It’s patently obvious that different people have different priorities, and choosing what to spend money on is a big part of that issue.
So I was wondering if it would be possible to match up spending cuts of similar amounts between left wing and right wing political parties.
I consider myself against agricultural subsidies, these are mainly advocated by the Conservative party here in the UK and amount to €48 billion across the EU. So I say “Hey, lets cut those by 50%” then someone from the right wing of the spectrum would say OK, but only if we cut “X, which is about the same amount at the same time”.
The hope is to get a bill full of spending reductions that balance’s the views of different parties and can be passed in a cross-partisan manner. So it’s not just financial but also political and cultural value that needs to be taken into consideration.
So for the USAer’s around here it would have to be something from the Republican’s then something from the Democrats.
Areas for consideration may be, farm subsidies, military spending, public benefits, healthcare, education etc. The end goal in this thought experiment is to reduce public whilst sharing the pain as much as possible in a fair and equitable manner.
I’m not sure food subsidies are a one party issue. They benefit Joe six-pint as well as the producer.
The problem with social spending is that it takes money away from people, adds a service fee, and gives it back. In the process, it makes those who lost the money more dependent with each increase in tax (or rise in price of commodities due to tax). It tends to leverage social spending up and limits choice of the returned money. It also drives businesses to lower taxed areas.
And the problem with military spending is that it takes money away from people and doesn’t give it back. But you’re kind of missing the point of this thread: The idea is to suggest things on both sides to cut, not just to go on about how the other side’s spending is bad.
The Right in America is fundamentally malignant and unwilling to cooperate. Any plan that relies on them cooperating with anyone else or assumes they are well intentioned is going to fail. In this case; if the Left offered up something it was willing to give up in return for spending cuts from the Right, the Right would refuse to go along; they’d demand cuts in things the Left is unwilling to compromise on, and refuse to accept any cuts for their own causes.
As to the OP, in theory, something like that might be interesting. In practice, it may not work. Congress critters, regardless of party, are still very likely to favor government spending in their own districts. Any government spending. They are also likely to favor cutting projects in other Congressional districts. The give and take involved has regional as well as policy concerns. Farm country representatives would commit political suicide by opposing farm spending. Likewise for other regional industries.
Sure but we can dream people! Imagine that your people in power were sane (I actually quite like our current British government).
Both Magiver and Der Trihs are missing the spirit of this thread, it’s not about lobbying specific politicians, it’s about establishing theoretical goals that you can then compare against the real achievements of those in power.
I’m thinking “drug war” spending is another area I’d be interested in cutting. But I’m not sure what specific programmes Conservatives are interested in removing, does anyone have a list or something?