|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Discretion AdvisedPosted on Jan 23, 2011By Ruth Marcus Discretionary spending, the part of the federal budget that is not on autopilot and is subject to annual appropriations, generally constitutes less than 40 percent of federal spending. Take out defense spending and that share drops to well under 20 percent. So if your goal is to slash government spending and your approach is to go after discretionary spending without touching the military, it will require punishing, drastic cuts to make any serious dent in the deficit. Even then, it won’t be enough. That is the unavoidable lesson of the spending reductions proposed by the Republican Study Committee, the group of conservative Republicans who now account for more than 170 members of the 242-member House Republican caucus. The logical way of looking at the federal budget and taking the urgent step of getting the debt to manageable levels is to think seriously about what government should look like and then determine how to generate enough revenue to fund those needs. Then there is the Republican Study Committee way, which focuses arbitrarily on one relatively small slice of the federal budget and imposes an arbitrary limit on its size. The RSC proposal would set discretionary spending at its level in fiscal year 2006, $409 billion, for the apparent reason that this was the last year the Republicans were in charge of Congress, and keep it there, through 2021. Advertisement I don’t think so, which may explain why the proposal shies away from painful specifics. It imagines discretionary spending cuts that amount to $2.5 trillion over 10 years but details just a fraction of these: $330 billion. They include eliminating subsidies for Amtrak, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the U.S. Agency for International Development, community development block grants and high-speed rail, to name a few of the bigger-ticket items. To get a sense of how massive are the cuts that the RSC envisions, consider that the president’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility proposed slashing discretionary spending by $1.6 trillion—compared with the RSC’s $2.5 trillion—and subjected defense spending to a proportionate share of the pain. At the same time, the commission’s plan—because it included increases in revenue and tackled entitlement spending—envisioned cumulative deficit reduction of $3.9 trillion. The RSC plan offers not a peep about entitlement spending—and certainly nothing about new taxes. In other words, for all its flaws, the commission accomplished more deficit reduction in a smarter, more balanced way. At a news conference Thursday, RSC members said this proposal was just a start—that entitlement spending would have to be addressed and that defense would not necessarily be spared. But this proposal is more political posturing than responsible deficit reduction. When the members of the Republican Study Committee come up with a budget document that outlines exactly where the cuts will come—and pledge to vote for those cuts—it will be time to take them seriously. © 2011, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By ThomasG, January 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
The frame of this thread is a false frame. A more balanced frame would be one of ratios of benefit as standards that apply to the benefit allotted for and received by the American Populace and the benefit that is allotted for and received by the American Aristocracy and the American Middle Class as the duopolistic owners and operators of the U.S. Economy and the U.S. Government.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/112523/the-american-ruling-class
By establishing ratios of benefit as standards for all concerned, the American Aristocracy, the American Middle Class and the American Populace with regard to all U.S. Government expenditures, it can be determined according to those ratios of benefit, as standards, where areas of overspending and underspending has occurred according to the established ratios as standards and then there can be a more sensible argument over whether the ratios of benefit as established standards are proper or improper.
With ratios of benefit as standards, it can be determined whether or not the resources of the nation are being squandered for self serving interests other than the established ratio of benefit standards, so that all of society can make a value judgment by an accepted standard as to whether or not each class and culture is getting their fair share of American life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all.
Report thisBy MarthaA, January 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
Tobysgirl, January 24 at 7:51 pm,
There are plenty of places to cut without cutting the few entitlements the common populace have in the United States.
As of 2001, the United States operated 737 foreign military bases; now, there are even more, but it doesn’t appear necessary to operate as many foreign bases as the military has, especially since our country has done such a good job of squandering the country’s money from the American Populace. Empire is great, but all those bases are not in the best interest of the American Populace. According to Wikipedia U.S. Military deployment is in 150 countries.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
Cut, maybe not exactly to 500 foreign bases, but I am thoroughly of the opinion all those bases aren’t absolutely necessary and that there could be some really deep cuts in the military that would be beneficial to the nation as a whole, other than cutting pay for their service members, and do no harm to the over all military or the nation’s markets, because destroying Social Security, Medicare, Health and Welfare protections for the common populace should be off the table.
Report thisBy Tobysgirl, January 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
Cut back to no more than 500 bases?!?!?!?
Huh?
Report thisBy MarthaA, January 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
Cut back deeply on Military Spending. Bring all troops home from the private wars and cut back to no more than 500 foreign bases; if private industry won’t, the government must make another industrial base and repair our country’s infrastructure—make jobs for the unemployed citizens in every state and the economy will grow if the bankers will allow the money to turn, and if they won’t, either make new banks or use existing banks that want to help the economy for all, not just the few; like the Bank of North Dakota and get the job done, instead of all the talking and relying on the wealthy who either hold or squander the money.
Report thisBy Morpheus, January 24, 2011 at 1:15 am Link to this comment
“TALK IS CHEAP”
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
What are we to do? The republic is in trouble. Talk and more talk won’t carry the day.
“JOIN THE REVOLUTION”
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
We don’t have to live like this anymore. “Spread the News”
We need real fundamental changes if we are serious about changing the direction of this country. Otherwise, press snooze and go back to sleep. If you’re lucky, you wont’ wake up… It will all be over.
Report this