I did come across as though I felt I was being picked on. I apologize for that. It probably sounded churlish.
I’m not ignoring your last comment to me What the…. I came home to two very large mud covered dogs, a torn up yard, and pissed off husband. Una, I plan to respond to you as well.
However, not tonight. I’m tired folks. It was a very long day, long commute and the mess at home made it even longer. I’m just now sitting down.
Have you been listening to the Tea Party folks lately? They’re most definitely putting Medicare and Social Security cuts on the table. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the majority of the federal government goes to entitlements, the military, and interest on the debt. Any cuts that don’t include military and entitlement cuts are not going to get you anywhere close to a balanced budget.
Do they like having to do that? No. But their main theme is that they are deficit hawks, so that’s where they’re going. Now, I know you can find a picture of some old lady with a sign saying, “hands off my medicare”, and I’m sure you can find a bloviating idiot or two saying that all you need to do is cut taxes and revenue will soar and everyone will be farting through silk. But the serious people are well aware that entitlement reform and health care reform of some kind has to be on the table.
Oh, I forgot one other cut. The new health care plan. Bye-bye. It’s way too expensive. It’s a new trillion-dollar over 10 years liability, and it’s unaffordable. (yes, I know: it’s ‘deficit neutral’. But it’s really not. It raises taxes and cuts medicare to get there, and that money could be applied to the debt instead of a new entitlement).
Actually, I wouldn’t eliminate the new plan. I’d modify it. I’d make the universal coverage catastrophic only, and I’d have a sliding scale of deductibles.
You guys keep saying you want the rich to pay more. How about just not giving the rich and the upper middle class all these goodies? The health care bill provides subsidies for family incomes up to $80,000. How about cutting that in half? Only subsidies to those Americans who are below the median income. It’s crazy for the American government to be handing ANY subsidies to anyone making an above-average income. Especially when they’re borrowing money to do it.
Eliminate farm subsidies. Cut student loans and Pell grants. I think there’s growing evidence that the flood of easy money into education has hurt students - it’s caused price inflation in academia, pushed more kids into higher education than should really be there, and as a result it has watered down curriculum and removed pressure on schools to compete. So toughen it up. Kids can save a little money by working a few years if they’re poor and they want to go to school. That’s what I had to do.
Eliminate the three billion dollars Obama is giving ‘community organizations’. Claw back the additional $25 billion he gave the State Department last year. Immediately end all the high-speed rail boondoggle investments. Force every single government agency to take a 10% budget cut.
For entitlement reform you need means-testing, and the retirement age should be increased in increments depending on how far from retirement you are.
The next thing I’d do (actually the first thing) is look at real regulatory reform. This has a double benefit in that it reduces the cost of government in enforcing the regulations, and it increases productivity in the private sector. Of course, many regulations are needed, but many are not. Establish a commission with a task of scoring the cost-benefit of every federal regulation currently on the books. Then take a hacksaw to the bottom 20% that don’t return good value. For example, there’s good evidence that Sarbanes-Oxley has been very destructive to productivity, and has done very little good. There are other regulations like that which could either be eliminated or at least put on hold for five years, after which they will be re-evaluated.
Establish a formal government policy of economic stability. Put the kibosh on constant new regulations and big ideas for changing the economy. The Democrats have seriously spooked the business community with their constant chatter about going after the fat-cats, cap and trade, card check, more regulations up and down the line, etc. They’re doing a lot of harm right now. Announce a freeze on new regulations, and put the various federal agencies on notice that they had better have a damned good reason for every new notice of proposed rulemaking. Obama has installed a bunch of ideologues in these departments, and they’re scaring people. For example, the FDA’s talk about regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant sent shivers through a lot of industries.
I believe that if these things were done, the economy would begin to recover, and that 2 trillion dollars business is sitting on would start making its way through the economy. If GDP comes up, revenue comes up. Make a governmental promise that as revenue increases from growth, the increase will not be used to fund new government programs, but will be applied to the deficit until there is a balanced budget. Give the business community confidence that problems are being solved and the fiscal house is being restored to order.
There’s no need to respond, I’m just saying, I’m sure a lot of folks on the SDMB, like myself, appreciate Federal employees at least as much as private sector employees, and don’t think they should get the short end of the stick, boom or bust. That’s all. Federal government work - or State, local, etc. government work in general - is meant to be a worthy and honorable career.
I’m a state worker and our pay has been frozen for about six years now and believe me, we’re not happy about it. Believe it or not there are some state employees who are making barely more than what you would at a fast food joint. Nobody has gotten any type of raise for about that same amount of time, even with the cost of living going up. But at the same time, our Gub’nor [who is now on his way to Washington] gave HIS staff raises and also allowed a couple of agencies who kissed his ass to give their employees raises. Of course it was well known how much he hated state workers.
Meh. I should have gone to work at the zoo.
Awesome… what gave you that idea?
I think government employees have been coddled for years. I think Obama’s wage freeze is a no-brainer…should have been done before… more should be done.
I think the cost of living raises should be related to the cost of living. If inflation isn’t happening, they (actually we, since I’m a fed) shouldn’t get cost of living raises.
The promotions/steps in grade account for other factors like changing job requirements and increasing experience in the job function. They aren’t affected by this freeze.
I’m a die hard liberal, and fully support most of the cuts Sam Stone proposes. However, I will be shocked to see any significant reform to SS/Medicar or military spending until an unavoidable economic catastrophe develops such that problems cannot be pushed off onto future generations. Don’t see either party touching these sacred cows, and my cynicism extends to the Teabaggers.
In significant respects, I view military spending as yet another jobs-creation welfare program. Cut spending significantly, and where are the jobs for the suddenly unemployed grunts and rocket scientists?
What about slashing or eliminating the mortgage interest deduction? Get rid of the “second home” deduction, and cap the debt deduction limit at $150k, instead of $1M. Or capping the child deduction at 2 kids, to try to help encourage small families and reduce GHG emissions loadings on the planet? (given how people had kittens when I suggested cutting the home mortgage deduction, I can imagine how folks will react to me proposing not encouraging overpopulation contribution…)
I’m very much opposed to a blanket raising of the retirement age because there are clearly some industries and some folks where working until 67 or 70 is not going to be a good option. Some jobs are harder than others physically and mentally and cannot be effectively worked as long as others, and some people will be sicker and suffer from more chronic age-related illnesses (or accumulated illnesses) more than others. I am only in favor of raising the retirement age provided there is a “disability” exemption which doesn’t require you spending $10,000 on a lawyer to try to prove you’re just plain worn out. For example, I’ve been an insulin-dependent diabetic for 30 years now. When I’m 65, what’s my relative health going to be compared to the average person? Yet as it stands, there is no “escape clause” for people like me if I’m too sick to work.
Again, more reasonable suggestions. But again, who is going to get behind these sufficient for passage?
Very good points. But what do you think about the SS disability programs’ age categories of: 50-54 approaching advanced age; 55+ advanced age; 60-64 close to retirement age. Seems to me those could be bumped up a tad. Also, in light of the modern economy could revisit the presumption as to the degree that a limitation to sedentary work disadvantages older individuals.
It would. I have no confidence that it will, if the Democrats have their way. That is why, as I have mentioned repeatedly, the lefties are so eager to suggest raising taxes when that will address only a small minority of the problem.
This point bears repeating -
A relatively minor one, and one which will, in isolation and without major spending cuts, have little or no effect. And therefore should be relegated to a side bar, and not made the center of the debate. Don’t you agree?
Regards,
Shodan
And what are you basing this on?
I realize this was intended to be provocative, but I sure don’t recall the Repubs slashing spending when they were in charge. Instead, their approach was to increase spending while slashing taxes. That sure worked well…
And it wasn’t just the military and homeland security that benefitted (tho I personally disfavor the huge increases in both of those areas.) When in recent history have Repubs shown themselves to be overall fiscally responsible?
Pretty much no one, I reckon.
(sheepish) I may be ignorant on that specific subject; I need to learn more.
Calling an idea silly is acceptable. Calling a poster silly is not.
Your “fantasy life” remark is more of an unnecessary personal shot than a contribution to the discussion.
Dial it way back and stop making this thread personal.
[ /Moderating ]
I appreciate your appreciation 
I didn’t take your previous comments as an attack and didn’t mean to come across as combative against you. It was more frustration with the cultural perception and your post was useful to bring out the point that, at the high end of the payscale at least, federal workers are not being over compensated relative to their peers in the private sector. Not that you share this belief.
Well, Bush I made some moves in that direction, but his party’s base all but abandoned him as a result.
I believe that would be it.
I remember during the HCR debate, Obama met with GOP leaders and said he was willing to give in on tort reform, but what were they willing to put on the table in return? The answer was a big fat ‘nothing.’
We’re willing to give in on all sorts of shit. As a party, we pretty much abandoned gun control a decade ago. Cap-and-trade was itself originally a GOP idea, as was the basic structure of Obama’s health care reform. Yeah, a lot of us would have preferred single-payer, but we were willing to throw that sacred cow under the bus, to get something rather than nothing.
So I don’t want to hear any nonsense about how if only the Dems would put up a few of their own sacred cows. We do it all the freakin’ time.
Oh, and did you see the battle we waged for the Employee Free Choice Act? We took card check - the heart of the bill - out of the bill, and it still didn’t get anywhere. So (preemptively, at least for this thread) don’t bother to tell us how the Dems wouldn’t dare do anything to offend the union bosses, either.
Also given up: DREAM Act, DADT Repeal (apparently), repeal of Bush Tax Cuts (apparently, as of this morning), comprehensive immigration reform (another originally GOP idea).
It is quite clear, to me at least, which party is more intransigent at the current time.
What moves are you thinking about. I’m not saying they didn’t happen, just that I don’t recall.
Just seems after 9/11 the government took that as an excuse to spend like drunken sailors. When they increased medicare bennies with no need requirement, they gave up any pretense of responsibility.
Whether talking about Reagan or BushII years, my impression is that Repubs seized upon reasons to justify spending like crazy on their preferred areas. I’m not hugely up on such things, but it just seems like you’d need to go back at least a couple of decades to show Republicans who actually showed a desire for fiscal responsibility. Instead, they seem to claim such an interest, to justify cutting programs tey do not like while continuing to fund (if not increase) programs they favor.
una - no biggie, just an area I deal with in my job. Age is considered a relevant vocational factor for individuals who apply for SS disability bens. As you get older, you are more likely to be found disabled if your impairments limit you to less exertionally demanding work. The presumption is that as folk age they are less able to make vocational adjustments.
So I see 2 areas that could be addressed. First, given demographic trends including increased lifespan, I’m not sure a whole lot of folk consider themselves to be of “advanced age” as soon as they turn 55. Second, I do not believe the presumption still holds that an inability to perform "medium or “heavy” work restricts one’s job opportunities today to the extent it did when the regulations were written.
Certainly alone won’t solve the budget problems, but one of the countless “tweaks” that I’m aware of and believe could help. But I don’t see ANYONE with the stones to make these kinds of hard decisions. Instead, they simply propose “across the board” cuts, or target programs they disfavor while protecting those they benefit from. Really tough to be optomistic…
No, not in the least.
1994 and following.
The DREAM Act has not exactly been given up, unless you mean “given up” in the sense of “voting on it with little hope of passage”. And I am not clear on how DADT is a spending cut, nor immigration reform (in whatever sense the Democrats mean).
And the tax hikes are pretty much in line with what I have been saying all along - no tax increases unless and until spending cuts are enacted, for the reasons Sam Stone described.
You also didn’t mention the other thing that the GOP is prioritizing over DADT and other lame-duck attempts by the Dems - a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdowm. Obama did not submit a budget request, because this was an election year, and the Democratically-controlled Congress did not pass a budget for the same reason. So it is not merely a matter of the GOP being intransigent.
Regards,
Shodan