Indeed the IRS bring in many times what is spent on enforcement.
I like all these ideas.
Tough call, but I’d go with HUD, the main reason being that cities and localities all have to develop their own housing and whatnot, federal governmental oversight or not. It’s mostly a self-fixing problem.
But they don’t. Racist Southern states will cheerfully ignore the issues in the mostly black urban areas.
You should be able to describe what the program does and what you propose to replace it with if it’s shut down.
So how have you surmised the government needs a 25% haircut? What source has told you this target is achievable without causing more harm than good? Sounds like an arbitrary number you’ve produced without looking at any risk assessments, but hey, maybe I’m wrong and you actually have data to support this target.
No one has denied the merit of setting targets. What conservatives fail to articulate is what govt services and functions they believe should be axed to shrink government to the size they desire.
While I am sure that HUD does useful work, it really isn’t something that the Federal government should be concerned with. Unlike the Department of Transportation, houses rarely get up and cross state lines, so it’s not clear how you really justify the existence of the department.
I would probably fold these together into single entities:
Department of the Treasury / Department of Commerce -> Department of the Treasury
Department of the Interior / Department of Transportation -> Department of the Interior
And I would reapportion Homeland Security and the DOJ. Right now, for example, the FBI falls under the heading of the DOJ. But half of the work they perform is national security, which should fall under the purview of Homeland Security. Really, we should split everything natsec or foreign prosecution out of the FBI and DOJ and throw them under Homeland Security, and anything purely domestic and shove it under the DOJ. Right now it’s all a bit cattywampus.
More harm than good? A reduction in government to a minimal level that which 25% is not even close is a good unto itself as a matter of first principles.
There’s plenty in this thread. Essential DHS functions can be reabsorbed into other departments. Eliminating farm subsidies. Eliminating the department of education. Most of HUD. Ending the war on drugs.
Replace it with nothing.
Because it’s simply a feeeeling that the deficits must be addressed by cutting services.
A more rational approach is to have a debate about what services we want our government to provide, and at the same time, how much we are willing to fund them through taxes. The government is fully in control of both of these fiscal levers, so to jump to the conclusion that the deficit should be managed by using only one lever is not a rational starting point.
And so this is where you start conflating ideological beliefs with rational arguments and I walk away.
But not before proposing we slash your local law enforcement budget by 25%. So there. Don’t ask me why I think 25% is a righteous target. It’s a good unto itself, ok? First principles.
And then after we hack off 25%, we can reduce 25% of that.
I think that’s a better approach. But this thread was about only one of the levers, which cuts to make, not the balance between cuts and taxes. There wasn’t much discussion about appropriate level of taxation so the focus was on the cuts.
But the question as phrased allowed for one to answer in any way they wished. For example, the question was posed as which department to shutter, but you opted for haircuts. Not cutting is also an option on the poll. With that much leash, I don’t think that anyone is actually constrained from offering reasonable ideas that weren’t specifically mentioned in the OP.
Ok, then, for starters, I’d shut down HUD and not replace it. HUD primarily provides rental assistance through various programs. That would save the federal government something like $50B a year. Not enough, but it’s a start.
At that point I think it gets into a wishlist of transforming the government into something entirely different with no clear path from here to there. I mean, if there was a low tax/low service option with negative income tax to replace all other transfer payments, I’d vote for that. But I did attempt to constrain comments to the cuts side since that was what the thread appeared to be.
Yeah, screw those poor and homeless people. They dont pay taxes anyway!
:rolleyes:
Homeless people probably aren’t benefiting from HUD, sort of by definition. As for the poor, I’ve got no particular objection to them, but I don’t think rental assistance is the Constitutional role of the federal government. If states want to operate HUD-like programs, have at it.
They most certainly are:
Continuum of Care Program
Promotes community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness; provides funding
for efforts to quickly re-house homeless individuals and families, while minimizing trauma and
dislocation; promotes access to and effective utilization of mainstream programs; and optimizes
self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program
Grants to support essential services related to emergency shelter and street outreach, including
building rehabilitations and conversions into emergency shelters, operation of emergency
shelters, short-term and medium-term rental assistance, and housing relocation and stabilization
services.
Federal Surplus Property for Use to Assist Persons Experiencing
Homelessness (Title V)
Enables states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations to use suitable and available
federal properties, which are categorized as unutilized, underutilized, excess, or surplus, to assist
persons experiencing homelessness.
Homeless Assistance Programs Previously Authorized under the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUDPrograms2018.pdf
and so forth.
The point behind HUD is that we can’t trust the racist Southern states to spend money helping poor black people.
Shouldn’t that be up to each state, Southern and the rest?
No, the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all.
Should we allow the southern states to simply say that blacks can’t vote? They have already brought back Jim Crow.
Housing assistance isn’t a Constitutional “right”.
What benefit programs, if any, do you feel are appropriate for the Federal government (as opposed to letting the states handle everything)?