Mr Obama aka Bush 2.0 are you ever gonna cut the defense budget?

CTK, absolutely.

...and, yes, groups that are opposed to cuts tend to highlight the cuts they believe that the public will object to, while quietly accepting cuts to ineffective programs.

Good advocates constantly behave in this way.

For example, if you try to cut the National Park Service, the first thing they do is state that they will need shut their most popular attraction (The Washington Monument on the Capital Mall).

Health and Human Services engages in similar tactics when it states that it must implement a (hypothetical) 5% cut on School Lunch.

In each example, there is likely a program with fewer public benefits and support that could be found. But by engaging in such tactics, they put the most pressure on their funders from the public.

A strong legislature and executive branch would respond: You are correct, I don't have the time to see if you have a less important program to cut. ....but I must cut your funding to not go incur unsustainable debt, and you are free to implement the cut anyway you choose.

Time will tell whether we ever develop a such a backbone. Our history over the last 30 years or so, says we haven't yet.

CTK wrote: the idea of raising taxes while basically embracing gov't waste is just mind boggling.

BG wrote: I think this is where our philosophies diverge. To make the claim that we can't give the govt more tax revenue b/c it wastes some of what it already has (I think that's a fair summary of your position, if not pls correct me) requires a few assumptions which I'm not convinced are true:

1. there is such a massive amount of waste and fraud that by tackling it you could make a serious dent in the deficit, or find enough money to actually fund decent public schools, or make college more affordable, or make our bridges stop falling apart.

2. such a strategy is at all feasible. I think that's what booklaw is getting at. It is going to be nearly impossible to ever completely eradicate fraud and waste. We're a massive country serving a massive population. So if that is the case, is the solution to just cut services for people, in this case the middle and lower class? That's pretty much the entire Republican platform on the deficit: cut entitlement (for poor/middle class) people.

OR should there be comprehensive reform on everything from accountability to SS/Medicare to defense spending to taxes on the richest 1%.

I vote for that.

I agree with you in that if all we needed to do was cut waste, that's what we should do.

I agree with you that although government is wasteful, it doesn't waste so much money that we should abandon it altogether.

However, I disagree with you that eliminating such waste would be enough. Instead, I agree with CTK:

We can no longer afford to give our citizens (and corporations) the services and support we once could. We need to reduce citizen's (and corporations....) reliance on government support.

We need would to massively pare down the government.

But I do not think the political parties will ever get their act together to do it. Instead, I fear we will simply outsepend our means until our currency crashes or until our leanders demand fiscal austerity.

....like was recently demanded of failing countries by the World Bank, Euro Alliance and the IMF.

I don't know enough to say with 100% confidence that there's enough obvious/egregious waste in the gov't to make cuts that would enable us to pay off the deficit faster. I think my use of the word waste implies some specific obvious waste, like the installation of $10,000 toilets in federal facilities (I made that up). But there is definitely a lot of pork & places where if special interest groups would make any kind of compromise savings could be found without dramatically impacting those who use govt services. Incremental savings across various departments would add up fast, and wouldn't have to put poor people out on the street (or whatever hyperbolic emotional effects people propose will come from any kinds of program cuts).

Obviously with the nature and scope of our gov't, along with the nature of human beings running an operation as massive/transient as the US Govt, it will never run at "100% efficiency", and to even try to define such a term proves to be difficult. But again, from discussion points like the SS age, to corporate welfare, to subsidies of various industries, to various behavior pushing tax breaks (mortgage interest deduction for example), there are a lot of places where if we can't make immediate cuts, we can at the minimum discuss the cost benefit of various programs, and begin to make decisions on places to make compromises. I am not proposing some doomsday welfare eradication program.... just a comprehensive, widespread and meaningful effort to reduce the govt's operating costs to help the govt get back into decent financial standing, AND become a little more efficient. In many cases, a lot of cuts could just be temporary until at the minimum our spending is in line with our income.

Bloomberg made far reaching cuts that affect everybody. There are less police and firemen in my neighborhood and yours. The old people who need social services in my building are feeling the same crunches as the old people on your block who need them. Unfortunately, the nature of the usage of cuts of service will always affect the poor & middle class more than the rich, and to a degree I see how a tax hike on the top 1% will sort of "equalize the pain". But really, it probably won't make much of a psychological or day to day impact. More importantly though, in the presence of cost reduction measures, tax hikes should really only be looked at as a last resort; not an immediate topic of discussion. I'm still at a loss as to what the immediate value of tax hikes on the top 1% would be, when there are so many other places the gov't can find money.

I still stand by the idea that it makes more sense to take on a comprehensive cost benefit analysis & cost reduction program similar to what Bloomberg has done, but at a federal level. It doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) a focused effort on slashing entitlements & "throwing the poor out on the street", and I think the fear you guys have of Republicans eliminating the poor or w/e are overblown. Time to start speaking rationally & stop getting gridlocked by special interests.

whynot wrote: However, I disagree with you that eliminating such waste would be enough.

BG wrote: Wait, I'm arguing the opposite

Unless I read too quickly, I perceive that you were arguing we could (for the most part) get out of this mess merely by cutting waste.

WhyNot, to quote myself:

To make the claim that we can't give the govt more tax revenue b/c it wastes some of what it already has... requires a few assumptions which I'm not convinced are true:

1. there is such a massive amount of waste and fraud that by tackling it you could make a serious dent in the deficit...

I think there is so much more that the gov't does than support the poor that can be examined... the military, for example; the various departments (Dept of Energy, Agriculture, yadda yadda)... I think it says a lot that people immediately jump to the defense of programs that interest them in such discussions. I don't think any program should be exempt from analysis.... I don't think I've said at all that there should be guaranteed cuts in every program, just that we shouldn't leave any stone unturned. People need to take a less "special interest focus" stance and look at the bigger picture... otherwise we get what we have: a bunch of lobbyists and special interest groups driving up the cost of government while gridlocking any movement that might not benefit them, even if its for the good of the whole country.

The reality is though, America really does demand too much from its govt, and the whole notion of entitlement needs to be questioned, IMO. There was a time when there were no safety nets... I don't think we should go back to that, but fiscally speaking there are too many safety nets, and if we don't want the govt to go into bankruptcy & lose much of what enables us to be an economic superpower, we really have to ask what the value of said programs are and whether or not they need to be scaled back, or if there are other things we are willing to give up to make them sustainable.

Is that fair?

Certainly a fair question, but I do think it remains unclear if govt safety nets are the most direct reason that our debt is a joke and a threat to our way of life (literally, IMO).

I think policies over the 20th century contributed greatly to that too, from the death of American industry (industries?) to having the most inefficient and expensive health care system in the developed world.

In terms of safety nets, SS, medicare/medicaid, and other entitlement programs, I think it's entirely fair to question them and reform them.

At the same time, I think the American psyche has a pathological distrust of the federal government, much to our detriment. In turn, this is used in deceptive ways by special interest groups of all stripes to achieve their own ends, not necessarily what is best for the American people, or more specifically, for our debt, or our poorest or working class or other huge segments of the American population.

If we're going to cut safety nets, we should probably dramatically increase corporate oversight and industry regulation.

For example, can't have the situation that created the sub prime crisis (an unregulated financial industry that was "worth" the "actual" value of the American economy many times over).

Obviously this post jumped around a lot, but I think there's a lot of interconnectedness.

Some smaller govt is good, some is very very bad, IMO.

Like it or not, the tax cut for the rich (and the rest of us) has already been passed.

I don't like it.

I really really really don't like it and am mad & disappointed with Democrats and the Obama administration.

Not the first time I feel this way, won't be the last.

BL/BG good pts....

I feel my distrust, or I should say lowered expectations of the federal govt is based solely on their performance, and is warranted. Let's look back at the last 10 years...

The US Govt...

- went from a surplus to a deficit almost overnight, despite having the benefit of one of the biggest economic booms in US history

- helped tremendously to create the real estate bubble via the CRA act & abysmal oversight

- started 2 wars, one of which was started on false premises

- thoughtlessly embarked on a campaign of the erosion of the USD in an effort to provide welfare to incompetent/ negligent corporations

- ramped up the prioritization of corporations & special interest groups over citizens

Etc...

So with this resume of failure after failure, for me it seems obvious that something is fundamentally wrong w/the govt. They couldn't handle their basic responsibilities during a boom when everyone was employed and happy, so it seems silly to want to ask more & provide more resources to them during a time of crisis. The biggest tragedy is that so many people are dependent on said gov't for survival, which as BG mentioned is the case now largely in part because of policies that put corporations & rich people ahead of the average Joe.

So for me, the hope in reducing costs would be that in addition to fixing our budgetary problems that we could address a lot of the BS going on. Like I mentioned... tax hikes are essentially just more blank checks going to people who obviously don't know how to manage money, and seemingly feel no obligations to the people paying and electing them. IDK maybe I am just being too much of an idealist.

The sentiment that the "Defense department is misnamed. ...and should more aptly be called simply the military or armed forces" is held by folks who are FOR and those against involvements like Iraq.

While those on the left believe these wars are not defensive and should therefore not be fought, there are also people who believe that it is precisely BECAUSE such wars are not defensive that they should be supported.

Wars secure and protect things americans are interested in paying for in $ and blood: ego, oil, religion, more $, etc

....and some people believe that the our military spending is justified for these reasons.

They also believe that our military (unlike SS, Medicare, education and the like) actually brings the country benefits. ....and that is one of the few things we are still comparatively good at.

..we get oil cheaper.

...we protect our corporations overseas.

yada, yada.

BG wrote: People believe lots of stuff.

Like that the president is Muslim or wasn't born in this country.

yup. ...and is often these same people who believe that America has the right and obligation to continue to rule the world.

They aren't going to let us tell them it isn't going to work. ...and they seem powerful enough that they continue to get an adequate budget even in bad economic times, and even when we have relatively "anti military" presidents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of variety that thinks their is some shadow pentagon government that rules the country .... it is more complicated than that.

witchking, brace yourself for the reckoning of the proletariat

I'm kinda surprised that the recent deal on inheritance tax didn't get more press.

I saw this article yesterday, but I thought there would be more coverage.

http://www.nptimes.com/10Dec/IF-12092010.html?tr=y&auid=7482333

Maybe there is more coverage, and I'm just consuming the wrong media for it.

At the moment, I feel worlds away from the world of the rich.

Its kind of ironic that the only coverage I naturally came across was in a trade journal read by largely by people who try to solict donations from the rich.