 |
|  |
 |
|
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
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:30
|
|
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. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:30
|
|
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
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:30
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:30
|
|
Skanky,
quote: 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,
quote: 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,
quote: 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,
quote: 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,
quote: True welfare and education should be kept at the maximum sustainable levels, |
Not if we're serious about cutting the deficit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|