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.
That would be too controversial, and would never fly. The Penny Plan makes equal cuts across the board of 2% in year 1, then continues until we reach an annual balanced budget. Then, we start chipping away at the national debt, in the same manner.
If we dont do equal cuts across the board, we'll be fighting about the cuts until America financially collapses. Nothing will get done, or cut.
Why we do not have hardly any soldiers any where any more
Demand politicians who advocate spending cuts. Then promote and vote for them.
Demand politicians who have VOTE repeadedly against all these stimulus cuts...Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. They dont just advocate cuts, they have voted to cut many many times.
My 2nd choice would be Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema, who are fighting the Libs in their party right now today, this moment to stop the wreckless spending.
I'm open to others, but they must have shown ACTION to vote to cut and fight to cut as much or more tan these 4 above have/are.
If you are referring to the Covid-19 relief money, that started in the House of Representatives, which was under Democratic control. Yes, the Republicans went along with it, but it was initiated by the Democratic Party. So, to blame the Republicans is being disingenuous.
Rand Paul voted against ALL of them, so did Thomas Massie. Those are the only 2 out of 535 in Congress.
Why are we not imploring them to run as President and VP in 2024?
If not them, who? There are no others in Congress that have voted against all of this spending....NONE.
That would be too controversial, and would never fly. The Penny Plan makes equal cuts across the board of 2% in year 1, then continues until we reach an annual balanced budget. Then, we start chipping away at the national debt, in the same manner.
If we dont do equal cuts across the board, we'll be fighting about the cuts until America financially collapses. Nothing will get done, or cut.
I like the idea of a Penny Plan, but it should be done until government spending becomes a fixed percentage of GDP (say 10%). Cut taxes until revenue becomes 11% of GDP. Then fix the caps there in perpetuity. No growth, no spending.
No, I'm referring to 2017 and 2018, before Covid-19. In addition to big tax cuts, Republicans passed big spending bills.
I'm not blaming Republicans; I'm saying they are just as guilty as Democrats.
Which circles us back to what are you going to do. You vote for who you think is for less spending but they are all guilty and you cant control their actions once they are elected.
I find it ironic that people get so upset with "ridiculous spending" and yet, and yet, not a word of protest when they lower the taxes on the rich, which increases the deficit. Yes, they're going to raise the taxes on the rich a little bit, but it's an exercise in futility if they don't close the loopholes, which are guarded by both Democrats and Republicans.
And how about Big Pharma. We're the only country in the world that doesn't put price caps on Prescription drugs, and think how much that's increasing the deficit!!! Overpaying for drugs!
That is why we must vote for those who have repeadly voted against all this spending, and/or are now putting their political futures on the line to stop this madness.
Red team: Paul-Massie
Blue team: Manchin-Sinema
IMHO, these are our only hopes. All 4 have done it, & are doing it today...they don't just promise or talk
First, we start by eradicating as many of the radicals on both sides of the aisles as possible in the 2022 election. Then, we insert one of the 2 teams above, & support the heck out of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beach43ofus
Vote for polititicans who have, through their past and present actions, fought spending, like RAnd Paul, Thomas Massie, Joe Manchin, and Kristin Sinema. Those are my top 4, but there may be others...like a few Governors out there.
Ya all are assuming they will continue to run for office, that they wont change and that 4 will be enough and that they are on every voters ballot.
#13 Many regulations serve good purposes beyond economic factors. For example, TSA and other regulations around airline safety. FDA regs that prevent companies from marketing snake oil as cures. The ban on DDT, which saved our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, from extinction.
I don't disagree. That's why I think every single word of regulation, and every single law on the books needs to be accompanied by a very specific, measurable stated purpose and objective with specific, measurable short, medium and long term performance indicators. If the regulation no longer serves its stated purpose or objective, or the stated purpose or objective is no longer relevant, or does not meet its performance indicators, it should be repealed and rewritten. And this needs to happen every year.
And tie compensation to those outcomes.
That said, it'll probably never happen because there's a degree of measurable accountability built into that.
I don't disagree. That's why I think every single word of regulation, and every single law on the books needs to be accompanied by a very specific, measurable stated purpose and objective with specific, measurable short, medium and long term performance indicators. If the regulation no longer serves its stated purpose or objective, or the stated purpose or objective is no longer relevant, or does not meet its performance indicators, it should be repealed and rewritten. And this needs to happen every year.
And tie compensation to those outcomes.
That said, it'll probably never happen because there's a degree of measurable accountability built into that.
Three words: Zero Base Budgeting.
Expensive to implement and very time consuming, but we used it at my company and cut expenses considerably.
Every department had to justify all the money it requested.
"Zero base budgeting starts every category at zero and will provide a spending limit based on necessary expenditures of the business or government agency. Advantages include increased restraint, reduced entitlements, and open budget discussions. Disadvantages may be increased time to plan budgets or an improper solution to spending problems.
Reducing entitlements is another benefit of zero base budgeting. Many government agencies have annual increases to entitlement programs that require corresponding budget increases. This can result in overspending with few analyses conducted to determine if the entitlement program is working effectively. Starting from zero each year for the budget process forces an analysis of the program to determine how much money the program needs to stay afloat. Only justified increases will be considered when setting current budget limits each year."
1. End the war on drugs.
2. End the war on poverty (welfare state).
3. End all corporate and industry subsidies.
4. Offer lump sum buyouts for social security for those already collecting and transition social security to a privately owned defined contribution scheme.
5. Go back through every single spending program instituted since 1791 and cut every single program that 1) costs too much, 2) is not self sufficient, 3) doesn't bring more economic benefit than its price tag, 4) doesn't fulfill its stated purpose, or 5) doesn't have a stated purpose.
6. Cut every federal agency deemed unnecessary after #1-5 happens and reduce headcount.
7. Repeal Obamacare and every other regulation in healthcare that inhibits competition.
8. Legalize all drugs and institute an excise tax similar to alcohol.
9. Cut all "infrastructure" spend that does not bring a positive ROI either through user fees or economic benefits measured in real GDP terms.
10. Consolidate redundant functions within the federal government.
11. Cut the budget 1% a year until the budget is in at least 10% surplus.
12. Freeze all new spending until #11 happens, and once #11 is achieved, any new spending is contingent upon real GDP growth.
13. Cut any and all regulation that does more economic harm than economic good.
14. Go to a flat consumption and/or income tax only and abolish the IRS.
TLDR: Do less. Simplify and streamline processes. Focus on the federal government's constitutional mandate and only that, and do it well.
There we go. It took three pages, but now the conversation is actually going somewhere.
1 & 8. The primary opponents here will be politicians dependent on the Evangelical vote and most law enforcement agencies, but wholeheartedly agree.
2. 8% of the budget there. Before covid relief, that would take care of about 1/3 of the average annual deficit. We still gotta find ~16% more to cut.
3. Unfortunately this is the hardest one of all.
4. SSA funds are collected and distributed independent of general income tax revenue, so their revenues/expenditures don't factor into the budget deficit. Even then, the SSA has a net surplus currently. If lump sum buyouts are offered, all contributors should be eligible. If Social Security is privatized, I'm going to choose where those funds go. Since Social Security, like every other financial institution in existence, depends on having more contributors than receivers of distributions, dissolving it via payouts seems like it would actually drain the trust fund multiple times over and end up on the national debt. Seems like a bad move IMHO.
5, 6, 9, 12, & 13. These are pretty vague. How would you define the economic value of military spending, for instance? That's the biggest piece of the discretionary spending pie. Getting rid of all
7. I think it could be argued that any healthcare standards at all limit competition. Where would you draw the line?
11. I think #14 would have to come before this one. One of the bigger contributors to our national debt has been the lowering of taxes for the top brackets while increasing military spending, so you have to have a pretty predictable revenue stream before you can define a surplus.
All that said, it seems like these proposals could balance the budget if not already put it at a 10% surplus. I personally think we'd see a notable increase in destitution from ending all welfare, regardless of how worthy or not the recipients are, and that would come with a resulting increase in crime. It's hard to say whether paying off the Treasury bonds would lead to more economic activity that would offset the quality of life decrease from that.
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.
Zero Base Budgeting
