IcyPatriot

what I would love to hear PR is that our government is auditing itself and it is going to save every penny it can from every facet of the government machine. The problem is that the numbers are so huge that we have to hear things like the military is but 1% of the budget.

So what ... save a few million here and a few million there and keep saving it. Cut the military, cut foreign aid, cut the staffs of the people in Congress and the Senate.

Cut - Cut - Cut.

Click this link and then click the link for your state. My state RI has it's debt going lower all the time. Some like Massachusetts the debt is rising all the time. States have done it ... most all have ... time for Uncle Sam to follow suit and lead by example.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

State of Rhode Island Debt Clock

State of Massachusetts Debt Clock

Patsfanin Philly

Scenario #2 only works IF you rein in spending. If Congress (both parties) see the added revenues as a chance for more infrastructure/stimulus/porkulus, you've just made the problem worse. I would be in favor of raising taxes IF and only if we couple it with mandatory limits on spending growth. I'm not asking for cuts but freeze spending and make the programs find ways to do more with the same money, much as people and companies in the private sector have to do on a daily basis.

__________________
Um, Mr. Brady, can we line up?

PatsFanInVa

PFiP, let me just touch on your last statement, about gubmit "find[ing] ways to do more with the same money, much as people and companies in the private sector have to do on a daily basis." We've been calling for this for about 30-odd years, and government continually tries to answer this call, in terms of the operation of the gubmit itself.

There's a problem with this thinking: The business of government is mostly contracted or directly paid to citizens. Very little of the money that government gets goes into the day-to-day functioning of maligned government offices, and maligned government workforces.

Because we're so anxious about the idea that the government is one big country club, we get very angry when we see anything frivolous (for example, the rogue GSA conference.)

But by and large, what the actual day-to-day feds cost is a pittance -- and by the way, for the same work, you really don't get paid better as a gubmit employee. In many professional activities, you essentially forego income because you really do want to do the people's work, not feather your own nest.

Now, that part aside -- can we cut government expenditures? Sure. The military is a clear example. Our military spending is as great as the next 13 countries combined -- many of whom are our allies. Will we have to accept great power status instead of superpower status? Yes.

We can cut programs that allow the elderly to live independent lives. But what does that mean for poverty relief expenditures? People of a certain age, like me, remember when we talked about old people living on dog food, because many were. Well, I'm sure some still are. But in the past, one of the best ways to predict poverty was to ask if someone was older. Now they're not poor the moment they get old. I think that's a good thing -- do we want to go backwards?

This woolgathering is about what we do about the "no easy answers" topic. I too am a fan of government doing things smarter wherever possible. The question is whether you can just go in with a "government does everything wrong" theory, without system-wide metrics that make the case, and come up with the answer "Hey you guys -- just do everything better." That's magical thinking, because government is, actually, doing a number of things very well as it stands. I'm not saying there's no fat to cut. I'm saying we tend to look at "oh no the gubmit is terrible" as the silver bullet.

Not going to the full argument again, I guess we've all had enough of it. Just wanted to chime in on the "make government work better" answer. It's always a part of the answer. I've been working in gubmit the last 10 years and frankly, I don't see as much waste as is supposed to be all around me. I see people forced out when they're not producing. I see offices where you have to go out and buy coffee, because there's a law against government offices providing the coffee for workers.... and the actual "coffee clubs" invariably end up buying really crappy coffee and making it really weak.... and the electricity is monitored so you're not supposed to have your own personal coffee pot. I've seen people with pretty impressive responsibilities working out of cube farms, just like in the private sector. I've also seen a workforce with different levels of motivation. I've certainly seen worse than the lowest level out in the private sector. I have never seen better than the more highly motivated gubmit employees I've had the pleasure to serve with.

Whatever people think, what I've seen of gubmit work is not this slack-o-rama.

(And before anybody asks, yes, I am out of the office today.)

PFnV

The Brandon Five

He is saying that there aren't enough dollars available to close the gap on the revenue side. Not even close.

No, he is pointing out that America as a majority have voted for "neither/nor" which is an untenable position.

The Brandon Five

I thought the recession was over? If not, can we get a do-over on the election? I wish you would have told us sooner.

The Brandon Five

It would also be a mammoth step towards another recession. Brilliant.

IllegalContact

except that this notion of the tax on the rich would account for about 3% of the current deficit.......really more symbolic than anything else......

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

JackBauer

Has anyone claimed to the contrary?

Actually, I'd think most Americans are find with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.

PatsFanInVa

Not really a fact in evidence, but not important either. Nobody's talking about driving up the effective tax rate on the wealthy to 50% (and please don't tell me a 39% marginal rate after a wonderland of deductions is the same thing.)

I don't actually think that a 50% effective rate would be a step, mammoth or otherwise, toward another recession... in fact, the top marginal rate under Eisenhower was 91-92%, with a 25% capital gains tax rate. How did growth do during the 1950?

The key was that people were working and the economy was expanding; a large part of that was the national project to build an interstate highway system. That'll put a couple people to work. But certainly that was not the only thing going on.

Now, I'd agree with you if you said tax the man on the street at 50% more, or even 10% more. That would depress the real economy.

PFnV

The Brandon Five

You're smarter than this. The $1.7 trillion is not the income of the Forbes 400. It's their net worth.