# Common Sense Budget Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2006, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802 "2006-03-10T06:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/1 "2006-03-10T06:48:27Z")
[This bill](http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/csba/) sure sounds great to me! Short version: It would take $60 billion from the $442 billion defense budget, all from programs that are arguably obsolete. It would spend the money on things like public education, child health plans, homeland security, greater energy independence, deficit reduction, etc. Does it have the slightest chance of passing? And for those who oppose it, why? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/2 "2006-03-10T07:57:24Z")
Well, fro what I know of American politics, I doubt it. Taking money from the military is bad enough, but to spend it on helping the less fortunate… EEK! Communist saboteur! [/cheap shot] ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/3 "2006-03-10T09:40:05Z")
There are acres of wasted money in the Defense budget. There is lots of wasted money in any big budget. That being said, all that wasted money seems really, really vital to some constituency. The V-22 is protected by the Massachusetts delegation, the DD(X) by Maryland, California, Maine and Louisiana. SDI? Want to fight with Alaska and California? Meanwhile of course, everyone is for Education. So long as you do not cut my favorite defense program of course. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/4 "2006-03-10T13:48:12Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Meanwhile of course, everyone is for Education. Except me, I guess. Federal education spending is completely unecessarry and totally ineffective at doing anything to help actually educate kids. The amount of money being spent has gone up astronomically over the past decade and we have nothing to show for it. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/5 "2006-03-10T14:04:53Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Except me, I guess. Federal education spending is completely unecessarry and totally ineffective at doing anything to help actually educate kids. The amount of money being spent has gone up astronomically over the past decade and we have nothing to show for it. You must have a rosier view of the current state of education in this country than I do if you think that it’s completely unnecessary. If it’s ineffective, maybe we should be finding better ways to apply it. I don’t see how it could be a better alternative to have the federal government do _nothing_ while there are local govenments that can’t afford to maintain decent schools. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/6 "2006-03-10T14:09:53Z")
Also, on what are you basing your claim that we have nothing to show for it? You can say with certainty that things are exactly as bad off as they would be if the federal government hadn’t spent any money on education? Moreover, you’re certain there’s no way federal money could be applied that would benefit the schools at all? How’s it really any different than money from local govenment? (Other than the fact that the federal government isn’t as poor as some localities.) So far as I know, money is money no matter where it comes from – what matters is how it’s being spent. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/7 "2006-03-10T14:16:06Z")
My point is that you don’t improve education by increasing funding for it. All the evidence from the past couple of decades, where education spending at local, state, and national levels has increased dramatically, shows that there is no connection between student improvement and more money. Since the federal government only provides around 9% of the education funding for the nation, and since that funding comes with a variety of rules and regulations and does nothing to actually improve education achievement, I think we could safely dispense with it and see little or no decline in our educational results. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/8 "2006-03-10T14:44:34Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > My point is that you don’t improve education by increasing funding for it. All the evidence from the past couple of decades, where education spending at local, state, and national levels has increased dramatically, shows that there is no connection between student improvement and more money. > > Since the federal government only provides around 9% of the education funding for the nation, and since that funding comes with a variety of rules and regulations and does nothing to actually improve education achievement, I think we could safely dispense with it and see little or no decline in our educational results. Exactly. Being close to a few execellent teachers, I see the frustration first hand. Accepting government money for education comes with enourmous strings attached and ends up tying the hands of otherwise effective teachers. If the federal government is going to give money for education, it needs to be on a poulation basis directly to the state and they need to assume that the state knows how to handle their own education. > [@tim314](#): > > Also, on what are you basing your claim that we have nothing to show for it? You can say with certainty that things are exactly as bad off as they would be if the federal government hadn’t spent any money on education? The case could be made that things are actually WORSE off now because of the federal money involvement. Teachers are being forced to teach to standardized tests, spending more time on making students memorize things for these tests, rather than focusing on ideas and thought processes. They’re having to cut back on enrichment activities because they’re being told they can’t teach anything thats outside of the lesson plan (which gets dictated from higher up and is strongly influenced by the presence of strings-attached-federal-funds). Just like alot of things - that bill sounds good on the surface. You need to dig a bit deeper and look at what will actually happen with it in these other programs. It could be as wasted there as it is being spent on defense. ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/9 "2006-03-10T14:48:03Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > My point is that you don’t improve education by increasing funding for it. All the evidence from the past couple of decades, where education spending at local, state, and national levels has increased dramatically Can you provide a cite for the claim that education funding has increased at all levels? Funding to local school districts in Ohio by the state has fallen short of the rate of inflation, and many local districts are unable to pass operating or buidling levies.[http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/13895047.htm](http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/13895047.htm) The arguement that schools have too much money just does not hold water. If you do not like the way the money is handed out at the federal level, then fix _that_ process. Or just split the money the evenly between every school district and just give it to them. Or slash the money out of the federal budget, lower federal taxes accordingly, and force state and local school districts to increase taxes at their level. As to the OP, this sounds like a rational idea, and will almost certainly go nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/10 "2006-03-10T14:53:04Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > The V-22 is protected by the Massachusetts delegation. If it did have significant Mass. content, it would be vulnerable. I think you meant the Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana delegations. But you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/11 "2006-03-10T14:56:03Z")
He didn’t say that schools have too much money - merely that giving them more isn’t solving the problems. I don’t know about Ohio, but here in Missouri there have been issues with extremely [top-heavy school districts](http://www.asbj.com/specialreports/1203Special%20Reports/S2.html) and mis-management of funds. It isn’t a lack of money - the public schools generally have considerably more funding per student than the private schools do. It is how its being spent. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/12 "2006-03-10T15:01:15Z")
> [@howye](#): > > Can you provide a cite for the claim that education funding has increased at all levels? This article on National Review online ([http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp)) is from 2003, but it has some relevant numbers: “In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, public schools spent $8,830 per child nationwide during the 2000-1 school year. This is up from $4,626 thirty years earlier, using 2000-1 dollars.” ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/13 "2006-03-10T15:29:39Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > This article on National Review online ([http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp)) > is from 2003, but it has some relevant numbers: > > “In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, public schools spent $8,830 per child nationwide during the 2000-1 school year. This is up from $4,626 thirty years earlier, using 2000-1 dollars.” Fair enough. I would agree that the money is not always being spent in the right places, and NCLB is worse than useless. But, take a look at schools outside of wealthy suburbs and the condition of just the buidlings is shameful. Plus the situation has grown far more complex than just adjusting the amount of money spent and how it is spent. Alas, that is a whole other topic. To come back to the original topic, would you rather see pointless defense projects continue to get funding, or other programs get the money? I am all for putting it all into energy research, throwing gobs of money at that problem might get us results. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/14 "2006-03-10T15:34:16Z")
> [@howye](#): > > To come back to the original topic, would you rather see pointless defense projects continue to get funding, or other programs get the money? I am all for putting it all into energy research, throwing gobs of money at that problem might get us results. I think most of the programs funded by the feds, from defense to education to energy programs, are all a waste of money. I don’t think we should shift money from one wasteful program into another, however. If I had my way, we would not fund them at all. We would, instead, return the money to the taxpayers. There is no need for the government to be involved in half the stuff it does, and funding these programs simply diverts money from productive uses into the pockets of politically-connected interest groups. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/15 "2006-03-10T15:48:14Z")
There’s a need if our schools _aren’t good enough_. Saying government funding hasn’t been used effectively in the past, and saying it _can’t_ be used effectively are two different things. I’d say we need _both_ sensible policies on education spending, and the money to spend. But just declaring sensible policies impossible and saying that therefore we shouldn’t allocate the money is basically just conceding defeat on the issue. Anyway, education is just one of many areas the bill reallocates money to. And, arguably, one of the hardest to get right. > [@](#): > > (1) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out the modernization of school facilities under section 8007(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7707(b)); > > (2) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out State child health plans under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); > > (3) $5,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out employment and training activities under chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2861 et seq.); > > (4) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of Energy for such programs as that Secretary may specify to increase energy efficiency and conservation and increase investment in sustain- able and renewable energy alternatives; > > (5) $13,000,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of State for such sustainable development and humanitarian assistance programs as that Secretary may specify to alleviate the global challenges of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and disaster; > > (6) $5,000,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve safe- guards pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002; > > (7) $5,000,000,000 shall be made available to reduce the deficit; and > > (8) $2,000,000,000 shall be made available for medical research. Surely you don’t think the Federal government is too inept to handle _any_ of these. How hard is it to pay off the deficit? How hard is it to give more grants to medical research? And if they give money to the Dept. of Homeland Security, I grant you they might screw it up, but they’re the best we’ve got. I doubt Homeland Security would be better handled individually by private citizens simply “being vigilant.” My point is, if the money is being wasted on programs we don’t need, and even _some_ of it could be better used somewhere else, then it’s at least worth the effort to try. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/16 "2006-03-10T16:01:04Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > There’s a need if our schools _aren’t good enough_. You are making the mistake of assuming that more funding will lead to an improvement in results. It hasn’t happened in the past, so I don’t know why we should throw good money after bad. > [@](#): > > ``` > Saying government funding hasn't been used effectively in the past, and saying it *can't* be used effectively are two different things. > > ``` True, but why should we keep increasing funding when this type of activity has produced nothing in the past? Why should we reward failure? > [@](#): > > Surely you don’t think the Federal government is too inept to handle _any_ of these. How hard is it to pay off the deficit? I’ll agree the money should be used to pay off the deficit. > [@](#): > > How hard is it to give more grants to medical research? And that will get steered to grantees that are politically connected. It’s no accident a lot of medical funding goes to Pennsylvania while Senator Specter is the Chairman of the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee. > [@](#): > > And if they give money to the Dept. of Homeland Security, I grant you they might screw it up, but they’re the best we’ve got. And these grants go to many areas that don’t deserve them. Quite a lot just happens to go to states that have members on the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/17 "2006-03-10T16:01:11Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > I think most of the programs funded by the feds, from defense to education to energy programs, are all a waste of money. I don’t think we should shift money from one wasteful program into another, however. If I had my way, we would not fund them at all. We would, instead, return the money to the taxpayers. There is no need for the government to be involved in half the stuff it does, and funding these programs simply diverts money from productive uses into the pockets of politically-connected interest groups. Could you be more specific? What programs are wasteful? Highways, the FDA, the FBI, pure scientific research? And what productive use is the money being diverted from? Are you arguing that cutting taxes in half would increase the quality of life of at least half the people in the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/18 "2006-03-10T16:21:19Z")
> [@howye](#): > > Could you be more specific? What programs are wasteful? Highways, the FDA, the FBI, pure scientific research? A partial list: Department of Agriculture: OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES FARM SERVICE AGENCY DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM Department of Commerce: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS UNITED STATES TRAVEL AND TOURISM PROMOTION Department of Labor: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY Department of Health and Human Services: NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL AND CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NATIONAL CENTER ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SERVICES PROGRAMS PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES Department of Education: EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED IMPACT AID SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS INDIAN EDUCATION INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION SPECIAL EDUCATION REHABILITATION SERVICES AND DISABILITY RESEARCH SPECIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AMERICAN PRINTING HOUSE FOR THE BLIND NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE STUDENT AID ADMINISTRATION HIGHER EDUCATION HOWARD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOUSING AND ACADEMIC FACILITIES LOANS PROGRAM HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAPITAL FINANCING PROGRAM ACCOUNT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES > [@](#): > > And what productive use is the money being diverted from? Are you arguing that cutting taxes in half would increase the quality of life of at least half the people in the U.S.? I’m arguing that if the government did not divert money to fund politically connected interest groups, that money would be used to fund activities that people truly desire as determined by the free market. The free market is a much better way to allocate money than having the federal government do it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/19 "2006-03-10T18:11:05Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > A partial list: That list could easily be picked apart, but let me just take one really weak point: Department of Education: IMPACT AID Are you opposed to children on military bases receiving an education from public schools? If not, who is going to pay for these kids’ education? How would eliminating Impact Aid (and presumably cutting taxes by about $10 for each family in the United States) going to help the children of military families get an education? In any case, to the central point of arbitrarily cutting $60 billion from the defense budget: what is to be done about the tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that Americans would lose as an immediate result of this bill? Are the engineers who are building the radars for the F-22, or the line workers welding armor onto the Styker, or software people working on classified programs, just supposed to pick up, change careers, and go to work in the construction business building schools? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/20 "2006-03-10T18:25:15Z")
We will leave the V-22 alone for the moment (though I would argue it is a good program, with improving results)… When did the F-22 and the F-35(JSF) programs become obsolete? They will SAVE money… having a single baseline craft (the F-35) saves a TON (even with varients)… the F-22 is replacing a number of aging and increasingly expensive to maintain airframes… The C-130J update is NEEDED for current operations; let alone improvements… DD(X) is going to replace the current DDG’s… with a better, faster, less expensive to operate version… Talk about short sighted… YES they all require development… but good god; you do NOT want to keep what we currently have… for get not being as good… it is MORE expensive [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802.md?page=2)