An interesting exercise I think everyone who votes should have to go through: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?src=me&ref=general If nothing else, it should make abundantly clear that anybody who talks about "ending earmarks" as a key part of any solution is just being silly.
I already did this exercise. 1) Cut civilian and civilian/military workforce by 1M. Saves $125B 2) Completely repeal the Bush/Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Saves $360B. 3) Bring the troops home and cut military spending by 1/3. Saves at least $300B. 4) Eliminate TARP spending, saves $368B. This cuts the deficit to about $300B, which we can grow our way out of in 5 years if we hold the line on new spending. Conservatives see their ox gored - military. Liberals see their ox gored - prescription drug program. The criminals see their ox gored - no more blank check/TARP. No new taxes.
I'm torn, but I think I would lean towards recalling all our troops and closing our bases around the globe. If the world does not appreciate our help, then let our help cease to exist. That also goes for monetary help. We provide billions in aid around the globe (especially in Israel), and if that support is not appreciated, so be it. I would like to see a shift in our military. Keep the Navy and the Air Force the way it is, but change the Army. I don't think we need a large standing Army. I would like to see the Army go the route of the Marines and lower their overall numbers while raising their requirements and washout rate. Soldiers should be more like Rangers and less like Private Pile. I couldn't find an exact number, but a couple of sites list the Army around 548,000 soldiers, but only 204,000 in the Marine Corps. If the Military went the route of a smaller, specialized, highly trained unit instead of a large, expensive, standing Army, it would cut costs and probably up the effectiveness. This would hinge on a shift in policy, away from occupation with bases around the world, to a QRF/Expeditionary force. I would build our military up to be able to react quickly anywhere in the world, but I would keep our troops at home.
I don't disagree Nate. My beef is they make excuses why they won't cut spending and use scare tactics like "we'd have to screw people over on their social security" to justify it.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-peth...e-the-u-s-budget-it-did-it-in-under-a-minute/ http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/how-to-cut-343-billion-from-the-federal-budget
I think some miss the point of earmarks. It's true that they're a small part of the budget, but their effect is massive. These earmarks are often given in exchange for a vote on a specific piece of legislation. So, Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback" only cost $45MM, but his vote allowed an $871B to $3.2T bill to move forward.
I think people miss the point of earmarks They're not EXTRA spending, they're just directed spending of what's authorized.
I don't know that the world doesn't appreciate our help. There are a lot of people in Africa who don't have malaria or aren't dead from AIDS right now because of US aid. Just because they don't make the news doesn't mean they don't appreciate us. Picking up our toys and going home just isn't an option. Everything we do has implication all around the globe just because of the sheer size of our economy. Isolationism is just refusing to recognize that fact until a crap load of people die (either on our shores or somebody else's.) If we closed our bases in South Korea, for example, there's a decent chance of all-out war. Millions and millions dead. The economy would be a disaster. Japan would build a pretty scary high tech military that we might eventually have to contend with. All because we wanted to save a few billion bucks from our budget. It just doesn't seem worth it. I'm nothing close to a warhawk. I opposed invading Iraq, and was extremely dubious about Afghanistan. I think we spend too much money on Israel. But I also recognize we have to have to be the world's policemen, because nobody else wants the job and somebody has to do it.
Note I wasn't suggesting we bring all our troops home (yet). Just the ones in the two wars. I didn't suggest cutting military spending to the bone, but to a healthy $600B instead of $900B, which is considerable.
If we're going to be the worlds police, I would rather do so from the deck of a ship. I do not believe our forces need to be as vast as they currently are. I would rather have a powerful Navy and Air Force, with an elite group of special forces units that can react quickly to any situation around the world. The Navy is mobile, and could be dispatched anywhere. Bases are expensive, they take a lot of manpower, and most of them are in places that are not currently in conflict. Realistically, when are we going to get into another conventional war and with whom? I would rather have our Rangers, Delta, Green Berets, SEALs, PJs, and MARSOC taking care of the dirty work. They're experienced, highly trained, and intelligent warriors who get the job done. If we need to muster another large force to fight against a conventional enemy, it can be done rather quickly.
I solved the deficit. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vzxpbj14 my actual plan would be more fucked up. Basically cut all spending programs across the board, flat tax, no loopholes, cut all government assitance programs and let people fend for their own. unemployment and other benefits would be decimated as would spending for social programs.
Better build yourself a reinforced bunker to live in, because when you tell people to "fend for their own" they'll most likely look to take yours.
It's weird to see Republicans going through this exercise when they're the ones who want to extend the cause of the whole problem, the 10-year Republican tax cuts for the rich. Remember when Clinton solved the whole deficit problem, and had enormous surpluses going, which were growing exponentially each year? The Republicans then used that as an excuse to legislate the 10-year giveaway to the rich, which caused the current Depression. Now we rank #1 in the world in per capita debt, while the other countries can afford to provide health insurance for their citizens. But hey, we're the richest country in the world (only if you include the top 2% of Americans).
I remember the government raking in huge sums off of taxes on capital gains during a stock market bubble. Bubbles are good, eh?
That bubble would be solar-sized by now if you guys hadn't popped it. All the experts (conservative and liberal) forecast the growth to be permanent, but then Bush was "elected" and the party ended. You would have made a lot more money from continued Clintonian stock growth than you did from measly Bushist tax cuts. And this country would be totally out of debt by now, and thus the godlike economic ruler of the world. Meaning--even more profits for the American rich coming in from around the world. You guys really screwed up. You should have been for Gore.
