinton's lead and move to the center, and if these new Tea Partiers live up to their own press, we could get there again.
Dan's original post does indeed properly look to the incoming Congress to hold to their promise of cutting the budget, not the President. The President can give his suggestion, but Congress writes the bill.
Congress. Not the President. Let's keep that in mind.
Just an aside, regarding NPR funding. They used to say that government funding of it was not that much. Now they say losing that funding would be "devastating". Guess it's no big deal until you're actually at risk losing it.
"When we ran a surplus it was a Republican Congress"
Um. You do know that they were still in charge of Congress until the last 2 years of Bush II, right? And your pretty graphs show a budget deficit during those years they were in charge. You know that too, right? I mean, if I'm going to look at the pretty graphs *you* presented as evidence, you should at least know what's in them, and know that they contradict your own interpretation.
Just sayin'.
"Alan, we discussed all that, and the "pretty graphs" show that the huge deficits today dwarf any President you want to compare them to. It's not even close."
And as I said, they may show that. Or they may not. There is no way to tell because there is nothing about the assumptions contained in the graphs. For example, we know that Bush II did not include funding for the wars in his budgets. So, do these graphs show *actual* budge deficits including war spending, or just deficits based on some numbers cooked up somewhere, which do not reflect reality? We don't know. You are over interpreting your data to reach your pre-determined conclusions, the most common error in data analysis. Without understanding the numbers that went into the graphs, the graphs "say" absolutely nothing.
"When we ran a surplus it was a Republican Congress"
Heh. Yes, and the show Farscape was still on TV. So apparently Democrats are not only solely responsible for budget deficits (even when Republicans were in control of congress) but also the cancellation of Farscape! Damn their evil evilness!!
Such simplistic correlation = causation analyses are fun and silly, but not useful, nor accurate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(BTW, Carter, a um... you know ... Democrat, had much, much smaller deficits than Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. And Democrats controlled Congress. That's from the full graph which includes last several administrations, not the truncated graph you present which was designed solely to compare Bush vs. Obama.)
Assuming that those graphs actually say anything at all. But since you like 'em, I thought I'd just point that out.
Again, just sayin'
"When we ran a surplus it was a Republican Congress"
Heh. Yes, and the show Farscape was still on TV. So apparently Democrats are not only solely responsible for budget deficits (even when Republicans were in control of congress) but also the cancellation of Farscape! Damn their evil evilness!
Congress does not deal with TV shows. They are, however, almost entirely responsible for budgets.
Why am I having to even clear this up for you? I suspect, though, that you already know this and are trying to draw false equivalences. So never mind trying to discuss this, if that's what you're going to do.
Actually I'm mocking simplistic correlation = causation arguments. But I suspect you already knew that, given that I state it in the very next sentence.
But way to dodge the data that demonstrates your conclusion is wrong. Also, way to dodge the fact that your characterization of my critique of your position was more than just dismissing your graphs as pretty. This is why these conversations go no where, because folks are unwilling to admit error, and instead just ignore the points made when they are uncomfortable. Instead, you go after a few words instead of attempting to understand the point behind them.
But that's what you classify as "engagement", I suppose?
Again, what I have said is that the data does not support a conclusion that there is a correlation between which party controls congress and whether or not the US runs a budget deficit.
Since you're arguing with me, I must assume that you think there is some sort of correlation. I'm unwilling to buy your opinion when it isn't supported by the facts, so repeating your assertions are unlikely to convince me, any more than my repeating the facts are likely to convince you.
As I said in a previous post. We'll see. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I do not think there is any historical evidence to support the hypothesis that this new Congress is any different than any previous one.
Again, what I have said is that the data does not support a conclusion that there is a correlation between which party controls congress and whether or not the US runs a budget deficit.
I've never argued that. Deficits have happened for quite a long time under both parties.
What I did note is that you apparently wanted to credit a President with budget surpluses that the Congress hammered out. I pointed out that it was a Republican Congress.
In the same way, Dan notes that this Republican House (if not full Congress this time) is on the hook for at least attempting to do what they said they would do. I agree, and wanted to show him where Republicans have, indeed, said they wanted to, as he asserted they hadn't.
Congress. Not the President.
"What I did note is that you apparently wanted to credit a President with budget surpluses that the Congress hammered out. I pointed out that it was a Republican Congress. "
Yes, the same Congress that was also responsible for deficits just a couple years later.
Again, what I have said, said, reiterated, and said again is that I do not believe that such a correlation exists. I'm not sure how I could make that more clear.
" least attempting to do what they said they would do."
BTW, I'm a tough grader. I don't give easy A's for the effort of just saying they're thinking about attempting to perhaps maybe consider doing something.
Either they do, and I'll give them credit. Or they don't, and I won't.
Based on the evidence, I'm betting on "won't".
Interrupting Doug and Alan for just a moment. . .
No, Marshall, it was not a "pretend" military. There was an implicit assumption that there was to be a military in the United States. Which is why, apart from appointing the President Commander-in-Chief there is no explicit demand or requirement for a military of any kind. Much of American history, the American people were wary of any kind of military; even the founders considered a standing army a threat to the Constitutional order and liberty. Read the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers if you don't believe me.
The Constitution speaks of providing for the common defense in the preamble. That defense could take many forms; with the not unimportant exception of our relations with the Native tribes, much of that was "defense" was done via diplomatic arbitration. This didn't preclude military action; John Adams and Thomas Jefferson conducted an undeclared naval war against, first, the Barbary Pirates then the French in the Mediterranean in order to enforce the common international law idea of freedom of the seas and trade.
The huge military of the past nearly seventy years is an aberration brought on by (a) the Second World War; and (b) the deliberate decision, spelled out in National Security Council Memo #17 (declassified in the 1970's) to militarize our relations with the Soviet Union and its satellites. The entrenched military bureaucracy, like all others, has sought to continue its existence, far too often at the expense of our troops (consider, during the Iraq invasion, that Rumsfeld did not listen to his generals on force size, did not properly equip the troops with flak jackets, did not upgrade the armor on vehicles, the list could go on and on).
There is a difference between tradition and what's in the Constitution, Marshall.
Thanks for point out confusion from which I did not suffer. I was merely wondering why you thought it necessary to bring up what the Constitution does or does not say about the military. But considering your subsequent remarks, do you not feel a standing army is a justifiable expense of our federal gov't? In what other manner can the federal government provide for the common defense?
Despite the fears of the founders, an army was developed in the late 1780's-1790's. And the Barbary muslims were what compelled the creation of a Navy as merchants were getting attacked, scuttled and held hostage.
Frankly, I don't want the military to be so powerful that some generals get bright ideas. But I do believe it is important to have the toughest military in the world. It's worth the cost to be sure it is.
Well, here's one down:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/conservative-mag-worries-rand-paul-is-already-selling-out.php
As I've been predicting, once they get their hands on the money, they're unlikely to say no.
Frankly, I don't want the military to be so powerful that some generals get bright ideas. But I do believe it is important to have the toughest military in the world. It's worth the cost to be sure it is.
In other words, a super military, able to defeat any other when matched toe to toe. But, not good enough to crack an insurgency.
Mission Accomplished!
If we are allowed to be armed, as the 2nd Amendment so clearly acknowledges, then generals with bright ideas are stymied before the thought solidifies. As to dealing with insurgents abroad, that is a function of political correctness poisoning military policy.
Regarding cuts of smaller bodies that will save a lot when grouped with similar and similarly unnecessary groups, I offer the NEH to the mix. Whatever allegedly lofty ideals were behind the formation of such organizations, clearly we cannot allow taxpayer dollars to support such ideologically slants anymore than we would allow specific theologies to be so supported. And again, in a time when money is so incredibly tight, there is none for luxuries such as these, even if their total elimination does not amount to a huge cut in spending. Spending on such things is wasteful without regard to its cost.
I'll see your paltry $161 million (a decrease of 4% from last year's budget) and raise you $20 billion in farm subsidies, the billions spent on the F-22, and the over $2 billion given by the federal government to faith-based groups.
While not wanting to carry on a conversation with Marshall Art for too long for fear my brain will begin to bleed, I just want to make a couple points.
As I said, there was an assumption that the fledgling US would have a military. So, telling me when the military was formed - and on this Marine Corps Day, we should remember that the Corps predates the official creation of the US - is irrelevant. Also, saying you don't seem to care what the Constitution says or doesn't say on any particular issue tells me an awful lot.
Finally, if you read my main comment clearly, you might find that I was arguing for both a larger and more efficiently and rationally conceived military - which would actually be cheaper and more effective that our current one. Other than Banana Republic invasions (Dominican Republic, 1965; Grenada, 1983), when was the last time the US actually won a war? That would be 1945 (although Noam Chomsky argues with some justification that the terms of the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam, plus our immediate abrogation of all its terms and conditions, indicate our victory there; I disagree, but with respect).
Having a Navy that is geared to fight the Japanese Imperial Navy and sink German U-boats, in the years 2010, makes about as much sense as sending the Seventh Cavalry to France in 1918 with all their horses.
Oh, and the quarter billion budgeted for federal abstinence-only sex ed.
None of which addresses the main point of this post or comment thread - cost efficiencies. While it seems like some kind of principled stand to oppose funding for the NEH/NEA/CPB, we currently piss away enough money to really fund those agencies in a few hours in Afghanistan.
Would any "fiscal conservative" offer, say, shrinking the US Navy from 11 Carriers and their accompanying battle groups (the huge flotillas necessary to protect them and keep them floating) to, say eight? Or is it still necessary to offer to the rest of the world these marvelous, vulnerable targets, which cost billions of dollars to build, equip, man, and maintain?
And cut all tax deductions for having children. There's no reason to force the rest of us pay for someone else's lifestyle choice. That's something like $36 billion.
So far I've saved the federal government something close to $60 billion dollars. And that's without cutting the entire Navy (also not a bad idea, that's $160 billion) or wasting time with nickel-and-dime programs.
Strange that the "conservatives" here can only offer ideas of a million or two here and there to cut. What happened to "small government"?
Props to Obama for convening a commission to deal with this problem. They've come out with a draft proposal, and politicians are giving their opinions on it already.
Short take: Republicans are cautiously optimistic. Democrats hate it. Gee, who would have predicted that?
My full take is here. Too long for a comment.
I guess that depends on who you were listening to, Doug. The Republicans I heard talk about it on NPR this morning hated it and were already calling the cuts in mortgage deductions, etc., "tax hikes".
Fair enough, Alan. We'll see as time progresses. I'm sure Democrats and Republicans will find things to dislike, but the key will be being open to touch a few third rails and who's willing to do that.
I'm wondering if this will convince Dan to consider Republicans "more believable" this time around.
Perhaps.
But again, I'd make the distinction between saying you'd like to do something and actually doing something. I'm not sure it makes any difference if Republicans claim their love for these proposals and Democrats claim to hate it, if neither one of them actually do anything anyway.
And let's remember, it was Republicans who first opposed, then watered down this commission in the first place. It was supposed to come up with recommendations that were required to be voted on by Congress. Now, as I understand it, they can hand out recommendations and Congress can ignore them.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123860020
I do find the discussion around this (that I've heard so far, anyway) pretty funny. So far, few seem to be asking "is this cut a good idea, or is that one a bad idea, or is there a better way to do X?" Instead it's all about "Does Congress have the political will to do X?"
In other words, almost the entire discussion I've heard so far is "Are they just a bunch of cowards?" Yes. Yes they are.
(I'd also note that getting rid of child tax breaks, cutting farm subsidies, cutting the military budget were all ideas I already floated before I'd even heard this draft was out. I'm not saying I'm brilliant to have figured it out first. I'm saying isn't like anyone needed a commission to come up with this stuff either today or 20 years ago. It's just a smoke-screen to appear to be considering maybe possibly but not really doing something.)
Sen Kent Conrad, a Democrat, actually said that in order to get serious about shrinking the deficit, we need to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Head, meet wall. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'm wondering if this will convince Dan to consider Republicans "more believable" this time around.
As we all agree, I think, the proof will be in the pudding. In whether the TALK about smaller gov't is just talk or if they are willing to cut something more than the tens of million for arts and poverty assistance programs.
And, as I've noted before, for my part, I'm not for SMALL gov't for the sake of small gov't. I'm for SMART gov't. So, if a prisoner rehab program COSTS $1 million but SAVES $2 million, then cutting that program in the interest of "smaller" gov't is neither smaller nor smart.
Like Alan and Geoffrey, I haven't heard much in the way of cooperation from the GOP on this initiative thus far. We can wait and see who actually steps up.
Geoffrey,
If your brain is bleeding, it must be for straining to come up with ways to distort my position. I reviewed all my comments here and can find no indication, not even the slightest hint, that justifies the following dishonesty:
"...saying you don't seem to care what the Constitution says or doesn't say on any particular issue tells me an awful lot."
I guess it would tell you a lot if I said that. But I didn't. The reverse is true. I DO care what the Constitution says and believe that our funding of a standing army best provides for the common defense.
Secondly, I believe I gave support for your opinion when I stated that despite not having read the DOD budget, I'd likely agree with the spirit of your comment. If you could possibly tone down the irrational hatred just a bit, such confusion would likely not take place so often.
Next, I doubt either of us has the expertise to propose anything as specific as cutting the number of ships in the Navy, so I wouldn't hazard such a suggestion. It is enough to suppose that there can be cuts made that do not affect military readiness. In general, when it comes to said readiness, I prefer to lean toward having more than we need. Having said that, I do not oppose cutting back from that in times of great economic strife, which is where we're at today. But it's a difficult task when our troops are engaged and I believe because that's the case, putting off serious cuts should be postponed in favor of cuts to other areas of government spending.
As we think of veterans at this time of year, and as my Congregation just got news two days ago of a young man who took one in the head in Afghanistan, I find it hard to regard our efforts there as "pissing away" money. This is particularly true considering what you were putting this spending against. Funding for the NEH/NEA/CPB and other such organizations is truly pissing money away even in good economic times, particularly since they are all outside the duties of the federal government in the first place.
Ideally, the feds should never have a surplus. A surplus means we're overtaxed for sure. But I don't mind a bit of a surplus because in the real world, s**t happens and it's easier to have money on hand than to have to raise it in an emergency. The NEA has no value that one can call an emergency and should be eliminated immediately and never brought back. My point in mentioning such groups, as basic points are so often missed by some here, is that such spending is always luxury and luxury is the first cut that should take place in any responsible budget alteration during hard economic times.
Regarding eliminating things like the child tax credit: this is not a spending cut. It is a tax hike. The subject here, as I understand it, regards cuts. As I favor a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever, eliminating such credits while moving to a flat tax is not a problem for me. As our current tax system is one great SNAFU and has been a contributor to our economic woes, I oppose any such tax hikes.
I do, however, oppose subsidies by our federal gov't as I oppose their intrusion into private enterprise on principle alone. Now we have to reduce or eliminate them and do so in a manner that doesn't totally screw small farmers and business people struggling in this economy.
Dan continues to confuse the term "smaller gov't" with the amount of money spent by gov't. If our gov't spends a ton on the military to keep it efficient, this does not constitute "big gov't". The right speaks of the size of gov't in relation to what the gov't is involving itself. Though we want the feds to spend money wisely on those things it is meant to do, it becomes "big gov't" when it involves itself too deeply in the private sector and when it spends money on crap like the NEA.
"Like Alan and Geoffrey, I haven't heard much in the way of cooperation from the GOP on this initiative thus far."
It just came out, didn't it? Or are you speaking of something else? In any case, the GOP has been speaking of economic alternatives all throughout the BO admin. The lefties in charge pretend otherwise, and the lefties who vote don't go looking for it.
I'm coming to this conversation late.
I'd totally support eliminating all unconstitutional federal programs, including NASA and oil and gas subsidies. All subsidies, really.
We can also get rid of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, neither of which are Constitutionally authorized activities.
Reducing the military budget is completely arguable and a reasonable action to consider. Many of our overseas bases, for example, serve no productive use. Just keep in mind that the military, unlike public radio and television, is actually an enumerated activity under the Constitution.
Post a Comment