If the National Debt is Such A Problem, Why Isn't Raising Taxes on EVERYONE An Answer (regime, financial crisis)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you cut spending in the face of inflation and population growth? Since 1960, spending growth of about 3.25% per year has been the norm. What makes you think it should be more or less than that?
If one assumes that everything the federal government does is legitimate and acceptable, your argument has merit. However, true spending cuts could easily be achieved by shrinking the role and scope of government.
Not easily done at all, or it already would have been. And 50 years is a pretty long time. It encompasses JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43, and part of Obama. Different times, different people, but still pretty much the same old 3.25%.
If one assumes that everything the federal government does is legitimate and acceptable, your argument has merit. However, true spending cuts could easily be achieved by shrinking the role and scope of government.
Ok....but instead of making a general statement like that, admit what that entails.
Since the two-thirds of federal government spending is for national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid and interest on the national debt that type of spending cut would involve asking the elderly to give up portions of their social security and medicare. We'd have to the cut military back which would involve taking more chances with terrorists and rogue nations. Perhaps, we could cut medicaid too, but it would involve allowing the poor and their children to die from the want of medical care. I don't know how to avoid paying the interest on the debt, so that portion will have to stay there no matter what.
Reducing government spending will also weaken the economy as the military is forced to cancel contracts for weapons systems and as the medical establishment faces cutbacks on care for the poor and the elderly. This will ripple throughout every level of our economy and result in layoffs at defense contractors and medical centers. This will be felt throughout the entire economy.
What's my point? Cutting government spending sounds nice and easy in theory. In practice, its a life and death matter. Anyone who imagines for a minute it won't have negative repercussions for the entire economy has a poor understanding of how the world works.
Now, try to imagine a politician trying to implement the policies you speak of. Do you think they would stand the smallest chance of reelection? They wouldn't. From a practical standpoint, the policies which you speak of have very little chance of being adopted.
This is an interesting little toy from the New York Times. It shows proportionally almost all categories of expenditure in the FY 2011 budget. That's five years ago now of course, but not so much has changed, and I don't know of a more recent version. It's a good exercise for spending axe-wielders in trying to track down and identify all those large amounts of dollars they think they can get rid of...
How do you cut spending in the face of inflation and population growth? Since 1960, spending growth of about 3.25% per year has been the norm. What makes you think it should be more or less than that?
Your premise seems to assume there is no waste in governmental operations but I've never met anyone who actually believes that. Can we save two percent by eliminating waste? Can we save twenty percent by eliminating waste?
Typical governmental budgeting at all levels requires justifying raises from year to year which creates "Use It or Lose It" spending the end of each year and shifting of allocations from one account to another just to make sure it gets used. Zero base budgeting would require justifying every dollar in the budget rather than only the incremental expenses.
Most government operations have been computerized in the last couple of decades. When businesses computerize their operations they cite cost savings by reducing personnel expenses; who knows of any government agency at any level that has eliminated workers after automating their systems?
Ok....but instead of making a general statement like that, admit what that entails.
Since the two-thirds of federal government spending is for national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid and interest on the national debt that type of spending cut would involve asking the elderly to give up portions of their social security and medicare. We'd have to the cut military back which would involve taking more chances with terrorists and rogue nations. Perhaps, we could cut medicaid too, but it would involve allowing the poor and their children to die from the want of medical care. I don't know how to avoid paying the interest on the debt, so that portion will have to stay there no matter what.
Reducing government spending will also weaken the economy as the military is forced to cancel contracts for weapons systems and as the medical establishment faces cutbacks on care for the poor and the elderly. This will ripple throughout every level of our economy and result in layoffs at defense contractors and medical centers. This will be felt throughout the entire economy.
What's my point? Cutting government spending sounds nice and easy in theory. In practice, its a life and death matter. Anyone who imagines for a minute it won't have negative repercussions for the entire economy has a poor understanding of how the world works.
Now, try to imagine a politician trying to implement the policies you speak of. Do you think they would stand the smallest chance of reelection? They wouldn't. From a practical standpoint, the policies which you speak of have very little chance of being adopted.
I understand what it entails. But I don't believe that if the gov. has spent money on something in the past, that it must necessarily continue that spending into perpetuity, at an increasing rate every year.
You and I will likely disagree on what is the legitimate role and scope of the federal government. But do you really believe that cuts can't be made?
Your premise seems to assume there is no waste in governmental operations...
Not at all. It simply realizes that an absence of growth in proportion to population and productivity increases is a cut. The same nominal number of dollars falls ever shorter of itself over time. This is a pretty elementary concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
...but I've never met anyone who actually believes that.
Your circle of friends is too small, and none of them has ever taken a course in federal financing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Can we save two percent by eliminating waste? Can we save twenty percent by eliminating waste?
To start with, there is always an underlying level of waste that costs more to eliminate than the waste itself does. No sensible person tries to go after that. Furthermore, so many hacks have gone to Washington pledging to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, that there just isn't any of it left to go after anymore. Obama pledged in 2008 to go over the budget line by line and come up with $2 billion in savings. He did come up with a couple of good ideas, but he never got near an actual $2 billion worth of savings. The reports of waste you hear are much like reports of there being gold in them thar hills. This is particularly true for the nonsense that CAGW or Tom Coburn put out. At the end of the day, waste is simply not something to lie awake about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Typical governmental budgeting at all levels requires justifying raises from year to year which creates "Use It or Lose It" spending the end of each year and shifting of allocations from one account to another just to make sure it gets used. Zero base budgeting would require justifying every dollar in the budget rather than only the incremental expenses.
Well, sloppy juggling of buzzwords aside, most people don't really know anything about the federal budget process, but we haven't had typical federal budgeting for some time now, thanks to refusals to engage in the process by Congresses of both parties. Nevertheless, every program still does have to justify itself at agency and departmental levels, then it has to go through OMB for conformance with administration priorities. Then a request has to be transmitted to Congress. At that point, it should be debated by people who likely all have some idea of their own as to how better to spend the money. Appropriators realize only too well that tax dollars are scarce and no-nonsense competition for them is fierce. If you can't continually show the bang-for-the buck, you're going to get defunded. Many more good ideas get left on the committee room floor than bad ideas walk away with any money. But these days, partisanship and political exigencies will as likely force some sort of omnibus or continuing resolution grand compromise around that last part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Most government operations have been computerized in the last couple of decades. When businesses computerize their operations they cite cost savings by reducing personnel expenses; who knows of any government agency at any level that has eliminated workers after automating their systems?
They all have. Do you think that rooms full of quill-pushing scribes are still squirreled away somewhere in the basements of federal office buildings?
I understand what it entails. But I don't believe that if the gov. has spent money on something in the past, that it must necessarily continue that spending into perpetuity, at an increasing rate every year.
You have quite a lot yet to learn if you believe that this accurately portrays the situation. And do you seriously think that time and money should be spent every year -- year after year -- in justifying the very existence of the Army or the federal courts or the IRS or the Census Bureau or the National Weather Service? Really???
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You and I will likely disagree on what is the legitimate role and scope of the federal government. But do you really believe that cuts can't be made?
This is a list of federal outlays of at least $10 billion in FY 2011. Assume that things are much the same today and indicate where you think your cuts can most efficiently be made...
SS Pension & Survivor -- 599
Interest on Public Debt -- 454
Military Operations & Maintenance -- 291
Medicaid -- 275
Medicare Part-A -- 263
Medicare Part-B --234
Unemployment benefits -- 168
Military Personnel costs -- 162
SS Disability -- 132
Military Procurement -- 128
Food Stamps -- 78
Military R&D -- 75
Civil Service Benefits -- 74
Veterans Pension and Other Benefits -- 68
Medicare Part-D -- 66
TANF -- 66
Earned Income Tax Credit -- 56
Supplemental Security Income -- 56
Highway programs -- 45
Veterans Medical Benefits -- 40
Pell Grants etc. -- 38
National Institutes of Health -- 34
Entire Dept of Energy -- 31
Housing & Economic Recovery -- 29
TARP -- 24
Additional Child Care Credit -- 23
Military Construction -- 20
Race to the Top grants -- 20
Section 8 housing -- 19
All other housing -- 19
NASA -- 18
Child Nutrition programs -- 17
IDEA/Special Ed programs -- 17
Foreign assistance -- 15
All Community Planning block grants -- 14
Entire Dept of the Interior -- 14
Make Work Pay Tax Credit -- 14
State budget support for schools -- 12
Customs & Border Patrol -- 12
Transit programs -- 12
Security Assistance -- 12
Child & Family services -- 11
US Coast Guard -- 11
Foreign affairs -- 11
Civilian air operations -- 11
EPA -- 11
Entire Dept of Commerce -- 10
FBI and DEA -- 10
Corps of Engineers -- 10
Were it me, I would try and force a balanced budget and then have a sales tax solely dedicated to eliminate the national debt. When the debt is retired, the tax ends.
You have quite a lot yet to learn if you believe that this accurately portrays the situation.
Actually, that's precisely how it works (in most situations). And nothing that you've posted contradicts that.
Quote:
And do you seriously think that time and money should be spent every year -- year after year -- in justifying the very existence of the Army or the federal courts or the IRS or the Census Bureau or the National Weather Service? Really???
I neither said nor implied any such thing. If asked, I would say that the existence of those branches of government doesn't necessarily have to be justified (does the Constitution allow for it?) but that zero-based budgeting would be orders of magnitude better than what is currently being done.
Quote:
This is a list of federal outlays of at least $10 billion in FY 2011. Assume that things are much the same today and indicate where you think your cuts can most efficiently be made...
<<SNIP>>
Nice job turning it back on me, but you didn't answer the question. Here it is again:
Quote:
But do you really believe that cuts can't be made?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
