How to cut the deficit to under $300B: 1) Federal Government now employs 2.1 people. Less than a decade ago, it employed about half that many. Cut the workforce in half and save $125B a year. 2) Eliminate the Bush Medicare drug program. Saves $360B a year. 3) Bring the troops home and cut military and related spending by 1/3. Saves $300B+ a year. We'd still be spending $700B. 4) Stiffen requirements for Medicare payments to eliminate up to $60B in fraud. 5) Eliminate TARP spending. Saves $368B. Add it up and it's over $1.2T in savings. Moderate GDP growth along with controls on increasing new spending and the deficit will disappear sometime in Obama's 2nd term. And there's no tax hikes involved. Both the Left (medicare program cut) and Right (military cuts) have their oxes gored. Few people on Main Street will feel any pain at all.
2.1 people? That doesn't sound like a lot. Whatever you actually meant, I'm not sure I believe the workforce has doubled in 10 years. Link? barfo
They Republicans could pass some sort of bill that would energize the base. Some social issue like anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion. It doesn't really matter since it will die in the Senate.
The Tea Party is based on three ideas: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. The Evangelicals are so 2000-2004.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/ The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force. Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010. ... The new figures are contained in the budget that Mr. Obama sent Monday to Congress. Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011. From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million. Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.
Surely you see the logical error you are making in your choice of bolding. Apples are not oranges. barfo
Surely you see that when cutting the Military by 1/3 a lot of those employees will be cut as well. Cutting the workforce from 2.1M to the 1.1M to 1.2M we had from 1981 to 2008 does in fact save $125B. And why should postal workers be fired? The post office is semi-private and generates income from the sale of stamps, courier services, and other goods and trinkets. Maybe they should raise the price of stamps or something so they break even.
It's simply not true that it went from 1.1 to 2.1. You are comparing civilian employees to total employees. The correct comparison (assuming the numbers in your link are valid, which is questionable since it's the Washington Times) is 1.43 to 1.1. Not 2.15 to 1.1. Huh? Who said anything about firing postal workers? Or are you trying to change the subject? barfo
Your link includes postal workers and military. That's where postal workers came into the discussion. When they (Times) say Defense sector, I don't think they're talking about Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Wikipedia says there are ~1.5M of those. I think they're talking about these folks (among others): http://www.cpms.osd.mil/ http://www.cpms.osd.mil/cpms_divisions.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...87042.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection WASHINGTON—A White House commission laid out a sweeping plan to cut the federal budget deficit by hundreds of billions a year by targeting sacrosanct areas of U.S. tax and spending policy, such as Social Security benefits, middle-class tax breaks and defense spending. Among the controversial proposals, the plan in its current form would end or cap a wide range of breaks relied on by the middle class, including the deduction for home-mortgage interest. It would tax capital gains and dividends at the higher rates now levied on wage income. To compensate, one version of the plan would dramatically lower and simplify individual rates, to 9%, 15% and 24%. For businesses, the plan would significantly lower the corporate tax rate—from a current top rate of 35% to as low as 26%—but also eliminate a number of deductions. It would make permanent the research and development tax credit. Overall, the plan would cut the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion by 2020.
