What are you willing to give up?

[willow_girl]

In another thread, DanielY posed the question, "What are you willing to give up in order to actually lower [government] spending?"

Thus I pose the following question: What government program or service do you benefit from that you would be willing to forgo in order to balance the federal budget?

I'll start:

I would be willing to pay more for my Tricare health insurance. Right now, my premiums are something like $30 a month! While I enjoy this largesse, I wouldn't complain if the program were made to be self-supporting, or the premiums were calculated on a sliding scale so that the people who could afford to pay more would be required to do so.

What's yours?

[Yvonne's hubby]

I currently receive disability payments and medicare from Social Security. Takem if it will stop the insanity in DC and save the nation... seems a small price to pay as far as I am concerned.

[Bluesgal]

Trying to figure out what I exacttly benefit from that is "funded" by the Fed. Let's see

The military protects me, I don't collect any social security benefits (and in 20 yrs when I'm eligable it'll be defunct because it's broke, never have collected unemployment, well know.. seems the only "benefit" I get from the feds is the money they give the state for highways.

Which means.. there is a whole lot of te Federal Gov't that could go away and I'd be just fine.

Why start with benefits? How about with all of those departments that regulate things to death. Let's eliminate a few of these agencies....

Department of Education
FDA
Department of Health
EPA
OSHA
Department of Housing HUD

yep that should trim a few billion from the budget and not adversely affect me (or others) much. Execpt of course for the THOUSANDS of people that would be looking for a new job.

[pancho]

I have already given up just about all I have to give.

No job
No insurance
No benefits
No unemployment
No food stamps
No housing
No SS

[Ozarks Tom]

We've all read about the hundreds of redundant government programs, how about doing away with all but one per purpose, and maybe even that one if not essential.

And speaking of essential. How about getting rid of all those "non-essential" employees they tell not to show up on bad weather days.

As far as giving things up personally, just cut me a check for the SS monies I've paid in over 50 years of work, and we'll call it even.

[JeffreyD]

99% of the federal government!

[DAVID In Wisconsin]

Originally Posted by JeffreyD

99% of the federal government!

We'd barely notice!

[SquashNut]

The local goverment that keeps raising my utilities and house taxes.
The manditory trash pick up in our town.
The food stamp system, at least by half.
The dept of education that protects bad teachers.
The federal reserve.
The current executive branch of our goverment.
Most of congress.

[tinknal]

I think that there is a lot of stuff that we could eliminate or streamline without "giving up" anything. For instance, the permitting process for large infrastructure projects.

Instead of having to navigate a myriad of agencies to build a power plant or highway or pipeline why not just have one comprehensive agency that handles that? Besides eliminating redundancies it would get projects moving faster, getting folks to work, it would reduce the angles that interest groups could hold up a project.

Eliminate the USDA inspection arm. Every state already has an inspection system. Eliminate OSHA, another redundancy already provided by the states. Limit the USFWS to dealing with migratory birds. Legalize drugs and eliminate the DEA. Roll the BATF, US Marshalls, and FBI into one agency. Eliminate the DOE and turn education issues back to the states where they belong. Eliminate the Department of Energy (what the heck do those folks do anyway? Eliminate HUD and HHS. Limit the EPA to dealing with issues between individual states.

I could go on and on.

[HermitJohn]

I'll give up the war in Afghanistan. Wait, I dont actually benefit from that in first place....

How about American bases outside the USA and military aid to foreign pet dictators? Wait I dont actually benefit from those in first place...

Boy this is hard. How about single payer national health insurance? Oh thats right we dont have that, though if we did, I would benefit....

How about giving up govt ok to inject noxious chemicals into the water table in order for gas exploration companies to benefit? Oh thats right, contamination of my drinking water isnt a benefit and since I dont own stock in the gas companies, guess thats not a benefit at all.

How about giving up the govt benefit of using eminent domain to transfer property from poor private land owner to rich private developer in order to increase local local tax revenue. Darn again, since I'm not rich developer, I dont benefit....

Guess this is impossible. One has to be wealthy to benefit from some of biggest govt giveaways.

[pancho]

Originally Posted by HermitJohn

Guess this is impossible. One has to be wealthy to benefit from some of biggest govt giveaways.

The more wealthy a person is the bigger the govt. giveaways are.

[beccachow]

Hmmm...let's see, I do benefit from the road system, however I need the roads to get to work to pay the taxes for the road system.

I homeschool, no help there. I pay a pretty big amount of my own employer health insurance, no help there. I am not trying to get snarky with what is a legitimate question by the OP, just saying I don't (to my knowledge) benefit from anything the govnmnt (federal or state) does without already paying into it in some way or another. Even my job in the Fire Dept is paid for by me working for the Fire Dept. Irony, yes?

I agree with Ozark Toms' viewpoint that we need to do away with redundant programs. If we streamlined, we would save billions/trillions. The govnmnt has its nose into lots of things that it should just stay out of, period.

[OkieDavid]

Farm subsidies.... Let milk go to $8.00/gal and flour go to $100/50lb.... Those two alone would reduce weight, lower health costs for everyone.

[tinknal]

Originally Posted by OkieDavid

Farm subsidies.... Let milk go to $8.00/gal and flour go to $100/50lb.... Those two alone would reduce weight, lower health costs for everyone.

Have to agree. Subsidies have never been about helping farmers. They are about keeping cheap food in front of voters.

[MushCreek]

I'm willing to give up bailing out banks and other huge corporations. I'm also willing to give up Social Security- just give me back what I've paid in for the last 43 years, and you won't hear a peep out of me.

[Bearfootfarm]

"What are you willing to give up in order to actually lower [government] spending?"

There's no need to "give up " anything if they'd just cut out the waste, and redundant programs.

BO and MO could have stayed home for Christmas and saved $4 million

[SquashNut]

Total, Department of Education 65,554,384 39,880,345 98,238,000 66,203,438 63,009,432 77,787,360 43,901,252 68,023,391
Total, Discretionary 59,852,061 63,524,352 96,764,000 46,686,324 64,144,856 49,700,290 68,345,322 77,400,391
Total, Mandatory 5,702,323 (23,644,007) 1,474,000 19,517,114 (1,135,424) 28,087,070 (24,444,070) (9,377,000)


easier to read here
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/bu.../edhistory.pdf

FDA $3.28 billion budget.

HHA FY 2012 President’s Budget for HHS
(dollars in millions)
2010 2011 2012
Budget Authority......................................... ....................................... 848,626 900,586 885,789
Total Outlays........................................... ............................................ 854,174 909,072 891,597
Full-Time Equivalents....................................... ................................... 71,047 73,051 75,808

OSHA IN Millions
Forward
19
$3,011
0
$0
0
$0
D. Total Budgetary Resources
2,356
$564,378
2,319
$560,385
2,391
$585,151
Unobligated Balance Expiring
-167
$0
0
$0
0
$0
E. Total, Estimated Obligations
2,189
$564,378
2,319
$560,385
2,391
$585,151
NOTE: FY 2010 FTE includes 19 Recovery Act FTE.

[Yvonne's hubby]

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

There's no need to "give up " anything if they'd just cut out the waste, and redundant programs.

BO and MO could have stayed home for Christmas and saved $4 million

Yep. but bo spent about three and a half trillion last year and about ninety percent of it was waste and redundant programs.... cutting that four million would have meant very very little.... and the kids would have had to sacrifice a nice Christmas. You do have to remember that when government wast.....erm.... "spends" any money its always for the children or to keep granny from eating cat food. (which for some reason makes it "untouchable".)

[Paumon]

Originally Posted by willow_girl

..... I wouldn't complain if the program were made to be self-supporting, or the premiums were calculated on a sliding scale so that the people who could afford to pay more would be required to do so.

That's what universal healthcare is. Premiums are based on a sliding scale and those who are in the higher income brackets pay higher premiums. It eliminates the middleman insurers who profit the most from being insurers as a business. Of course, if you were to do something like that in the States it would mean that doctors would have to be prepared to accept the same slightly lower income that all doctors elsewhere in the world get paid.

[SquashNut]

Originally Posted by OkieDavid

Farm subsidies.... Let milk go to $8.00/gal and flour go to $100/50lb.... Those two alone would reduce weight, lower health costs for everyone.

That's going a bit too far.