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

[Matt J]

Why don't we speed up the process even further and not include tax cuts. I understand that people will take a hit, especially those with mortgages and babies, but why don't politicians understand that while taxes are part of the budget they are at the top under income and not further down under expenditures.

 

[30ashopper]

Reasonable stuff. Which is exactly why it'll go absolutely no where fast.

 

[Matt J]

Reasonable stuff. Which is exactly why it'll go absolutely no where fast.

Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.

 

[30ashopper]

A complete set of bullet points here:

The President's Debt Commission Proposal ? Something to Offend Everyone: Doctors, Lawyers, Even Indian Chiefs - Political Punch

 

[BeachSiO2]

But if no earmarks are allowed, then no politician gets to decide how any money is spent. Example, if you want a museum and the citizens want the Feds to fund it but there are rule forbidding anyone from Congress from placing in the budget then thats money saved. In my mind this seems simple.

What about if the President wants it? He is a POLITICIAN. It seems simple, but that's not how it works. Almost all projects and programs are allocated money by a politician. For example, the Civil Works Program is funded almost 100% by funds "earmarked" for specific purposes. The question is which politician do you want allocating those dollars- the President in February via his budget (and relatively no public oversight or participation) or Congress through votes on the 12 appropriation bills after numerous hours of subcommittee and committee meetings?

If you think the negotiations for Health Care Reform were done outside of the public realm then try to participate in the development of the President's earmark package (i.e. his budget). A huge aspect that everyone seems to miss is that this will make the allocation of their tax dollars less transparent than ANY time in history.

The Constitution says it should be the Congress and I happen to agree. Some Congressmen and women are now saying it's the President (whether they realize it or not). Eliminating earmarks does not necessarily eliminate projects as we will still need our ports maintained for commerce and defense which are national priorities. I believe that there should be more transparency in federal expenditures and the only way to achieve that is through an open and deliberative process in Congress. Below are some earmark reforms that are being proposed that I think would aid in the process.

Coalition Releases Principles for Reforming Earmarks Process ? Sunlight Foundation Blog

Banning all earmarks will not get rid of projects and lower the budget. What they will do is move from being Congressionally-directed to Presidentially-directed and thus "less transparent" through the development of the President's budget.

 

[scooterbug44]

Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.

Heck, they are talking about it not even moving out of the 14 person committee!

 

[30ashopper]

Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.

Kinda of sad, but probably true.

This has just about everything we've been talking about in it. Maybe the american people will get behind it.

 

[Em]

You might want to look into the Florida Gas Tax. It's not a Federal only tax. In fact your division is almost how it works currently. Some Metro areas have higher taxes for local road projects as well.

The state could save money by removing some of the ridiculous exemptions:

FL Dept Rev - Fuel Taxes

Diesel fuel used for off-road or other exempt purposes.
Diesel fuel used by motor coaches during idle time.

You can actually get refunds on the tax for these. :shock:

I know it sounds rather crazy, but why should off road vehicles, such as tractors, be required to pay for roads? They are exempt from taxes because they don't cause wear and tear on the roads, which is the government's justification for charging taxes on fuel.

At first thought, idle time for motor coaches also sounds crazy, but they aren't tearing up the road when they are idle. I'm sure there is a lobbyist first somewhere which pushed that one through.

And so you would end up with 50 independent countries..instead of the United States.

No, you would end up with 50 States, each with their own rules, but coming together for some expenditures such as defense -- The USA was founded on this same style, but the federal gov't has been changing the power/authority of the fed gov't over the years by witholding funds from states if states don't comply with things such as minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws, etc.

 

[Smiling JOe]

But if no earmarks are allowed, then no politician gets to decide how any money is spent. Example, if you want a museum and the citizens want the Feds to fund it but there are rule forbidding anyone from Congress from placing in the budget then thats money saved. In my mind this seems simple.

Watch it now, you are starting to sound like a reasonable person. I think the way you describe it sounds like it makes sense, but our gov't doesn't operate quite that way. Two years ago, I, also thought that earmarks should be kicked to the curb. Then, I did more research and discovered that it really won't matter as the money will still be spent. The way I understand it, which may be incorrect, is that instead of money going to certain projects, crammed in bills, the money would go to appropriations where the appropriations committee would decide where to send that money, which comes right back to the politicians with the most pull/connections.

I'm no expert on this, but the more I learn about the systems and hoops in gov't, the more I realize it's a big game of who's who.

 

[Matt J]

I know it sounds rather crazy, but why should off road vehicles, such as tractors, be required to pay for roads? They are exempt from taxes because they don't cause wear and tear on the roads, which is the government's justification for charging taxes on fuel.

Let's look at South Walton, there are many roads that are unpaved, but the county is still responsible for grating them. The forest roads were recently maintained by the state by adding gravel. Assuming that pavement isn't involved makes a vehicle exempt is pretty narrow.

At first thought, idle time for motor coaches also sounds crazy, but they aren't tearing up the road when they are idle. I'm sure there is a lobbyist first somewhere which pushed that one through.

How does one prove they were idling and for how long? That exemption is basically a built in subsidy for motor coach operators.

No, you would end up with 50 States, each with their own rules, but coming together for some expenditures such as defense -- The USA was founded on this same style, but the federal gov't has been changing the power/authority of the fed gov't over the years by witholding funds from states if states don't comply with things such as minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws, etc.

So you're against minimum drinking age requirements, seatbelt laws, and a .08 BAC for DUI's?

Defense isn't the only large scale expense that this country has that would necessitate the states coming together. For some reason this idea of states fending for themselves sounds great, but how would you feel if all of the states unaffected by hurricanes gave Florida the finger after a major hurricane, or states unaffected by the Mississippi flooding chose not to help. The scenarios in which states would basically turn their backs on neighbors is endless and I feel more comfortable with the current system (which does need tweaking) than a system of really hoping your neighbor isn't mad at you or broke.