Balancing the Budget by Across the Board Spending Cuts

[ellisonz]

Consider this proposal: "across the board spending cuts, 3% per year. No exceptions whatsoever, until the budget has been balanced."

1. Do you think this is a prudent approach to our budget deficit and national debt?

2. Do you think such a proposal is generally consistent with your beliefs?

3. What political philosophy do you think this proposal most closely mirrors?

4. Do you think such a proposal would work?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. No, no, GOP thinking, no.

[Enrique]

2. no, no, conservative, no

and I would add that in the real world, "across-the-board" wouldn't turn out to be so across-the-board, and there would be exceptions to the "no exceptions whatsoever" part. i.e. defense spending.

[cthulu2016]

3. No. No. Libertarian. No.

[RC]

4. How do you think we got so deep in debt in the first place?

We need to raise taxes over all. Also we need to rescind the payroll tax cuts. Thatone is going to come back and bite us big time. The government needs to spend money in this country. Rebuild out crumbling infrastructure, build high speed rail systems across the country. Get money circulating in the economy. Energize Main Street.

[BelgianMadCow]

7. Keynes is being discussed more and more

so what you are suggesting is ripening in the minds, at least over here. François Hollande seems to be on the right track. Krugman is also advocating Keynes, as are several professors of economics over here. It is clear the current deficit control in the EU is causing (heavy) recession. Since it's so obvious, I have a hard time believing it's an accident. It's turning the EU into a cheap labor zone.

Unfortunately, the way I remember it, the failure to reach an agreement about the debt ceiling means that automatic austerity, which was inserted as the default option, will kick in in the US. I don't know what's the current status on that so also the timing.

[mmonk]

5. No. They have been cutting budgets like crazy.

The effect has been to contract the economy down futher reducing tax receipts.

[Johnson20]

6. Boy I'm shocked, shocked

I tell you of the results you're getting here on DU.

[ellisonz]

10. Why are you shocked? n/t

[gratuitous]

8. No, this isn't prudent

No, this isn't consistent with my beliefs.

This is mostly closely aligned with the nincompoopery that brings us "zero tolerance" policies, which I usually identify with Republicans, but Democrats can be buffaloed into thinking these are good ideas as well.

The proposal wouldn't work for several reasons. First, Defense is our national religion, and there are Senators and Representatives who would burn the whole country down before they'd acquiesce to one penny less for the military. Although that is where a great deal of waste can be found (enough to fund whole sections of the rest of the budget), it's not likely that we would be able to cut the military in anything similar to cuts that would be acceptable to other budget areas. Without concomitant cuts to all parts of the budget, other parts would bear the Defense load, and many of those parts of the budget are and have been underfunded, and this draconian policy would simply exacerbate that imbalance, as a greater and greater percentage of available tax dollars would support the military, and fewer and fewer dollars would be available for the rest of the budget.

The deficit exploded during the Bush years thanks in large part to three events: The tax cuts of 2001, which disposed of those pesky surpluses the country had been running from the Clinton years, and the two invasions launched during the Bush years. It would be difficult to find an historical parallel of a country going to war while simultaneously cutting revenues, let alone the incredibly reckless action of setting TWO wars in motion while cutting taxes. Add to that the expense of maintaining two supply lines halfway around the world, the widespread employment of "contractors" (i.e. mercenaries) to make up for personnel shortages, and you have a recipe for financial ruin.

It's time and past time to raise taxes, particularly on those who can best afford it, to bring some fiscal sanity back to the running of this country. And if we're not going to end our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's time to begin drafting young people to remedy our personnel shortages, and share the burden of our military obligations over a wider portion of the population. We could also cut down the amount of money we're currently spending on contractors, as draftees would be paid a lot less than what we're currently laying out for the likes of Blackwater (or whatever corporate alias it's operating under this year).

[ellisonz]

9. Excellent response.

Although I must add that the budget deficit and debt have been increased by Republican hand-outs to corporations, especially in the energy and pharmaceutical sectors, that undercut government revenue and exacerbate the problem.

A follow-up:

What would you say to someone who thinks that increased military expenditure stimulates the economy and that by reducing the military budget we would exacerbate the recession?

[gratuitous]

13. Military expenditures yield a very bad return

Expenditures for the big ticket items are mostly a dead end. Once you've built a missile or a fighter jet or a carrier, that's it. It doesn't really have a very big multiplier effect through the economy. Certainly nothing like a construction project for a new, modern school with state of the art amenities that will serve a community for 25 years or more. Or an upgrade to a city's sewer system. Or a road improvement project.

The government has to run, and it needs money (i.e., tax dollars) to run. What we choose to spend that money on can benefit a few well-connected industries, or it can serve the larger population. I submit that our national security is enhanced when our citizens are paid a living wage for their work, have top-flight education, and when we share the enormous bounty generated by Labor to help other countries do the same.

[ellisonz]

14. Salient point.

The state of our armed forces is rather lousy if we don't have service personnel who are happy with their lives and feel that government has their back.

[anti-alec]

11. Nope.

A shutdown to the Homeland Department (returning back to pre-Patroit Act days) and a massive cut to Department of Defense down to 95% of their annual budget (only giving them enough to do homeland defense, not empire building), a massive tax raise to the 1% to 75% of their income, adding captail gain taxes (again - remember the GOP whines of 'double taxation'), and finally siccing the IRS to the tax evaders (by adding more workers, and legal teams). Coporations are now subjected to a massive tax and mandated to pay for it or be dissolved and out of business.

EDIT: The last part may be a little harsh - so how's a little incentive to lower their corporate tax rate by a certain percentage by hiring a large amount of workers - the more they hire, the lower their taxes are. Remove the health care responsibilities from the corporations to the government mandated single payer plan for everyone (and through the taxes we pay each year).

[ellisonz]

15. Yeah that might be a little harsh. n/t

[ellisonz]

17. Also, Welcome to DU!

[libtodeath]

12. It would be the worse

possible thing to do.
We need to confiscate through taxes or fines the illegal and illicitly plundered billions back from the 1%.
Defense spending needs to be halfed to start with,and then likely in a few years could be halfed again.

All those willing to work that cant find jobs in the private sector should be hired by governments to rebuild infrastructure,expand broadband so that it is nationwide and free,and develop green alternative energies.
The social safety net needs to be expanded to cover 100% of the population so all have food,shelter,education and healthcare.
The economic explosion that would result from ridding we the people from the crushing heel of the current overlords would last for as far as the eye could see.

[girl gone mad]

16. Running a balanced budget is a bad idea.

Balanced budgets are for currency users, not currency issuers.

[ellisonz]

18. Kick.