Suggestions for how to reduce spending, balance the budget, and pay off the deficit

[Bob Wells]

So what's an earmark and if we don't tell federal agencies how to spend the money then how do we know what we are paying for?

For example, if the President allocates $4.881 billion dollars to the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to "do their job," is that an earmark? How about if the President allocates the following amounts in the following accounts:

$1.69B for Construction
$2.361B for Operations and Maintenance
$240M for Miss. River and Tributaries
$30M for Flood Control and Emergencies
$104M for Investigations
$193M for Regulatory
$185M for Expenses
$6M for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
$130M for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
-$58M for Cancellation of unobligated expenses

Is the above earmarking or programmatic funding? Or are they the same?

To take it to it's lowest level, the President also directs monies to projects and programs that his administration through the Office of Management and Budget have decided are in the Nation's interest. (I won't get into the details of their decision-making process as it is very confusing). For example, the Administration believes that $7M of the Operations & Maintenance Account should be allocated for the National Coastal Mapping Program. The Senate believes it should be $9.5M while the House says $0. The Corps themselves say that they need $13M. Is this an earmark?

My point is there are some programs that are earmarks and a number of agencies (such as the Corps) that work like a consulting firm where there positions are funded through project or program-specific earmarking. There is no annual allocation for all staff- it's project or program driven so without specific direction (i.e. earmarking) the system fails. Or we could just write the Corps a check for $4.881 Billion and tell them to "do their job."

Before we say that's ok we need to remember that many of these programs and project's that are critical to the nation's economy and defense (i.e. maintenance of ports and harbors for commerce). These are two areas where R's and D's (and maybe even 30A Shopper) agree that we need to invest.

The current dialogue of " wholesale banning earmarks" by elected officials as a way to reduce expenditures is not realistic in some instances but my explanation would get lost in the 24 hour news cycle. The reality of "banning earmarks" only allows the Executive Branch to determine where the money is spent when the Constitution says that it is Congress' job? So the real question is where are those Constitutional Conservatives now? Do they want to give that responsibility to the Executive Branch.

I hope the Transportation example by Rep. Mica and the Corps example I wrote about shows that the issue is much more complex than the 30-second soundbite that gets people elected.

Those earmarks used to build John Murtha's airport and the like. Usually those that are considered pork pbarrel projects that are inserted into the budgets and are there because someone needs a vote for something else. As Forrest Gump said " That's all I have to say about that".

 

[BeachSiO2]

Those earmarks used to build John Murtha's airport and the like. Usually those that are considered pork pbarrel projects that are inserted into the budgets and are there because someone needs a vote for something else. As Forrest Gump said " That's all I have to say about that".

And I think many people would agree with you. The problem is that few want to do the hard job of evaluating spending requests on merit versus taking the easy road of "banning all earmarks." Most people don't realize that earmarks totaled $15.9B in the fiscal year that ended September 30, which was about 1% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. If you add in the non-discretionary portion then it was much less than 1% of the total budget. This is a case of let's go after the "symbolic" cuts instead of straightening what's truly impacting our financial house. Here's another article with arguments for earmarking from some fairly conservative Senate republican's.

Sen. Inhofe on warpath against earmark ban - TheHill.com

 

[Matt J]

I think we could definitely greatly reduce our presence, but obviously will still need to have bases in certain locations just for logistics - fueling etc.

Sharing bases with allies could help cut down costs and redundancy.

That's true, but we don't have military bases in 177 countries. It was kind of joke. We do have a military presence in 177 countries if you count the Marines guarding our embassy's.

 

[Bob Wells]

And I think many people would agree with you. The problem is that few want to do the hard job of evaluating spending requests on merit versus taking the easy road of "banning all earmarks." Most people don't realize that earmarks totaled $15.9B in the fiscal year that ended September 30, which was about 1% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. If you add in the non-discretionary portion then it was much less than 1% of the total budget. This is a case of let's go after the "symbolic" cuts instead of straightening what's truly impacting our financial house. Here's another article with arguments for earmarking from some fairly conservative Senate republican's.

Sen. Inhofe on warpath against earmark ban - TheHill.com

In my opinion, this is a perfect place to start. With it being 1% of the whole it starts with a small peeble into a large pond and ripples outward. What I am saying it could be an easy start. If I was in serious debt and bankruptcy was NOT an option how would I go about reducing my debt. Start small and work my way to the bigger ones. We the people say we want cuts, until it affect our pet projects. These are the areas I would start to cut, Grants, Museums, Libraries, Loans to foriegn countries, The UN, NPR, PBS, not because they are not worthy of our support but because before I begin to change SS and Medicare, I am going to reduce spending on the pictures I put in my house and what I see on TV. I am going to get my house in order before I continue to help someone else get their house in order. Old saying I heard, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for life. Areas I would not cut, Military, Education, Infastructure. I know those of you who think Education should be cut, and I don't have the answer to fix it, but until I or someone else does I am not willing to see it go bye bye. Some suggested compulsory service and I almost agree, and am still mulling it over as to my veiw.

 

[Andy A]

To paraphrase Evertt Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money. There are better ways to distribute federal funds to the states and congressional districts. Grants for specific projects when the projects have been justified, block grants to the states to be used at their discretion would be a good start.

 

[Smiling JOe]

FF2, as I was saying, and beachsio2 is saying, cutting earmarks doesn't cut the budget. It only removes particular politicians from saying how the money is spent.

 

[GoodWitch58]

In my opinion, this is a perfect place to start. With it being 1% of the whole it starts with a small peeble into a large pond and ripples outward. What I am saying it could be an easy start. If I was in serious debt and bankruptcy was NOT an option how would I go about reducing my debt. Start small and work my way to the bigger ones. We the people say we want cuts, until it affect our pet projects. These are the areas I would start to cut, Grants, Museums, Libraries, Loans to foriegn countries, The UN, NPR, PBS, not because they are not worthy of our support but because before I begin to change SS and Medicare, I am going to reduce spending on the pictures I put in my house and what I see on TV. I am going to get my house in order before I continue to help someone else get their house in order. Old saying I heard, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for life. Areas I would not cut, Military, Education, Infastructure. I know those of you who think Education should be cut, and I don't have the answer to fix it, but until I or someone else does I am not willing to see it go bye bye. Some suggested compulsory service and I almost agree, and am still mulling it over as to my veiw.

according to the Center for Resonsive Politics Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets there are 237 millionaires in Congress.
If we are talking "small cuts" then, we could start with having each member of Congress pay for their Health Insurance the same way everyone else does. Most companies/organizations pay a portion of the insurance premium; the employee pays the rest.
Is there any reason the taxpayers should be paying for members of Congress health benefits? I don't think so. I have no idea how much money this would come to; but, I think it would send a strong message if the people demanded their elected officials to share in the cost of their own (and their families) health care.

 

[CampCreekLou]

Looking at the 2008 federal budget, sans social security and medicare/medicaid:

total revenue: 2.0 trillion (includes the wars)
total spending: 1.7 trillion

If we could get back to that level of general spending, we'd be a great shape.

With SS and medicare thrown in, SS surpluses cancel out medicare short falls, so we were still about 300 billion short. That could be fixed by increased cuts, or even, some slight tax increases on the wealthy, ss reform, medicare reform, etc..

But first we have to get things under control. We also need to figure out how to fund ObamaCare, which is going to seriously jack our spending levels up in 2014. That's the next big crisis on the horizon. (As if we needed another.)

2.0 Trillion Dollars is enough, so we don't have to worry about raising any tax rates.

Cut the over 300 Billion Dollars listed in the aforementioned Heritage.org article.

Repeal ObamaCare (1 Trillion Dollars right there!)
(enact tort reform, cross-state purchasing, etc...... if you want)

Start the transition from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system - staving off the bankruptcy of SS.

 

[CampCreekLou]

To paraphrase Evertt Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money. There are better ways to distribute federal funds to the states and congressional districts. Grants for specific projects when the projects have been justified, block grants to the states to be used at their discretion would be a good start.

You are absolutely right. But let's challenge the premise. Why should we have the Federal Government distribute funds at all?

For example, transfer all responsibility for roads to the states, and let them keep the federal gas tax generated in their state. No earmark problems, to Bridge To Nowheres, states keep their own roads up, no Museums To Benefit Senator Standing, etc.

If you want, shutter the Department of Education, along with repealing all unfunded federal education mandates, like No Child Left Behind. Reduce the federal tax rates, let the states keep their money.

Bold solutions are needed. We don't have much time. We've added 5 Trillion Dollars of debt over the past fives years, we need to take the money and spending out of the federal government's hands.

 

[Matt J]

You are absolutely right. But let's challenge the premise. Why should we have the Federal Government distribute funds at all?

For example, transfer all responsibility for roads to the states, and let them keep the federal gas tax generated in their state. No earmark problems, to Bridge To Nowheres, states keep their own roads up, no Museums To Benefit Senator Standing, etc.

If you want, shutter the Department of Education, along with repealing all unfunded federal education mandates, like No Child Left Behind. Reduce the federal tax rates, let the states keep their money.

Bold solutions are needed. We don't have much time. We've added 5 Trillion Dollars of debt over the past fives years, we need to take the money and spending out of the federal government's hands.

One of the simplest reasons is that you'll have roads that end at state lines. This was literally one of the reasons for the creation of our nations highway system. That and to prevent states from erecting giant toll plazas at the border.