# Federal or state budget cuts - where's the difficulty in deciding what to cut? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771 "2011-02-09T16:23:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/101 "2011-02-17T01:12:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Out of 33 countries, here are the rankings of the U.S and Canada: > > ## Canada Rankings > > Math: 5th > Reading: 3rd > Science: 2nd > > ## US Rankings > > Math: 27th > Reading: No Score > Science: 22nd > > That’s pretty pathetic. Clearly there’s something wrong with your education system. And it’s not money - Canada has roughly the same standard of living, spends about the same on education, and yet has markedly better educational outcomes. I was going to ask you what Canada does differently than the U.S. to produce such stellar results (in fact, I’d still love to hear the answer to this), then I caught THIS little gem (bolding mine) > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The first and most effective reform the school systems\*\* in both Canada and the U.S.\*\* could make would be to bust up the teacher’s unions, institute merit pay, and delegate authority downwards. Give a principal a bonus for coming in under budget while maintaining educational outcomes, or for increasing educational outcomes while staying within budget. Then let him or her hire whoever he wants to. Put accountability as close to the teachers as you possibly can. Create incentives that cause the good teachers to take on more responsibility and fire the bad ones. So the Canadian system is very good, gets top-ten results for the same money that buys the U.S. results in the 20s…and they both have the exact same problem, that just happens to be a conservative bugbear? I provisionally, based on your response to my above question, call shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/102 "2011-02-17T18:57:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In the real world it is exactly the opposite of your right wing fantasy. Both sides agree that some cuts are needed. No, actually in the real world I am right on the money. > [@](#): > > [Actually, there is nothing inherent in a budget problem that automatically requires you need to cut costs significantly. An alternative is to raise revenues. But that might require rich folk to do their share. Much easier to fuck the working class over.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13478032&postcount=6) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/103 "2011-02-18T17:15:51Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > One Libertarian Think Tank (CATO) has already made their proposals for cuts: > > [http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/](http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/) I did click, but lost interest after a few more clicks since the site navigation was anal-retentive. In fact I only got to one concrete proposal: They propose to eliminate $107 billion from the U.S. Dept of Education’s $107 billion budget. That’s right: they aim to Kill that Beast completely. Most of the $107 billion is subsidies to state education. Not sure how much of that $107 billion is dedicated solely to Waste™, but if the Waste™ is less than then full $107 billion, “Libertarians” propose either to worsen schools or just transfer the burden to the states. Either way, that proposal seems more comical than just ineffectual. > [@Algher](#): > > As a Libertarian Republican - if the Democrats would cut programs to balance the budget at current levels, I would support tax increases to then pay down the debt. Sounds much like the Clinton budgets. Did you support them? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/104 "2011-02-18T17:32:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > They propose to eliminate $107 billion from the U.S. Dept of Education’s $107 billion budget. That’s right: they aim to Kill that Beast completely. Most of the $107 billion is subsidies to state education. Not sure how much of that $107 billion is dedicated solely to Waste™, but if the Waste™ is less than then full $107 billion, “Libertarians” propose either to worsen schools or just transfer the burden to the states. Either way, that proposal seems more comical than just ineffectual. Why is it comical to give the states more control and more funding responsibility for the education in that state? Given that the states already fund a significant amount of that education, is it already comical? If not, at what point does the funding by the state become comical? 60%? 80%? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/105 "2011-02-18T17:40:54Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > Why is it comical to give the states more control and more funding responsibility for the education in that state? 😕 😕 I am not opposed to state control of education. I am opposed to passing off gibberish as substantive proposals. The States are already suffering serious financing problems much like the Federal Government. Ever dollar needed for education which is cut off by the Feds will have to be made up by the States. Stated differently, the revenue/cost situation for all U.S. governmental entities taken together is what is relevant to consider. Is my point clear? (I assumed the point would be implicitly clear, to start with.) The idea of giving States more control of education may be fine. In the context considered, however the Lib site pretends the taxpayers have then just saved $107 billion, which is absurd enough to be called “comical.” ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/106 "2011-02-18T17:41:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I did click, but lost interest after a few more clicks since the site navigation was anal-retentive. In fact I only got to one concrete proposal: > > They propose to eliminate $107 billion from the U.S. Dept of Education’s $107 billion budget. That’s right: they aim to Kill that Beast completely. Most of the $107 billion is subsidies to state education. Not sure how much of that $107 billion is dedicated solely to Waste™, but if the Waste™ is less than then full $107 billion, “Libertarians” propose either to worsen schools or just transfer the burden to the states. Either way, that proposal seems more comical than just ineffectual. > > Sounds much like the Clinton budgets. Did you support them? There are concrete proposals for every department on that site. I don’t see what your problem is with the site navigation - 3 clicks to DOE gets me this: > [@](#): > > The Department of Education should be closed and its programs terminated. The main activity of the department is to provide grants to state and local governments. However, channeling taxpayer dollars through Washington and then back to the states is an inefficient way to fund local activities such as education. It would be better if the states funded their own education programs free of all the paperwork that comes with federal aid. They also argue to cut the defense budget, eliminate the DOE, eliminate subsidies to business at Commerce, kill 90% of Agriculture, etc. If you read the site and focus on their cuts - the theme is obvious. Push responsibility back to the states, get the government out of gaming the system in favor of certain types of business, and balance the budget. As for the Clinton era budgets - the surplus during the tech bubble was nice, the AMT was messed up in application to those of us in tech with ISO shares and some NQSO shares in regards to exercise and resale restrictions. The initial cuts Clinton made were fine, but the Republican held the House and Senate for the latter half - so which budgets during his 8 years are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/107 "2011-02-18T22:15:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Is my point clear? (I assumed the point would be implicitly clear, to start with.) The idea of giving States more control of education may be fine. In the context considered, however the Lib site pretends the taxpayers have then just saved $107 billion, which is absurd enough to be called “comical.” It is clear with your most recent explanation. I did not think it clear the first time, obviously. Having states more responsible for funding education is not a comical suggestion. Reducing federal funding only for states to pick up the slack and claiming this is an overall savings is a comical suggestion. Personally, I think that the closer control is to home, the better fiscal management you are likely to see, but any savings would be small beer compared with the amount being “cut”. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/108 "2011-02-19T06:06:44Z")
Just to get back to the original question here: > [@squeekster](#): > > It isn’t rocket science in deciding what to cut. Simply look back 20 to 25 years. Any programs what weren’t in existence then people obviously lived without. They can live without them now also. Cut all of those programs off. People on the receiving end of these programs won’t like it much, but in the wake of multi TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, is there any other choice? Since I saw a [handy chart](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/americas_deficit) today showing what discretionary, non-defense spending as a share of GDP has been over the last fifty or so years. “[N]on-defence discretionary spending was equal to 3.6% of GDP in 1963. It was also equal to 3.6% of GDP in 2008. It is not behind the increase in government spending as a share of the economy over that time period. It has not made government any less affordable. It is not projected to rise substantially in the future.” Basically, we haven’t added new programs that we didn’t have 20 to 25 years ago, on balance. Sure some stuff is newer, but some stuff has gotten cut, so we’re really not spending more on it in general. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/109 "2011-02-19T14:05:11Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Just to get back to the original question here: > Since I saw a [handy chart](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/americas_deficit) today showing what discretionary, non-defense spending as a share of GDP has been over the last fifty or so years. “[N]on-defence discretionary spending was equal to 3.6% of GDP in 1963. It was also equal to 3.6% of GDP in 2008. It is not behind the increase in government spending as a share of the economy over that time period. It has not made government any less affordable. It is not projected to rise substantially in the future.” > > Basically, we haven’t added new programs that we didn’t have 20 to 25 years ago, on balance. Sure some stuff is newer, but some stuff has gotten cut, so we’re really not spending more on it in general. It’s hard to tell exactly which year is which from that chart, but if we take 2008 as the point at which discretionary spending dips back down to 3.6%, then we can see that by 2011 it has gone back up to 4.5% A 0.9% increase in a $3.7 trillion budget is $333 billion. That’s hardly chump change - it is 30% of the projected deficit in the 2012 budget. ---
**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:** [February 19, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/110 "2011-02-19T14:48:33Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > It’s hard to tell exactly which year is which from that chart, but if we take 2008 as the point at which discretionary spending dips back down to 3.6%, then we can see that by 2011 it has gone back up to 4.5% A 0.9% increase in a $3.7 trillion budget is $333 billion. That’s hardly chump change - it is 30% of the projected deficit in the 2012 budget. Your math is wrong. The percentages are of the economy, not the budget, and I think you got some decimals misplaced, so nondefense discretionary went from about $468 billion to $585 billion, based on an economy of about $13 trillion. Edit: Ah - I see my numbers were a little aggressive. Non-security discretionary has peaked at $507 billion. See table S-4: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/111 "2011-02-19T14:50:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your math is wrong. The percentages are of the economy, not the budget, and I think you got some decimals misplaced, so nondefense discretionary went from about $468 billion to $585 billion, based on an economy of about $13 trillion. Yep - I screwed up. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771/112 "2011-02-19T17:57:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your math is wrong. The percentages are of the economy, not the budget, and I think you got some decimals misplaced, so nondefense discretionary went from about $468 billion to $585 billion, based on an economy of about $13 trillion. > > Edit: Ah - I see my numbers were a little aggressive. Non-security discretionary has peaked at $507 billion. See table S-4: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf) Of course, saying that the economy is “about $13 trillion” doesn’t really get into the fact that GDP went down significantly from 2008 to 2009. The numbers as a percentage of GDP are good for showing general trends, but for comparisons of one year to the next, the actual dollar amounts become more useful. Especially for years when GDP fluctuates more than usual. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-or-state-budget-cuts-wheres-the-difficulty-in-deciding-what-to-cut/570771.md?page=5)