# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/61 "2006-03-14T03:28:28Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > [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. > > And for those who oppose it, why? Here’s why $10 Billion to implement the poorly thought out No Child Left Behind $13 Billion given to other countries No money taken from other bloated bureaucracies ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/62 "2006-03-14T03:43:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That would leave the wealth undistributed. Therefore, it is a plan worse than no plan at all. Sorry about that. I mean, of course, un **re** distributed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/63 "2006-03-15T03:30:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That would leave the wealth undistributed. Therefore, it is a plan worse than no plan at all. If leaving wealth “undistributed” is a bad thing, I assume you are for a 100% tax rate. Because, of course, a tax rate of less that 100% lets people _gasp_ spend their money in a totally undirected, unplanned fashion. The horrors! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/64 "2006-03-16T01:12:41Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > No money taken from other bloated bureaucracies Do you have any particular ones in mind? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/65 "2006-03-16T03:17:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Do you have any particular ones in mind? All of them! No one can convince me that this country is in the fiscal crisis it is just because of the defense department. I’m sure the Department of the Interior, HUD, IRS, FBI, Department of Energy, Department of Education, etc. all have a comparable amount of waste (percentage-wise not dollar-wise) in implementing their programs. Why can I say this? Political pork does not only apply to the Defense budget. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/66 "2006-03-16T03:32:21Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > It needs tweaking. Here are the tweaks I propose: > > Instead of taking $60 billion from the defense budget, take $441 billion. > > And then, instead of throwing that money down into the black holes of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security…how about just (shocking idea coming) not spending it. How about they just give the money back in the form of tax cuts. > > That’s a plan I could get behind. > > Will Our budget deficit is only $441 billion? :dubious: I mean, I don’t think having absolutely no debt would provably be the best decision but we have tens of thousands of dollars in debt _per person_ right now. We shouldn’t cut taxes until we pay down the debt to more managable levels. The present level of income taxes do not cause sufficient economic distortions as compared to the benefits of a low debt. We can debate about redistribution, fairness, etc. later, or else we’ll let Solomon cut up the baby before our eyes. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/67 "2006-03-16T13:48:08Z")
> [@](#): > > We shouldn’t cut taxes until we pay down the debt to more managable levels. Right, because the government is so good at NOT spending money. Even when we has ‘left over’ it wasn’t being spent on paying down debt; though lots of new programs were suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/68 "2006-03-16T14:33:37Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Right, because the government is so good at NOT spending money. Even when we has ‘left over’ it wasn’t being spent on paying down debt; though lots of new programs were suggested. I didn’t say it’s possible, just necessary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802.md?page=3)