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

[30ashopper]

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

It's not about the individual laws, it's about giving individuals more control over their lives by keeping decisions as local as possible. (But you already knew this..)

 

[Em]

off road vehicles using untaxed diesel fuel are illegal to drive on roads. There are huge fines if they are caught and the untaxed fuel has a color additive to make it easy to spot when checking.

I'm not defending idling rebates.

Who said anything about me being against minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws and such? I think you are trigger happy. Settle down. I simply said that the fed's used tax dollar allocation as carrots over states, making states basically jump on the fed's choices for those things, rather than each state making its own laws.

 

[Matt J]

off road vehicles using untaxed diesel fuel are illegal to drive on roads. There are huge fines if they are caught and the untaxed fuel has a color additive to make it easy to spot when checking.

I'm not defending idling rebates.

Who said anything about me being against minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws and such? I think you are trigger happy. Settle down. I simply said that the fed's used tax dollar allocation as carrots over states, making states basically jump on the fed's choices for those things, rather than each state making its own laws.

Read it again, it's a rebate for using taxed Diesel, as in the kind you can purchase at a gas station.

I'm not being trigger happy, you used the example of the US government withholding funding to enforce minimum drinking age and seat belt laws. The last thing that the US government threatened to withhold funding over was the standardization of the BAC for DUI's to be .08. I believe it was a valid question.

Further it's not just flat out withholding either, it's general a percentage of the total as a fine.

On October 23, 2000, President Clinton signed legislation that will require each state to pass .08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as the presumptive level of intoxication for driving, or lose a portion of their federal highway funding. States have until October 1, 2003, to pass a .08% BAC ?per se" law that would meet the provisions of an existing federal incentive grant or face the withholding of 2 percent of their federal highway construction funds, as part of the new .08% law. States that have not passed a .08% BAC law by October 1, 2004, will lose 4 percent of their federal highway construction funds. States without .08% BAC per se laws by October 1, 2005, will lose 6 percent of their federal highway construction funds, and on October 1, 2006, and each year thereafter, states without .08% BAC laws will lose 8 percent of their funds.

Again even the seat belt issue was only 2% and didn't even have a provision for an escalation due to non compliance.

Seat Belt Laws: Still Hazy After All These Years | Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

The minimum drinking age was lowered in 1984 with the highest penalty of 10%.

National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After being here for several spring breaks I can state without reservation that this country is not ready for 16 year-olds to be considered legal drinking age.

I'm not jumping the gun I'm just pointing out that your original statement was incorrect in the assumption that US government imposes it's will by threatening to withhold funding. Perhaps the statement would be more accurate that the Federal government imposes standardization by withholding small amounts of funding. If a state doesn't want to lower is BAC to .08 then they loose some highway funding, not all. It's a choice that each state would have to make and after watching several states refuse stimulus money I don't see why it's such a big deal?

 

[Bob Wells]

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.

I agree, then rather than trying to figure out what to cut, we should look at how we can change the way things operate in our seats of Government. I do understand how our government operates, some I like some not so much. When the leadership in the House and Senate at the National and State level dictate to those we send to represent us, the way they are to represent us then it is screwed up. So Brad, Marti, Jimmy, Don, Little Gaetz, Evers and the like, remember you are there to represent the folks that put you there and you should consider what is in the best inyerest of the electorate who put you there and not the Leadership of your party. That goes for the Dems also.

 

[Matt J]

I agree, then rather than trying to figure out what to cut, we should look at how we can change the way things operate in our seats of Government. I do understand how our government operates, some I like some not so much. When the leadership in the House and Senate at the National and State level dictate to those we send to represent us, the way they are to represent us then it is screwed up. So Brad, Marti, Jimmy, Don, Little Gaetz, Evers and the like, remember you are there to represent the folks that put you there and you should consider what is in the best inyerest of the electorate who put you there and not the Leadership of your party. That goes for the Dems also.

So if there is this huge backlash against representative's who don't listen to their constituents then why were Jimmy and Marti elected in such land slides? Does that issue become moot when the other side isn't as far right leaning?

 

[Bob Wells]

Because folks want to be and R or a D over and independent thinker.

 

[Joefromseagrove]

Reward Public employees

Implement at all levels of government a reward system for public employees who suggest cost saving measures. (example: Janitor suggests turning up the AC at the county building at night saving the county 15k in electricity, rewarded with a $1500.00 bonus)

 

[GoodWitch58]

it's a good idea and the State of Florida has had such a program for the last 20 years or so:
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/05062008nrPruDPA.pdf
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/2010NominationsAnnouncementforWeb.pdf

 

[scooterbug44]

Courtesy of Canoehead, a graphic breakdown of the difference ($36.6 billion) between the Republican and Democrat plans by income groups. They seem very close until you get to the high income bracket.

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans

 

[Matt J]

I guess the new level for the RNC is $500,000.00+ to play.