T Nation

YouCut

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

“YouCut â?? a first-of-its-kind project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to change Washington’s culture of spending into a culture of savings. Click here to learn more about our first week’s winning item, a $2.5 billion spending cut.”

Interesting idea. I have voted both times. I wonder if any of these cuts will ever get passed.

Excellent idea imo: in my “Is My Democracy Failing?” thread I was thinking of proposing something like this, looks like I Was beat to it. If people don’t want taxes, then they need to vote on what gets axed.

+1 I like. Great idea

[quote]Chris Edwards wrote:
House Republicans unveiled a bold strategy to cut 0.017 percent from the $3.7 trillion federal budget this week. Republican Whip Eric Cantor unveiled the GOPâ??s â??YouCutâ?? website, which includes five possible spending cuts for citizens to vote on. Mr. Cantor promised to take the favored cut to the House floor next week for members to consider.

The basic idea of YouCut is a good one â?? getting citizens actively involved in solving the governmentâ??s giant deficit problem and focusing congressional attention on cutting the bloated budget.

But the GOP leadership make themselves look silly by offering such small cuts. The suggested cuts on the new website average just $638 million in annual savings, which is just 0.017 percent of total federal spending. Put another way, it is just $1 of cuts for every $5,800 of federal spending. The average YouCut savings idea is just 0.04 percent of this yearâ??s federal deficit of $1.6 trillion. So we would need 2,500 cuts of this size to balance the budget.

Itâ??s a mystery why the Republican leadership canâ??t offer more than tiny spending reforms. Theyâ??ve got lots of sharp staffers who know how wasteful many large programs are and understand the need to terminate whole agencies. Itâ??s true that YouCut will offer new cuts every week, but so far the cuts are very timid[/quote]

I like the idea… kind of. I see this as an attempt to garner support for house Republicans to say ‘see! A bunch of people want us to cut this bit of Democratic pork!’ or whatever. As far as eliminating the debt, it’s a step in the right direction, but we’re going to need a bigger, sharper knife to accomplish that.

Hopefully they will be willing to post our ideas. If this is just this is what we want to cut idea, then I do not care for it. But if I say cut Obama’s antipersprint budget from $1,000,000 to say $100 a year then hopefully they will post that up for everyone to see.

[quote]Otep wrote:

I like the idea… kind of. I see this as an attempt to garner support for house Republicans to say ‘see! A bunch of people want us to cut this bit of Democratic pork!’ or whatever. As far as eliminating the debt, it’s a step in the right direction, but we’re going to need a bigger, sharper knife to accomplish that.

[/quote]

Rome wasn’t built in a day, This is a great start to something we will be seeing a lot more of.

Gee, real popular thread.

Fact is, everybody SAYS they wanna cut and they’re against spending, but mainly they’re against the spending that other people do. Everybody wants THEIR government services with no interruptions, even while they complain about taxes out of the other side of their face. Another fact: besides Texas, dollar-for-dollar pretty much every conservative “red state” pays out less in federal taxes than the amount of federal tax revenue they take in.

See pic.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Gee, real popular thread.

Fact is, everybody SAYS they wanna cut and they’re against spending, but mainly they’re against the spending that other people do. Everybody wants THEIR government services with no interruptions, even while they complain about taxes out of the other side of their face. Another fact: besides Texas, dollar-for-dollar pretty much every conservative “red state” pays out less in federal taxes than the amount of federal tax revenue they take in.

See pic.

Out of curiosity, do you have a site and the numbers from where this map came from?

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Gee, real popular thread.

Fact is, everybody SAYS they wanna cut and they’re against spending, but mainly they’re against the spending that other people do. Everybody wants THEIR government services with no interruptions, even while they complain about taxes out of the other side of their face. Another fact: besides Texas, dollar-for-dollar pretty much every conservative “red state” pays out less in federal taxes than the amount of federal tax revenue they take in.

See pic.

That does not mean that an individual in a red state receives more than they pay in. A minority of inhabitants could receive a majority of funds.

I would like to cut . . in alphabetical order:

Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency for International Development
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
Alcohol and Tobacco tax and trade Bureau (Treasury)
AMTRAK
Arctic Research Commission
Arms Control and International Security
Arthritis and Muscoloskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Center or Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Commission on Fine Arts
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements . . .

awww forget it . . . these could go on for a long time

I think this is a nice political ploy that will help rev up the base. Nicely done.

[quote]Otep wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you have a site and the numbers from where this map came from?[/quote]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I would like to cut . . in alphabetical order:

Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency for International Development
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
Alcohol and Tobacco tax and trade Bureau (Treasury)
AMTRAK
Arctic Research Commission
Arms Control and International Security
Arthritis and Muscoloskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Center or Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Commission on Fine Arts
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements . . .

awww forget it . . . these could go on for a long time[/quote]

Fair enough, as long as you realize that these cuts you want won’t be the big changes in the budget that you’re looking for, but these agencies do contribute a lot to Americans’ quality of life - at least that is the concept. I can’t defend or even discuss these agencies in-depth, but it’s a safe guess that every single one was launched to address a perceived public need.

The elephant in the room that conservatives usually won’t address is the bloated military budget. If you’re serious about the budget, then you have to talk about military spending too. For example, the pentagon can’t account for trillions of dollars in their budget. We spend billions on outdated weapons, and on developing weapons that don’t work as they are claimed, and runaway cost overruns. I guess Libertarians are willing to discuss military waste but many of their other positions are ludicrous and they’re a fringe movement. “Republicans” are generally willing to give military spending a pass (those who even admit it exists.)

cut the unnecessary, ineffective “wars” should save a lot of cash, and lives.

[quote]StevenF wrote:
cut the unnecessary, ineffective “wars” should save a lot of cash, and lives. [/quote]

cutting the broke entitlement programs would save a lot more money…

While I’m one for cutting the military budget, it wouldn’t make a difference. By 2040 we won’t be able to even afford a military, due to entitlement obligations. So, while we do spend far too much on policing the world, it’s nothing but a drop in the bucket.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/60-minutes-interview-with-david-walker/285b98ae52cbceef06db285b98ae52cbceef06db-84878427072

And this video was before Obama piled on.

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I would like to cut . . in alphabetical order:

Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency for International Development
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
Alcohol and Tobacco tax and trade Bureau (Treasury)
AMTRAK
Arctic Research Commission
Arms Control and International Security
Arthritis and Muscoloskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Center or Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Commission on Fine Arts
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements . . .

awww forget it . . . these could go on for a long time[/quote]

Fair enough, as long as you realize that these cuts you want won’t be the big changes in the budget that you’re looking for, but these agencies do contribute a lot to Americans’ quality of life - at least that is the concept. I can’t defend or even discuss these agencies in-depth, but it’s a safe guess that every single one was launched to address a perceived public need.

The elephant in the room that conservatives usually won’t address is the bloated military budget. If you’re serious about the budget, then you have to talk about military spending too. For example, the pentagon can’t account for trillions of dollars in their budget. We spend billions on outdated weapons, and on developing weapons that don’t work as they are claimed, and runaway cost overruns. I guess Libertarians are willing to discuss military waste but many of their other positions are ludicrous and they’re a fringe movement. “Republicans” are generally willing to give military spending a pass (those who even admit it exists.)[/quote]

I am all for making the military more efficeint and less wasteful, but not to the point of sacrificing the safety of American whether civilian or military lives. The government IMO is there for defense, infustructure, and that is about it. The government IMO has gotten to big for its britches.

I have to agree with Sloth though. The entilements have gotten way to big, and people are expecting the government to take care of them instead of taking care of business and saving for thier own future.

My bad. We won’t be able to fund a military and only be capable of paying SOME of our entitlement obligations.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm

"Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits â?? from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs â?? rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Fair enough, as long as you realize that these cuts you want won’t be the big changes in the budget that you’re looking for, but these agencies do contribute a lot to Americans’ quality of life - at least that is the concept. I can’t defend or even discuss these agencies in-depth, but it’s a safe guess that every single one was launched to address a perceived public need.

The elephant in the room that conservatives usually won’t address is the bloated military budget. If you’re serious about the budget, then you have to talk about military spending too. For example, the pentagon can’t account for trillions of dollars in their budget. We spend billions on outdated weapons, and on developing weapons that don’t work as they are claimed, and runaway cost overruns. I guess Libertarians are willing to discuss military waste but many of their other positions are ludicrous and they’re a fringe movement. “Republicans” are generally willing to give military spending a pass (those who even admit it exists.)[/quote]

LOL - by the time I would be done cutting out federal agencies and departments on the first pass through, the fed budget would have been reduced by more than 50% . . . Then we would get on to a flat or consumption based tax system with locked amounts and split percentages (local/state/fed) . . .

I am never willing to give the military a pass. My solution for the military budget is quite simple. The Military gets a flat 15% of the federal budget (regardles of revenue totals) - this would be a locked percentage and each service branch would get an allotted percentage of that locked percentage. A large part of the waste in the military budget is caused by the same budget mess that infects the entire federal system. In order to qualify for your budget you have to spend all of the previous years allottment - this leads to fuel fly-offs and all sorts of wasteful uses of resources. Instead the military is allocated a set percentage of rvenue - the branches can save, spend and invest as they seem fit while still giving an account to the Congress who has the authority to penalize a branch for waste/fraud or abuse of funds. Imagine a military unit that can actually save funds for emergencies!

The amount they receive will rise and fall with the economy, and they will have to spend wisely on the lean years and invest wisely in fat years.

In addition, each branch can invest in its black operations and actually be able to give an account for that budget, because it is their choice on where to spend their budget rather than reorting to tricks and gimmicks to fund vital programs that would never pass a congressional budget review due to the sensitive/dark nature of the project or operation, they can simple state - that of the 6% of the DOD budget allocated to our service branch, we are allocating 5% to black book operations. End of story.

The other reform needed by the DOD besides budget reform is the contract/bidding process. I am no expert on this process, but even a casual observer can see that politics plays too much of a role in a process that should be based entirely on direct RFP’s, a clean bidding process and and contracts awarded based on cost, production capability, budget controls and penalties for delays/overruns (such as loss of bidding rights for 12/24 months).

Your oversimplifications of Republican attitudes about the military are off base (see what i did there?) Desire to have a strong military coupled with a screwed up budgeting and contracting processes leads to all sorts of discontent and disatisfaction with the whole system - but we are not willing to merely sacrifice security for nothing gained.