Why doesn't the government consider reducing spending on non-essential programs?

[Ruken]

@Algher

CATO made a nice website with their recommendations. Even if you disagree with them (and I am not in 100% agreement), it is a pretty good resource for thinking about how to cut FEDERAL spending.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

Part of this debate should be both priorities and level of responsibility:
Federal: Defense, Certain programs such as Social Security, Interstates, Scientific Research, Space
State: Schools (shared with Community), Police, State Highways
Community: Police, Streets, Schools, etc.

There is too much overlap, and I think that the system could be improved if we moved more responsibility to the level of government that is best suited. I do not think that the Federal Government should be involved in the K-12 schools, and possibly not even at the University level.

Note - the list above is a quick burst for illustration and should not be seen as anywhere NEAR a complete listing.

And even if you disagree with every suggestion CATO makes, it’s at least a comprehensive plan, of which there are few. It helps to have a starting point for the discussion.

[you_with_the_face]

@kenetic

And the ingenious real change you’re proposing is to go back to the 19th century? We had that, and ingenious people proposed the real change of having a society that looks after it’s citizen’s interests rather than ignoring them.

True, true. But you have to admit that under Nica’s plan, obesity would cease to be a problem, which would greatly bring down healthcare costs. Also, with everyone dying so young, Social Security and Medicare would eventually become obsolete needs too. Pretty ingenious if you think about it.

[Fear_Itself]

@Nica

I guess I’m just old school. The pioneer days don’t seem so bad at this point. Less government programs and you fend for yourself.

In the pioneer days, that entailed shooting Indians and taking their land.

Just sayin’.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@xtisme

Do you really want to cute law enforcement back to basically nothing

Well, that can get pretty cute, so I support it.

[Danny-boy]

Maybe I’m being misled, but I believe it to be a flawed viewpoint to say the Space program, the Department of Homeland Security, and all the other etc. programs are too small to be worthwhile to be cut. Sure $50 billion could be considered chump change… but every penny counts, and they do add up to ~20% of our budget.

Just using these figures (whether they are true or not, I’ll assume them to be marginally correct): http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

We currently have a deficit of roughly 1/4 of are current spending. I could see how one would just want to cut the big programs, but shouldn’t they all be cut somewhat? Foreign policy would be the easiest place to start I think, just bring all the troops home and we could cut A LOT of spending.

You could cut Social security just by letting people opt of out it, which I’m certain a lot of people think they could put their money to better use.

Perhaps I am naive to think that people have the ability to take care of themselves. When did “We the people” change from “you the person” to “we the society?”

-A concerned citizen of the United States

[fumster]

@Nica

And I can’t think of any programs off-hand that I benefit from. Certainly not social security in the near future. I don’t receive any sort of benefits… just my paycheck. I don’t have insurance… still thinking.

The FDA, highways, the FBI, the CIA, air traffic control, the Security and Exchange Commission, the NSA, the County Extension Services that made the US the most productive agricultural nation in the world, the Patent Office, the court system, Department of Labor which makes sure you get paid overtime for working >40 hours. You must live a very sheltered life if you don’t fly, drive, eat, use medicine, or get police protection. Do you live in a cave?

There are countries in the world that don’t provide government services. I think the technical name for them is “shit holes”.

[sqweels]

@Nica

Well, I was referring to the greed of big gov’t and how they don’t want to skinny their fattened wallets from some of what I deem non-essential programs.

I was under the impression that bureaucrats and office holders receive fixed salaries. To what extent do they gain profits that they can pocket when their programs get more funding?

[J_Cubed]

@TriPolar

Have you ever fended for yourself?

@Nica

I am willing to try.

Move to Somalia. You can even take all the money you currently have. Check back in a year. If you’re still alive.

[Aspidistra]

@xtisme

And China has about 1/100th of our military commitments. We spend 43% of the worlds military budget (assuming your figure is correct) but we pretty obviously have over half of the worlds military commitments, being the only world military superpower, and pretty much the teeth in organizations like NATO.

Whether we SHOULD be carrying the water for the majority of the western worlds defense is debatable, but using these sorts of figures is pretty silly IMHO, since it’s a complete apples to oranges comparison.

Speaking as a member of a US ally country, frankly, no you shouldn’t. You could cut your military spending in half and still have an overwhelming superiority over any country in the world. Obviously you’d lose a huge amount of your diplomatic clout that way but which would you rather have - diplomatic clout or no bankruptcy?

If my own country’s military budget should happen to need to rise in consequence (though I don’t personally see that it would) since my country’s military is supposedly lookng after my country’s interests, and at least I get a 1/20,000,000 say in how it’s spent.

[Northern_Piper]

@Nica

Isn’t there a way to discern the core programs that this country needed when it was first established and start from there? (Sorry for my lack of eloquence.) Is it because of over population that this would be so difficult to do?

One quick way to look at that question is to list the Cabinet members. I’ve struck out the ones that didn’t exist in Washington’s first Cabinet. Since each Cabinet Secretary is responsible for administering programs, it gives you some feel for the difference between the activities of the federal government in 1791 and today:

Department of State

Department of the Treasury

Department of Defense (formerly the Department of War in Washington’s Cabinet)

Department of Justice (formerly the Department of the Attorney General)

[del]Department of the Interior

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

Department of Energy

Department of Education

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Homeland Security[/del]

So, roughly speaking, to return to what the federal government was doing in 1791: foreign affairs and defence; federal revenue; federal laws and federal court system.

It’s up to each reader to determine if they would be comfortable with that today.

[Danny-boy]

@Northern_Piper

So, roughly speaking, to return to what the federal government was doing in 1791: foreign affairs and defence; federal revenue; federal laws and federal court system.

It’s up to each reader to determine if they would be comfortable with that today.

I personally think that would be a great idea, but I’m sure enough people would not accept it. So it would either happen gradually, or more likely, not at all. That being said, if the dollar continues to be inflated so much, we’ll probably end up being forced into a commodity based currency and an unfunded government.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Oakminster

As Marley points out, non-essential is in the eye of the beholder.

A Cowboy Poetry Festival looks pretty God damned non-essential to just about everybody who doesn’t directly benefit from it. So does any federal money that goes to subsidize any poet at all. Let 'em sink or swim like the rest of us.