Republicans list of proposed 2.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years

FatherTed

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

Here we go:

dditional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

Manic Moran

Well, it's a start. We're $13tr in the hole right now, and that just takes $2.5tr out of the budget over ten years, it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be at $10.5tr in 2021.
NTM

southsiderosie

I cannot believe that Republicans are serious about savings and the long-term fiscal position of the US until Defense and Medicare are on the table.

A side note as a former Washingtonian: they should all be forced to take the DC Metro for a month - at rush hour - before they consider cutting funding for it. :mad:

Manic Moran

Medicare probably should be looked at. Defence, less so, as it's one of those functions which cannot be properly dealt with by means other than the Federal Government.

As for the DC metro, maybe they should come up with a proper business model which gives self-sufficiency. Failing that, it strikes me as being the problem of the District's government, in conjunction with the appropriate bodies in the neighbouring States, not that of the Federal Government.

NTM

whiteonion

The Defence budget could be slashed into a fraction of what it is today and America would be better off for it. America is turning into something like the Soviet Union who spent a ridicolous amount of their GDP on the military.

Slash the military budget and you could easily get a balanced budget.

FatherTed

A couple things stand out for me....

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Notice highways haven't been touched. But mass transit is slashed. The oil companies will love that.

Also a massive $0.00 from defence spending.

Manic Moran

The Defence budget could be slashed into a fraction of what it is today and America would be better off for it. America is turning into something like the Soviet Union who spent a ridicolous amount of their GDP on the military

The Soviets spent some 25% of their GDP on the military, the US currently spends on the order of 4.5%. (In the Cold War, the US budget was about 5.5-6% of GDP, and the country didn't seem that badly off. Even in 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War, the defence budget was 9.4%). Not bad, considering its worldwide commitments. You can certainly argue in favour of an isolationist form of policy, but as long as the US is committed to doing things like conducting a war on the Korean Penninsula at one end, or responding to natural disasters throughout the world at the other, a budget larger than that of France (2.3%) is going to be required to do the job. Unrest in Liberia? The US military shows up, not the French military. Flooding in Pakistan? The US military shows up, not the Italians. Need thousands of troops in Haiti after an earthquake? It wasn't Ireland that provided them. Have a small genocide going on in the Former Yugoslavia? The EU did feck-all until the US showed up. And if China wants to have a crack at Taiwan, North Korea on South Korea, or any other such, it's the US which is in a position to intervene because the US has spent the money to do so.

You are correct that it is possible for the US defence budget to be slashed. But if it does, then so would a lot of services that other nations look to the US for its military capability to provide which would take a serious policy shift to abandon. If you want to cut the money, you must also provide a list of the capabilities the US should be willing to lose, or commitments to abandon.

Notice highways haven't been touched. But mass transit is slashed. The oil companies will love that.

Not all mass transit. I don't see any cuts on that list which, for example, would affect the federal aid for the BART extension planned for around here.
High Speed/Intercity Rail links sound fine in a perfect world, but really, if the government is going to spend money, let them spend it on something that most people are likely to use most days, not something that some people are going to use once in a blue moon. And I'll wager a lot more oil is spent by commuters on I-880 from San Jose to Oakland than it is on people driving I-5 from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

Besides, it's a lot easier for corporations running the rail links to collect revenues from their customers than it is to collect tolls from road users on all roads.

NTM

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

Medicare probably should be looked at. Defence, less so, as it's one of those functions which cannot be properly dealt with by means other than the Federal Government.

As for the DC metro, maybe they should come up with a proper business model which gives self-sufficiency. Failing that, it strikes me as being the problem of the District's government, in conjunction with the appropriate bodies in the neighbouring States, not that of the Federal Government.

Yes, but the District is not a state and does not have autonomy over its own fiscal policy. Congress has to approve their budgets. It strikes me as unreasonable to think that DC should be self-sufficient when they are constitutionally NOT self-sufficient.

Regardless, I think the federal government should support regional mass transit, especially for a system like DC's which crosses multiple state lines. At a minimum it could devote more of the federal gasoline tax to mass transit, rather than building more and more roads.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Soviets spent some 25% of their GDP on the military, the US currently spends on the order of 4.5%. (In the Cold War, the US budget was about 5.5-6% of GDP, and the country didn't seem that badly off. Even in 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War, the defence budget was 9.4%). Not bad, considering its worldwide commitments.

So would you then be in favor of restoring tax rates to their pre-Reagan levels in order to maintain the same level of defense spending? Because herein lies the problem. Republicans can't have it both ways.

Manic Moran wrote: »

High Speed/Intercity Rail links sound fine in a perfect world, but really, if the government is going to spend money, let them spend it on something that most people are likely to use most days, not something that some people are going to use once in a blue moon. And I'll wager a lot more oil is spent by commuters on I-880 from San Jose to Oakland than it is on people driving I-5 from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

If long-distance high-speed rail is in corridors where the door-to-door trip is approximately the same or only one hour off for a flight (i.e. one hour to the airport, two hours arrival time, an hour in the air), then the experience of other countries suggests that people will in fact switch over to taking the train, which is a far more civilized experience than flying these days (The expansion of high-speed rail in Spain is an example). At a minimum, there should be high speed rail links from Boston to Washington DC. Part of the problem with how they are trying to roll out high speed rail now is that it seems designed more to suit political interests (all roads run through Disney in Florida for example) than what actually makes sense from a transport perspective.

Overheal

Sugar subsidies were a bad idea anyway.

Walmart has also announced its slashing the amount of sugar in its products across the board.

I notice there are no cuts proposed to social security or medicare benefits in there.

Manic Moran

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, but the District is not a state and does not have autonomy over its own fiscal policy. Congress has to approve their budgets. It strikes me as unreasonable to think that DC should be self-sufficient when they are constitutionally NOT self-sufficient.

Yes, and no. The Home Rule Act of 1973 does give the District effective autonomy. Yes, Congress retains veto authority, but the District's Council does all the normal governing business, to include both taking in revenue such as taxes, and conducting expenses such as providing services. They just submit the budget to Congress for final approval, it's not that the District's budget is dependant simply on the whim of what Congress wants to give it.

Regardless, I think the federal government should support regional mass transit, especially for a system like DC's which crosses multiple state lines. At a minimum it could devote more of the federal gasoline tax to mass transit, rather than building more and more roads.

A State which is interested in partaking in a Mass Transit scheme is quite capable of doing so without relying on Federal administration. Witness Connecticut's participation in NY's MTA system, for example.

Don't forget also that the National Interstate System was not created for the convenience of commuters or vacationers. It is part of the military defence infrastructure, and as such specifically within the remit of the Federal Government. One can make a similar argument for interState commerce, and all those trucks one sees driving around, which would not be taken off the roads no matter how much infrastructure improvement is made to the SLUT or CTA.

So would you then be in favor of restoring tax rates to their pre-Reagan levels in order to maintain the same level of defense spending? Because herein lies the problem.

No, but I'm not arguing for 9.4% GDP defence expenditure or Reagan's 500-ship Navy either.

then the experience of other countries suggests that people will in fact switch over to taking the train, which is a far more civilized experience than flying these days (The expansion of high-speed rail in Spain is an example).

You've not been keeping tabs on TSA's expansion into the rail system, have you? (Which is another argument entirely, in fairness).

However, although I quite believe what you are saying is true (and I do like trains, a lot), you still have the problem that you have a few hundred thousand people on the Nimitz Freeway every day, and only a few thousand people a day flying from the Bay Area to LAX. The BART extension is set for a cost of about $6bn, while the California HSR link is somewhere around $42bn. You will quite simply get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck by focusing your spending on local mass transit, not intercity rail. Until local mass transit is up to speed, intercity rail is an inefficient excess.

At a minimum, there should be high speed rail links from Boston to Washington DC. Part of the problem with how they are trying to roll out high speed rail now is that it seems designed more to suit political interests (all roads run through Disney in Florida for example) than what actually makes sense from a transport perspective.

There is a high speed rail link. Yes, I know, the Acela's figures on paper are pathetic compared to the established trainsets like France's TGV, but look at the practical application. TGV does not actually run at the 360mph it is capable of in trials. With the exception of the catenary restrictions, the Acela system is about as fast as can practically be expected (And ConnDOT is upgrading the line there). It is true that the 150mph line limit isn't as fast as the 200mph line limit of say, TGV, but the average compares quite well. The current Acela schedule for the 450 (road) miles from Boston to D.C. is just under 7 hours. The TGV Est line from Strasbourg to Le Mans is 350 (road) miles, and takes five hours. (Six, if you take the 06:10 which changes at CDG), which if you do the maths works out as 6.5 hours to cover the equivalent Boston/D.C. distance. Amtrak's only a quarter-hour slower than SNCF, and it's catching up as the line is getting upgraded. That isn't actually bad at all, and the NorthEast corridor actually makes money for Amtrak.

Is it as fast as Spain's Barcelona AVE? No, nowhere near. (3.7 hours equivalent) But given the urban density of the regions the NorthEast corridor travels, building a similar line is fiscally impossible.

NTM

Memnoch

The US spends $700 Billion on defence, China $70. This is on top of the massive lead the US already has.

Surely taking 500 out of that 700 and investing that in healthcare, infrastructure and jobs would go a long way towards securing America's continued prosperity will still leaving them spending more than double of their closest 'rival.' But I suppose helping weapon's manufacturers stay filthy rich is far more important.

AlmightyCushion

Memnoch wrote: »

The US spends $700 Billion on defence, China $70. This is on top of the massive lead the US already has.

Surely taking 500 out of that 700 and investing that in healthcare, infrastructure and jobs would go a long way towards securing America's continued prosperity will still leaving them spending more than double of their closest 'rival.' But I suppose helping weapon's manufacturers stay filthy rich is far more important.

In fairness it's not just weapons and wars the US military spending is spent on. Like Manic Moran says above if some country just got raped by an earthquake that devastated the country or if China decided to go to town on Taiwan then you can bet your ass that the US would be sending a lot of man power, supplies and equipment at the drop of the hat. Then there's also the boatloads of cash they spend on R&D that the whole world benefits from (GPS, internet, space flight etc.). I'm not a big fan of the US with regards foreign policy but you have to hand it to them, their military spending does a lot of good in the world.

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, and no. The Home Rule Act of 1973 does give the District effective autonomy. Yes, Congress retains veto authority, but the District's Council does all the normal governing business, to include both taking in revenue such as taxes, and conducting expenses such as providing services. They just submit the budget to Congress for final approval, it's not that the District's budget is dependant simply on the whim of what Congress wants to give it.

The Congress regularly intervened in the DC budget process, particularly under Marion Barry. And it hurts the city's tax revenues that so many buildings are owned by the federal government or non-profits. It is also a disgrace that most of the District east of the Anacostia is like something out of The Wire, but that is a rant for another day.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You've not been keeping tabs on TSA's expansion into the rail system, have you? (Which is another argument entirely, in fairness).

However, although I quite believe what you are saying is true (and I do like trains, a lot), you still have the problem that you have a few hundred thousand people on the Nimitz Freeway every day, and only a few thousand people a day flying from the Bay Area to LAX. The BART extension is set for a cost of about $6bn, while the California HSR link is somewhere around $42bn. You will quite simply get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck by focusing your spending on local mass transit, not intercity rail. Until local mass transit is up to speed, intercity rail is an inefficient excess.

There is a high speed rail link. Yes, I know, the Acela's figures on paper are pathetic compared to the established trainsets like France's TGV, but look at the practical application. TGV does not actually run at the 360mph it is capable of in trials. With the exception of the catenary restrictions, the Acela system is about as fast as can practically be expected (And ConnDOT is upgrading the line there). It is true that the 150mph line limit isn't as fast as the 200mph line limit of say, TGV, but the average compares quite well. The current Acela schedule for the 450 (road) miles from Boston to D.C. is just under 7 hours. The TGV Est line from Strasbourg to Le Mans is 350 (road) miles, and takes five hours. (Six, if you take the 06:10 which changes at CDG), which if you do the maths works out as 6.5 hours to cover the equivalent Boston/D.C. distance. Amtrak's only a quarter-hour slower than SNCF, and it's catching up as the line is getting upgraded. That isn't actually bad at all, and the NorthEast corridor actually makes money for Amtrak.

Is it as fast as Spain's Barcelona AVE? No, nowhere near. (3.7 hours equivalent) But given the urban density of the regions the NorthEast corridor travels, building a similar line is fiscally impossible.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the LA-SF issue - I see Orlando in the same way. There has to be a local rail system for the high-speed network to feed into.

And, yes, the Acela sucks, especially since you can pay $20 to take the Chinatown bus in 4 hours (versus over $100 to make it in 3). Admittedly, I am spoiled by my experience with the AVE.

kaiser sauze

Until defence is on the chopping block Teapublicans will never have any credibility with me. From a budget its size they could surely find $50Bn to cut?

Manic Moran

That's a 7.2% cut over last year's budget of $685bn, including war appropriations.

You make it sound so simple, but if I gave you a 7% cut in pay, would you find it easy to decide what to nix? It would certainly put a serious squeeze on my domestic finances. I'm not saying it can't be done, but what capabilities are you willing to lose to do it? Bear in mind that unlike programs like medicare, rail lines etc, only the Federal Government can fund and deal with matters related to Defence.

NTM

karma_

There is not much else to do other than laugh at these idiots. Constantly cutting infrastructure, education and Healthcare funding and on the other hand wasting 700 billion on military spending. It is not sustainable.

whiteonion

Military spending is just pork barell spending. Republicans don't want to use tax payers money for any social welfare but they don't mind spending money on war.

There is always money for war.

EastTexas

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

In fairness it's not just weapons and wars the US military spending is spent on. Like Manic Moran says above if some country just got raped by an earthquake that devastated the country or if China decided to go to town on Taiwan then you can bet your ass that the US would be sending a lot of man power, supplies and equipment at the drop of the hat. Then there's also the boatloads of cash they spend on R&D that the whole world benefits from (GPS, internet, space flight etc.). I'm not a big fan of the US with regards foreign policy but you have to hand it to them, their military spending does a lot of good in the world.

The US also secures many of the air and waterways which is to the benefit of many countries who’s economies depend on exports.
All aside that when something happens in the word or conflict erupts, we usually get the first call.
Taking issue with our defense budged is often just a roundabout way of complaining about our foreign policy.
Those are two completely separate subjects.

I have not problem with my tax dollars going to military spending, the military also being a sizable employer and champion of science, research and development on the private sector.
But don’t care to see large amounts wasted on welfare or bloated entitlement programs with unnecessary bureaucracy attached.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

Military spending is just pork barell spending. Republicans don't want to use tax payers money for any social welfare but they don't mind spending money on war.

There is always money for war.

Social welfare is not an investment in the future and well being of a country and its people.
It's probably the most corrosive thing you can do to the human spirit.
Training a society to wait for handouts instead of participating in the economy as a self-sufficient responsible human being.

whiteonion

EastTexas wrote: »

Social welfare is not an investment in the future and well being of a country and its people.
It's probably the most corrosive thing you can do to the human spirit.
Training a society to wait for handouts instead of participating in the economy as a self-sufficient responsible human being.

Yup bombing villagers in Pakistan and Afghanistan and wipe out entire families is what I call a "good investment".

The military has too much control in America. That is something you would expect out of a banana republic and that is what America is.

Manach

Whilst I'd believe that most military budgets can be trimmed by a % point or two , the benefits of having benevolent military hyper-power pays for itself. This is analogous to the Pax Britannica when (as the historian Neil Ferguson points out) British sea-power set standards and ensured safety to trade worldwide.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

Yup bombing villagers in Pakistan and Afghanistan and wipe out entire families is what I call a "good investment".

The military has too much control in America. That is something you would expect out of a banana republic and that is what America is.

Apparently the point went right over your head.
But that’s ok.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a 7.2% cut over last year's budget of $685bn, including war appropriations.

You make it sound so simple, but if I gave you a 7% cut in pay, would you find it easy to decide what to nix? It would certainly put a serious squeeze on my domestic finances. I'm not saying it can't be done, but what capabilities are you willing to lose to do it? Bear in mind that unlike programs like medicare, rail lines etc, only the Federal Government can fund and deal with matters related to Defence.

NTM

I'm not making it "sound simple", it is simple.

Out of a budget of $700Bn, which dwarfs all other departments apart from Medicare and Social Security, they can find $50Bn to cut.

Manic Moran

Right, and curing cancer sounds simple too. As does ' tightening your belt' when you get laos off. What capabilities are you willing to see lost, programmes cut, or commitments to allies abandoned? There have already been fairly large cuts with base closures, or procurement programs cut back. Ask the air force about F22 or the army about slamraam. Or the armour branch about fort knox.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and curing cancer sounds simple too. As does ' tightening your belt' when you get laos off. What capabilities are you willing to see lost, programmes cut, or commitments to allies abandoned? There have already been fairly large cuts with base closures, or procurement programs cut back. Ask the air force about F22 or the army about slamraam. Or the armour branch about fort knox.

NTM

Using cancer as a strawman is beneath you.

I would certainly like to see all these commitments to allies reviewed, are they all governed under signed treaties/agreements or are some of them coerced? Are they all really necessary?

I think a lot of the budgets pertaining to advanced weaponry could be reviewed, perhaps even should be. Think about it, your country already has the capability to wipe any country off the map using their nuclear capacity, and you also have the ability for more precise strikes using automated drones. I'm not saying that these things should remain the paragon of military technology, but is cloaking technology and ICBM capable satellites really necessary?

If you think that for one moment I am advocating paycuts on personnel you are mistaken.

whiteonion

I get the impression Manic_Moran works for the American military and therefore he would be opposed to all spending cuts for the military. He doesn't want to get the axe you know

whiteonion

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and curing cancer sounds simple too. As does ' tightening your belt' when you get laos off. What capabilities are you willing to see lost, programmes cut, or commitments to allies abandoned? There have already been fairly large cuts with base closures, or procurement programs cut back. Ask the air force about F22 or the army about slamraam. Or the armour branch about fort knox.

NTM

I think America should bring ALL troops home from every deployment, even peacekeeping ones.

America should have a more isolationist policy. The current policy of policing the world and pork barell spending on the military is insane.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

I think America should bring ALL troops home from every deployment, even peacekeeping ones.

America should have a more isolationist policy. The current policy of policing the world and pork barell spending on the military is insane.

Just to help you out with the terminology
In the US, the defense budged is not pork barrel spending.

“Pork Barrel” is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.

Examples of pork barrel spending in the US.
http://www.investinganswers.com/a/10-most-absurd-pork-barrel-spending-items-2010-1583

whiteonion

EastTexas wrote: »

Just to help you out with the terminology
In the US, the defense budged is not pork barrel spending.

“Pork Barrel” is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.

Examples of pork barrel spending in the US.
http://www.investinganswers.com/a/10-most-absurd-pork-barrel-spending-items-2010-1583

Lots of politicians represent military interests so obviously they will try their best to plunder the taxpayers so they can give away money to their military friends.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

Lots of politicians represent military interests so obviously they will try their best to plunder the taxpayers so they can give away money to their military friends.

Are you implying that there is a conspiracy amongst our politicians to purposely misname the Military Budget the Military Budget when it is actually something else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Are your taxes currently being plundered by those alleged perpetrators under that guise?

whiteonion

EastTexas wrote: »

Are you implying that there is a conspiracy amongst our politicians to purposely misname the Military Budget the Military Budget when it is actually something else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Are your taxes currently being plundered by those alleged perpetrators under that guise?

I'm privelieged enough not to live in the United States.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

I'm privelieged enough not to live in the United States.

Well goody for you.:)
Why the outrage then about our domestic tax policy, if I may ask?
Do you disapprove of other countries besides the US too on their tax policies?

whiteonion

EastTexas wrote: »

Well goody for you.:)
Why the outrage then about our domestic tax policy, if I may ask?
Do you disapprove of other countries besides the US too on their tax policies?

I disapprove of how most countries are run with the exception of decent places like Switzerland etc.

EastTexas

whiteonion wrote: »

I disapprove of how most countries are run with the exception of decent places like Switzerland etc.

That’s good to know.
Thank you

Manic Moran

whiteonion wrote: »

I disapprove of how most countries are run with the exception of decent places like Switzerland etc.

Cool. So you think a military budget which involves giving assault rifles to keep in your homes and conducts national competition with those assault rifles for ten-year-olds, not to mention funding things like local production of tanks, and training most everyone on how to fight are fine. Seems reasonable to me, so I'm glad we've found a point of agreement.

“Pork Barrel” is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.

In fairness, it does happen in the defence budget, but not in quite the traditional 'pork' manner. True pork is something totally unrelated, like a couple of million for the Sacramento Delta Smelt (fish) attached to a defence bill a year or two ago. But politicians are certainly not above diverting cash to their districts, a perfect example is Senator Boxer's (D-CA) successful push to purchase more C-17s than the Pentagon wanted, they're made in Southern California. This wasn't an additional rider expense, like the fish thing, but it did re-allocate funds away from what the Pentagon did want to spend it on.

Using cancer as a strawman is beneath you.

I can pick something else if you like. It's just something which we all know isn't easy, but describing the desired effect is.

Think about it, your country already has the capability to wipe any country off the map using their nuclear capacity, and you also have the ability for more precise strikes using automated drones. I'm not saying that these things should remain the paragon of military technology, but is cloaking technology and ICBM capable satellites really necessary?

Couldn't hurt. If I look at what's in my arms room right now, the vast majority of it dates from the Reagan era. From the rifles to the Bradleys, HMMWVs to missiles, most of it is of a basic design some thirty years old. As long as US military doctrine relies on technological overmatch, they have to stay ahead of the game, and though we don't like to admit it, other countries have caught up or overtaken us in a number of areas.

The big problem with the R&D budget isn't actually the R&D itself. It's the bureaucratic processes which go along with them. Proper oversight and accountability has become more important than the end product. In WWII, you could get a new tank from the drawing board and into production in about a year. The (thankfully) now-cancelled FCS program had a 25-year development and fielding program planned, making sure all the appropriate checks are checked. If politicians were a little less interested in grandstanding and holding hearings, maybe we could be a little more efficient.

The other plus on the large R&D budget is that it's one of the few military expenses which results in a tangible effect: Other countries purchase the systems as well, providing income. And, of course, you have the various offshoot benefits such as computers, lasers, and so on, which we don't often acknowledge to be products of military R&D.

get the impression Manic_Moran works for the American military and therefore he would be opposed to all spending cuts for the military. He doesn't want to get the axe you know

No, it's more a hobby for me. But I am well positioned to see where the money is going, at least at the pointy end.

America should have a more isolationist policy. The current policy of policing the world and pork barell spending on the military is insane.

OK, at least that's an actual policy which would result in reductions in military spending. I disagree that it is the correct thing to do, but you're not hand-waving, which is something.

NTM

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound so simple, but if I gave you a 7% cut in pay, would you find it easy to decide what to nix? It would certainly put a serious squeeze on my domestic finances. I'm not saying it can't be done, but what capabilities are you willing to lose to do it? Bear in mind that unlike programs like medicare, rail lines etc, only the Federal Government can fund and deal with matters related to Defence.

NTM

Here's the problem as I see it: part of why both the military and Medicare are so bloated is because they NEVER have to operate in a way that cuts cost and focuses more on efficiency. Just because there is less money to play around with doesn't mean that people can't get creative. Being treated as a sacred cow politically can make organizations flabby, and the military is no exception.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The big problem with the R&D budget isn't actually the R&D itself. It's the bureaucratic processes which go along with them. Proper oversight and accountability has become more important than the end product. In WWII, you could get a new tank from the drawing board and into production in about a year. The (thankfully) now-cancelled FCS program had a 25-year development and fielding program planned, making sure all the appropriate checks are checked. If politicians were a little less interested in grandstanding and holding hearings, maybe we could be a little more efficient.
NTM

This is actually the case with pretty much every government R&D process; academic researchers will tell you the same thing. You're also basically expected to know your outcomes before you've done anything. It's incredibly stupid - especially since, despite their many boondoggles, the Chinese government is basically telling researchers: here's a couple million dollars - go crazy!

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Couldn't hurt. If I look at what's in my arms room right now, the vast majority of it dates from the Reagan era. From the rifles to the Bradleys, HMMWVs to missiles, most of it is of a basic design some thirty years old. As long as US military doctrine relies on technological overmatch, they have to stay ahead of the game, and though we don't like to admit it, other countries have caught up or overtaken us in a number of areas.

Do you not find it incredible how a country that consistently spends so much on its military has been overtaken by countries who spend a much less than they do?

If that is not a damning indictment of misspending...

Manic Moran wrote: »

The big problem with the R&D budget isn't actually the R&D itself. It's the bureaucratic processes which go along with them. Proper oversight and accountability has become more important than the end product. In WWII, you could get a new tank from the drawing board and into production in about a year. The (thankfully) now-cancelled FCS program had a 25-year development and fielding program planned, making sure all the appropriate checks are checked. If politicians were a little less interested in grandstanding and holding hearings, maybe we could be a little more efficient.

I'm delighted you are aware of the bureaucratic and administrative overhang that pervades the budget. This is the same budget that regularly fails to get audits signed off on as noone will touch it.

Due to the lack of clear information, and clear accounts, let's argue that the $50Bn I suggested could be found in here. I would have no problem with dealing with it at this level and leaving the remaining budget as is.

spank_inferno

Belittling welfare expenditure as not being an investment in society is pretty short sighted at best.

But anyway...

One single AGM-Hellfire missile costs $65,000.

This same money could save a citizens live from a fatal cancer

Or.... the missile could just pancake some tin shack in Pakistan.

Manic Moran

Due to the lack of clear information, and clear accounts, let's argue that the $50Bn I suggested could be found in here. I would have no problem with dealing with it at this level and leaving the remaining budget as is

I can accept that. Might I suggest the problem be fixed first, before conducting the cuts? That way there's no loss of capability.

Do you not find it incredible how a country that consistently spends so much on its military has been overtaken by countries who spend a much less than they do?

In some ways, but in some ways it's also not surprising. The US's R&D budget covers a generally much wider range of technologies than any other country. So while Israel and Russia are well ahead of the US in, say active protection systems (things that shoot down RPGs/Missiles) and the US is only in a reasonable state of progress with APSs, the US's reasonable state of progress in submarine sonar technology is far ahead of that of Israel and Russia. It's developed into 'Jack of all trades, master of few'. Similarly, the Japanese arguably have the best tank in the world entering production (Type-10) but nobody's been able to build a better fighter than the US, even though the numbers have been dramatically cut back.

NTM

EastTexas

spank_inferno wrote: »

Belittling welfare expenditure as not being an investment in society is pretty short sighted at best.

But anyway...

One single AGM-Hellfire missile costs $65,000.

This same money could save a citizens live from a fatal cancer

Or.... the missile could just pancake some tin shack in Pakistan.

There are different types and understandings of welfare.
If somebody has fallen though the cracks for no fault of their own or even because of a fault of their own (we all make mistakes) then there should be a mechanism (type of welfare) to give them helping hand to get back on their feet and become self-sustaining.
Thus the most important component is opportunity for that person.

But to supply welfare (money) indefinitely as a career does not provide much of incentive to get back up on the horse.
IMHO over time would result in a certain percentage of a society to become complacent and no longer responsible for themselves.
Not something that should be encouraged and very unhealthy in the long run, as complacency only breeds more complacency increasingly relying on the state to take care of you at the taxpayer’s expense.
Therefore I consider the practice corrosive to a society over time or several generations.

It’s as much an issue of practicality as it is ideological.
And none of that has anything to do with the cost of hellfire missiles.

spank_inferno

Everything you said Texas is accurate.
I wouldn't disagree with any of it.

My point related to the relative merits of public expenditure.

America could halve its military expenditure and still outspend the rest of the world.

From a piss poor area of Ireland myself and I'm sickened by the level of inter-generational welfare dependence.
The best career option for young women in my town is to get pregnant so the state will take care of all their needs.

Having said that, given the choice of where my money went, I would cut military spending a lot before even considering cutting welfare.
Simply because though neither is ideal, one does have more merit than the other.


And besides, the taxpayers money is better used serving its citizens than the shareholders of companies like Lockheed-Martin (who received $38 billion from the taxpayer in 2009)

Overheal

spank_inferno wrote: »

And besides, the taxpayers money is better used serving its citizens than the shareholders of companies like Lockheed-Martin (who received $38 billion from the taxpayer in 2009)

which also employs 133,000 people and engineers some of the most modern aircraft of our time.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Cool. So you think a military budget which involves giving assault rifles to keep in your homes and conducts national competition with those assault rifles for ten-year-olds, not to mention funding things like local production of tanks, and training most everyone on how to fight are fine. Seems reasonable to me, so I'm glad we've found a point of agreement.

Oh Captain, my Captain, you would know better than I, for sure: Does Switzerland maintain a standing army, or just a small skeleton force that remains active, perhaps with an highly trained officer corps, relying on this relatively large inactive (but trained and armed) citizen army? If so, this Swiss military model must be less expensive than the US military model, where the US maintains a large standing military?

If I recall WWII, the Swiss (who were neutral) used this citizen army model back then, and were able to rapidly mobilize their citizens when they thought there might be a threat?

Further, I do not remember the Swiss getting much involved in foreign military actions in what, about 300 years? Very cost effective indeed.

If I recall, all healthy males in South Korea are required to enlist in their military for 3 years? I know a medical doctor in Seoul who was required to leave his surgery at the university hospital for 3 years active service. So South Korea must have a citizen army of sorts too, with this mandated military service for all males?

Perhaps if the US gave up their military industrial complex driven military model, pulled out of NATO and the Middle East, stopped trying to play world policeman, and adopted a less costly variation/synthesis of the Swiss and South Korean models, they could still keep their citizens safe, while at the same time reducing substantially their military budget, spending, and associated taxation on their citizens?

kaiser sauze

Black Swan wrote: »

Oh Captain, my Captain, you would know better than I, for sure: Does Switzerland maintain a standing army, or just a small skeleton force that remains active, perhaps with an highly trained officer corps, relying on this relatively large inactive (but trained and armed) citizen army? If so, this Swiss military model must be less expensive than the US military model, where the US maintains a large standing military?

If I recall WWII, the Swiss (who were neutral) used this citizen army model back then, and were able to rapidly mobilize their citizens when they thought there might be a threat?

Further, I do not remember the Swiss getting much involved in foreign military actions in what, about 300 years? Very cost effective indeed.

If I recall, all healthy males in South Korea are required to enlist in their military for 3 years? I know a medical doctor in Seoul who was required to leave his surgery at the university hospital for 3 years active service. So South Korea must have a citizen army of sorts too, with this mandated military service for all males?

Perhaps if the US gave up their military industrial complex driven military model, pulled out of NATO and the Middle East, stopped trying to play world policeman, and adopted a less costly variation/synthesis of the Swiss and South Korean models, they could still keep their citizens safe, while at the same time reducing substantially their military budget, spending, and associated taxation on their citizens?

Really well said, Sir.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

Perhaps if the US gave up their military industrial complex driven military model, pulled out of NATO and the Middle East, stopped trying to play world policeman, and adopted a less costly variation/synthesis of the Swiss and South Korean models, they could still keep their citizens safe, while at the same time reducing substantially their military budget, spending, and associated taxation on their citizens?

Perhaps, and this matter has been brought up earlier in the thread. However, those are not matters as much of fiscal policy as they are of national policy. I am fairly certain, for example, that if a proposal to function on the Swiss model were proposed in California, the good legislators of this State (and no small amount of the population) would sh*t bricks.

Further, the proposal is rather much along the lines of the Abrams Doctrine: That's why the majority of the Army's combat power is actually in the National Guard, not the regular Army. The idea is that the government does not likely take to warfare, as it requires prodigous use of the citizen-soldiers.

Now, the final point on 'where it should be used' is a policy decision which the Army has to be structured to meet. As I have said several times in the past, if you wish to have a cheaper, less expeditionary force, reducing the foreign commitments is a pre-requisite. You can't change the force structure and not the missions. So you are correct:

pulled out of NATO and the Middle East, stopped trying to play world policeman

It's a valid policy which would result in the ability to restructure to reduce costs. The question is whether or not it is a sensible policy given America's strategic interests abroad.

NTM

InTheTrees

>> Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. <<

Yay. Finally we can sell those pesky national parks to patriotic corporations who will know how to make some cash from them.

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

>> Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. <<

Yay. Finally we can sell those pesky national parks to patriotic corporations who will know how to make some cash from them.

Perhaps they mean office buildings.

Amerika

The United States government directly owns almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of the total US territory.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

The United States government directly owns almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of the total US territory.

The people of the United States own 650 million acres of land, which is kept in the safekeeping of their directly elected represenatives. America has some of the most stunning natural beauty on the planet and it amazes me that so many Americans are in favour of drilling for oil in such places of pristine natural beauty.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

The people of the United States own 650 million acres of land, which is kept in the safekeeping of their directly elected represenatives. America has some of the most stunning natural beauty on the planet and it amazes me that so many Americans are in favour of drilling for oil in such places of pristine natural beauty.

Hmmm... as the owner of 650 million acres, I (and I’m confident the majority of other owners) would like to drill for oil and natural gas, and mine for coal with proper reclamation efforts, on my land - as the price of oil continues to rise and the situation in the middle east gives reason for concern. From most of the studies I’ve read, the environmental impact could be kept to a bare minimum.

Manic Moran

After having driven across rural Nevada a few times, I wouldn't mind seeing a few oil derricks. At least it would make the scenery a little more interesting.

Of course, Nevada's mining country, not oil country.

NTM