Following the fiscal cliff debacle, we heard Republican politicians recite the claim that they would, first, demand federal budget cuts and, second, demand that President Obama provide specific cuts in that federal budget for our next federal ‘crisis’, the debt limit extension. There are only two problems with that. Obama will never provide specific cuts now; the opportunity for that ended this week. As well, nobody who has examined Republican politicians this century can reasonably argue that they actually believe in spending cuts, other than cutting Big Bird. That’s fine, I guess. But, assuming that someone, anyone, in the GOP wants to win a quadrennial election in the near future, they must present a reasonable alternative to the Democrats.
what we can typically anticipate in the near future is that Republicans will name some trivial cuts that they know that Democrats won’t accept (can you say Planned Parenthood), the Democrats will say no, and politicians of both parties will then go on cable news to pretend that they care. So, I’ve come up with some suggestions that might help them out. The following list are some spending cuts and one tax increase that House Republicans should consider if they want people to believe that they have an articulate vision for the federal government in the 21st century. Each of these could become law, I think, if Republicans actually cared about them.
• Get rid of the Medicare expansion that was enacted during Bush2’s tenure. I understand why well-off older people would want government to subsidize all of their medical costs; why Republicans somehow believe that this is a government function bewilders me. If people want insurance, buy it themselves…even if they’re old.
• Cut the defense budget. How silly is it that Republicans continually argue that government is bloated and inefficient, except for the biggest government department. The real rationale for keeping the defense budget high is that most bases are located in the South. So, in effect, this is just pork barrel spending.
• Get rid of almost all agricultural subsidies and other corporate subsidies. Virtually all of this money goes to big corporations. It might be nice if the USA, the bastion of free market enterprise, allows major companies the opportunity to stand on their own two feet.
• Greatly reduce federal involvement in public education. The purpose of this is so that the rest of the country subsidizes schools in the part of the nation that doesn’t believe in education as a public good. Well, one of the better things about a federal system is that, if you want to live in a place where people can add and subtract, and read and write, you can. If you want to live in a place where football is king, you can. If you really want your kids to learn, move.
• Finally, the tax increase. Currently, the maximum earned income for Social Security taxation is $110,000. What sense does this make? After a decade of the GOP inferring that the only tax people actually pay is income tax, and right after Social Security deductions for most people have taken place, now is the time to do this.
I have other favorites, of course. I despise that our foreign aid is merely a way for us to prop up socialist/terrorist/outlaw nations, for example. But this is actually only a small piece of government spending. I also don’t understand why airports get so much federal money. Down here, for example, we have two airports that are both pretty nice, both built almost exclusively with federal money, and both of which are nice, secluded places to read since there are so few flights. If you want to add your own cuts, feel free. All I would ask is that they actually involve real money, not Big Bird money.









January 6th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
“• Cut the defense budget. How silly is it that Republicans continually argue that government is bloated and inefficient, except for the biggest government department. The real rationale for keeping the defense budget high is that most bases are located in the South. So, in effect, this is just pork barrel spending.”
True, but theres also a huge amount of job loss connected to cutting defense budgets.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/2 a million.
And yeah, getting rid of agriculture and farm subsidies would be a huge start as ethanol is nothing more than a siphon for an alternative fuel thats probably the worst one weve ever seen.
Theres no shortage of people who like to eat. Theres no reason any retarded farmer couldnt make it in what is a very secure and viable market.
January 6th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
I hear ya, mick; I don’t want to eliminate the defense dept, just bring it down to around pre-9/11 levels.
January 6th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Well, I dont think anyone thinks pre 911 intel collection didnt need improvement, then theres inflation blah blah blah.
Even if we cut back hardware,subsidies, presence in some countries and troops we’ll prolly need to stay at the levels were now.
Foe a long time now I’ve wondered why we dont do what Israel does which is to require every citizen to be trained in some military capacity and then be an on call reserve.
The proof in this system working is plain to see in their small but incredibly efficient military.
If I’m correct its the Israelis who at certain points instruct our troops/operatives on counter terror techniques.
January 6th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
I agree with you completely on that point. I think that there are 2 reasons why we don’t have universal service. First, with everyone having to serve, we couldn’t have a decade long war without the nation’s outrage. Remember Nam, where for the last 5 years of the war, every candidate said that they wanted it over with. Second, it’s a lot easier to call for war if nobody you love ever is possibly going to fight in it. I read once that only 2 Congressman had kids who enlisted for Iraq and Afghanistan…not officers, regular soldiers.
January 6th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
I dont think anyone older than 45 could forget the whole “Abbie Hoffman/David Miller/burned draft card/moved to Canada” deal.
An investment in a universal force would be an actual and real investment that would make sense both in economic terms and security preparedness.
January 6th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Well put, Arriba. Also glad you said it.
When I mention defense cuts it is somehow blasphemous.
It is true that Republicans don’t really want to cut anything substantial (especially if it might affect their electorate). Well, except for things that are translated as, “I am tired of these moochers enjoying benefits that I worked hard for”. Let’s face it, that is the basis of much of the spending rhetoric on RP.
Defense cuts? This is the first time I have viewed that on this site other than from the commenter’s that are generally branded as “idiots” or “morons”.
You are also correct on another issue. If there was mandatory service and/or a draft we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago. It is so easy to send other people’s children to war.
Are we in danger of imminent attack from any force that requires a military that is constructed like what have now? It is called “Defense”.
January 6th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
The truth is that most people are in favor of cutting, as long as it’s not the areas that interest them. And the cores of both parties know that cutting risks votes, particularly in this culture that has become incredibly hedonistic. Of course, the democrats have the advantage because they cater to the fiscally imprudent voter, the one that doesn’t care as long as it doesn’t come from their pocket.
So, no meaningful cuts are going to be done willingly; but there’s no free lunch: cuts will be forced by the collapse of the economy due mainly to excessive debt.
The remaining questions are: how the house of cards will fall? Hyperinflation? Initial deflation? Massive stock fall? China will invade? Severe funding collapse for both defense and entitlement programs? All of the above? We’ll see.
January 6th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
“Of course, the democrats have the advantage because they cater to the fiscally imprudent voter, the one that doesn’t care as long as it doesn’t come from their pocket.”
As opposed to the GOP, whose constituency is happy to open their wallets?
Where does hedonism fit in?
January 6th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Come on, buzz, don’t play the naive card. Dems couldn’t even approve a budget.
Hedonism: “The ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life.” Very fitting description of those that, when facing the need of decisions that might affect their ability of spending recklessly on their wants, they’d rather confiscate others’ wealth to fund their spending spree.
January 6th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Wow! That is some significant literary license you employ to the definition of a word.
January 6th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
“You are also correct on another issue. If there was mandatory service and/or a draft we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago. It is so easy to send other people’s children to war.
Are we in danger of imminent attack from any force that requires a military that is constructed like what have now? It is called “Defense”.”
With our present volunteer force theres no one sending anyones kids anywhere.
With a mandatory draft someone in effect is in fact sending someones kid to war.
In a universal force such as Israels every able bodied “adult” is required at some point to contribute and on retainer for emergencies.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we are in less imminent danger is because we have the finest military on the planet ?
Has it occurred to you that without our presence in certain regions all hell would break loose ?
Military efficiency and expediency can be weighed in varying methods, such as with Afghanistan.
We should of just nuked a couple key hot spots and catch the remaining roaches at the borders.
I have no doubt there would of been a lot less casualties than weve seen in these 10 years and any other country thinking of harboring terrorists would no doubt think twice.
Only a simpleton thinks its all about our borders being breeched by another military.
January 6th, 2013 at 5:58 pm
“As opposed to the GOP, whose constituency is happy to open their wallets?”
Yup, you gotta remember, most on the right dont want military cuts and have less problem supporting our troops/military by whatever means.
Conservatives are also the most charitable of any demographic be it thru the church or private charity
January 6th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
“We should of just nuked a couple key hot spots and catch the remaining roaches at the borders.”
And “I’m” the simpleton?
Yeah, let’s put that one to a vote.
January 6th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
You certainly proved the point also that if I had said what Arriba had stated you would have been name-calling in a minute. You sure are selective about your contrarianism.
By the way, I am sure the world appreciates our thankless role as unpaid policeman.
Blowing trillions on endless wars. I don’t know how people can be so angry about social programs, but that doesn’t bother them at all.
It is as I said on another comment, “Darn it, I don’t want people mooching off of me (even if they truly need it)”.
How many people do you have that rail against Obamacare and when you ask them if they have health insurance they say they do not.
Priceless.
January 6th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Buzz, you might trip all you want on one word in a vain attempt to hide from the truth of what was said, that’s your (much abused) right.
But I expected from you at least the intellectual honesty of recognizing that people against spending controls take refuge usually on your party. I mean, that was precisely the argument used against the Tea Party. Clearly I overestimated you; please excuse me for forgetting you troll much more than I expected, I’ll to keep it in mind from now one.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
The GOP loves to talk about spending controls, but they are very selective about which ones.
A good example (although both parties are guilty on this one); the Army told Congress we have more tanks than they need and 2000 more sitting in the desert that they don’t want to fix or refubish. Why? They simply don’t need them unless the Manginot Line is breached again.
Now this is the Army saying this and they are not exactly known for turning down money or equipment.
Congress, however, in their infininite wisdom, decided the Army was wrong and keeps funding tank production.
Why? Because defense contractors are in their districts.
The Army said they could save $3 billion over three years if they would stop shoving tanks down their throat.
What did Congress do? Approriates $170 million for tank production next year.
Oh, and guess how many tanks you get for that amount? 70.
That is why cries for spending cuts are hollow. As long as it effects “other” people it is fine, but all you hear is curtailing social programs. Defense cuts? Not on my watch.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:20 pm
It’s Ok, you can count on the Tea Party to again hold the country hostage when the debt ceiling expires because they have demonstrated they have no qualms about bringing the world economy to its needs for one simple reason.
To make a point!
January 6th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
“Yeah, let’s put that one to a vote.”
It worked on the Japanese whose Bushido doctrine of Samurai was as formidable as todays radical Islam.
And yeah, it was democrat who pushed that button.Arriba and agree on where spending should be cut but simultaneously keeping viable manpower in stock.
You made no such suggestion til after the fact or in any of our previous debates.
We also understand the loss of a half million jobs which you’ve not touched on yet.
Your argument that our shores are not threatened is in fact the wrong narrative here, and a stupid argument at that it doesnt address half the reasons why our military may be too bloated.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:35 pm
“t’s Ok, you can count on the Tea Party to again hold the country hostage when the debt ceiling expires because they have demonstrated they have no qualms about bringing the world economy to its needs for one simple reason.
To make a point!”
And you can count on your messiah to against his word and raise it.
So spare me this bullsht that were somehow committed to a new ceiling when none of the others were paid for yet.
How can you have a freaking debt ceiling when you’ve got no freaking money or budget ?
God forbid we just fcking once fallowed the rules of simple mathematical economics.
We could start by not giving things to people who dont live here or belong here.
No more money for middle eastern flip flopping dictators and no more handouts to millions of illegals that cost us a trillion every 3 years.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
typing in the dark, sorry
January 6th, 2013 at 8:46 pm
The second bomb was dropped in case the Soviets didn’t think we had more than one and the wherewithal to drop them.
So you think that tossing around “a few” nuclear bombs was the right solution in Afghanistan?
Unbelievable.
January 6th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Clearly it would be more cost effective to use them. After all, they are just big bombs. We do pay for them for some reason.
We should have taken our medicine now and gone over the fiscal cliff. Americans can handle a recession, and our kids would have thanked us later for making life better for them. This is the first generation that has a bleak future thanks to two generations of selfish liberals and their ginormous spending. And we are enabling them to continue ruining the future.
January 7th, 2013 at 6:42 am
I believe the reason we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki was because the Japanese government did not surrender after Hiroshima. Given how badly we had already blasted away at their infrastructure and such, they really did not know what happened for a few days. Even after Nagasaki it was about nine days before Japan finally threw in the towel.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:04 am
“Clearly it would be more cost effective to use them. After all, they are just big bombs. We do pay for them for some reason.”
My only hope is that you are half-kidding.
They are not just “big bombs”. You know, radioactivity and all that.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:38 am
“So you think that tossing around “a few” nuclear bombs was the right solution in Afghanistan?
Unbelievable.”
Wow, thats the most riveting comeback ever.
No detail, no factual rebuttal other than a hypothetical to the Soviets.
The irrefutable “FACT” is that after Nagasaki the Japanese surrendered.
After Hiroshima the Soviets were still pushing Japan out of China.
It sure as hell didnt stop the Soviets from building their own nukes, establishing a threat played out in a cold war.
And no, not all nukes are gargantuan.
They come with many variable applications and sizes.
They took out 3000 of our citizens in practically no time.
The least we could of done was to return the favor in the same timely expeditious manner.
Had we done this instead of playing whackamole its safe to say that Yemen,Iran and every other state sponsor of terrorism would give much more thought to harboring or hosting these radical groups.
So Buzz,even though the ploy you speak of was fruitless, if the second bomb was in fact a deterrent to the Soviets would that not be just as sensible an application to other threats ?