Limiting spending is a necessary component of reducing the debt. It will never happen without leverage. Beyond paying bond interest and redemptions, it is not necessary to spend more money than taxes and other income sources produce. Starting tomorrow, the Department of Education could be shut down. at least four or more cabinet departments could be shut down or combined to eliminate duplicate functions. There is no need to hire 85,000 IRS agents. That money could be saved or better spent hiring more immigration judges and immigration enforcement agents to reduce the economic and social burden of accommodating millions of illegals. There is no reason to implement the Inflation Reduction Act that wastes federal money on a green new deal and steps up policies that reduce corporate profitability. There are dozens of other wasteful programs that serve no useful purpose. The executive branch has about four million non-military employees. Congress has thousands of employees who essentially do nothing except help lobbyists write suggestions for legislation that does nothing except empower the bureaucrats.
If the administration were serious about controlling expenditures and reducing the debt, the federal workforce would be reduced by thousands through layoffs and eliminating positions. Severance pay and unemployment benefits would be only what is required by law or contract. No backpay if they are recalled or rehired. Instead of cutting useless and redundant expenses, the administration would threaten cut to the military and Medicare and Social Security. They would engage in petty signalling such as closing national parks and monuments as Obama did - okay if accompanied by serious cuts.
Treasury revenues are about $5 trillion per year. Disbursements for Military, Social Security, Medicare, bond interest and bond redemptions total about $3.3 trillion per year. The largest chunk is Social Security. Spending could be reduced. The debt could be reduced but leverage is needed, or nothing will happen.
Agreed with much of your spending solutions. Many federal agencies should be cut to the bone, or just eliminated. Federal bloat is unbelievable. The EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, HHS, USDA, many have overlapping and redundant programs, and nobody in Congress bothers to look at them critically. Honestly, Bill Clinton did a better job containing the federal leviathan than anyone since. However, the debt limit is a dinosaur and forcing discussion by ransom won't solve this--it can't solve it. That, plus Republicans are disingenuous and dishonest about it.
I don't see being dishonest and disingenuous as one sided. Do you mean that Republicans are proposing nothing that will help? Do you mean that the Inflation Reduction Act is 100% necessary spending? Do you mean that people like me do not understand how principled democrats really are?
Are you really saying that we should just give up? That there is no solution? If we had a totally honest conservative President who demanded a balanced budget, he and the Congress would be at an impasse. An easy solution would be term limits to discourage politicians from buying a career with tax money. An honest Congress would balance the budget instead of funding the federal government by use of Continuing Resolutions.
Now that’s a solution. There should be a grassroots effort for a Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget and the budget process. The debt limit would be better in the hands of the electorate as a national proposition. I’d support that.
A better cure long term: adjust taxation to a level sufficient to pay for what we ostensibly agreed to spend. Once the bill is seen then people will be more likely to roll back the spending to responsible levels.
Could work that way except for human nature. Politicians can't stop spending to buy votes. Voters who pay very little in taxes (approximately 50%) like their goodies.
Expanding the number of tax brackets and increasing taxation overall (meaning a higher top rate and ostensibly some at lower incomes too) would be the play.
Yeah, if you could find a way to make more than half the citizens feel the effects of an increase in taxes. As it is now, only about 43% pay any income tax, about 66% pay payroll taxes (12.4% rate) and 31 million families receive earned income credit. The nanny state has a big head start.
Your numbers are a bit off. Yes, ~47% pay no income taxes - but 66% of that 47% pay payroll taxes, so it's really ~28% that pay no income or payroll taxes.
But then also consider this - they all pay sales tax (where sales taxes are present). And if an item has tariffs (which are taxes by another name) - they pay those too.
Tariffs are simply part of the cost of imported goods. Sales taxes are a state matter - not part of the federal revenue stream. We actually compound taxes by paying sales tax on the tariff portion of an item's price. We also compound taxes by paying state sales tax on the federal tax portion of a gallon of gasoline, at least we in Georgia do. Nothing against the points you make, but I can't imagine even 50% of the voters being affected enough to demand spending restraints - ever.
Almost half of the voters believe Bernie and AOC when they say the rich and the corporations can pay for their social and environmental programs. Reality is that the top 50% of earners pay about. 97%
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on ones viewpoint) the Democrats are likely to cave and negotiate something away, 'cause that's what they tend to do.
Limiting spending is a necessary component of reducing the debt. It will never happen without leverage. Beyond paying bond interest and redemptions, it is not necessary to spend more money than taxes and other income sources produce. Starting tomorrow, the Department of Education could be shut down. at least four or more cabinet departments could be shut down or combined to eliminate duplicate functions. There is no need to hire 85,000 IRS agents. That money could be saved or better spent hiring more immigration judges and immigration enforcement agents to reduce the economic and social burden of accommodating millions of illegals. There is no reason to implement the Inflation Reduction Act that wastes federal money on a green new deal and steps up policies that reduce corporate profitability. There are dozens of other wasteful programs that serve no useful purpose. The executive branch has about four million non-military employees. Congress has thousands of employees who essentially do nothing except help lobbyists write suggestions for legislation that does nothing except empower the bureaucrats.
If the administration were serious about controlling expenditures and reducing the debt, the federal workforce would be reduced by thousands through layoffs and eliminating positions. Severance pay and unemployment benefits would be only what is required by law or contract. No backpay if they are recalled or rehired. Instead of cutting useless and redundant expenses, the administration would threaten cut to the military and Medicare and Social Security. They would engage in petty signalling such as closing national parks and monuments as Obama did - okay if accompanied by serious cuts.
Treasury revenues are about $5 trillion per year. Disbursements for Military, Social Security, Medicare, bond interest and bond redemptions total about $3.3 trillion per year. The largest chunk is Social Security. Spending could be reduced. The debt could be reduced but leverage is needed, or nothing will happen.
Agreed with much of your spending solutions. Many federal agencies should be cut to the bone, or just eliminated. Federal bloat is unbelievable. The EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, HHS, USDA, many have overlapping and redundant programs, and nobody in Congress bothers to look at them critically. Honestly, Bill Clinton did a better job containing the federal leviathan than anyone since. However, the debt limit is a dinosaur and forcing discussion by ransom won't solve this--it can't solve it. That, plus Republicans are disingenuous and dishonest about it.
I don't see being dishonest and disingenuous as one sided. Do you mean that Republicans are proposing nothing that will help? Do you mean that the Inflation Reduction Act is 100% necessary spending? Do you mean that people like me do not understand how principled democrats really are?
Are you really saying that we should just give up? That there is no solution? If we had a totally honest conservative President who demanded a balanced budget, he and the Congress would be at an impasse. An easy solution would be term limits to discourage politicians from buying a career with tax money. An honest Congress would balance the budget instead of funding the federal government by use of Continuing Resolutions.
Now that’s a solution. There should be a grassroots effort for a Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget and the budget process. The debt limit would be better in the hands of the electorate as a national proposition. I’d support that.
To my knowledge there was a budget passed in 2022.
Balanced budgets occur through two methods: reducing spending to match incoming revenue, or raising revenue to pay for desired spending.
As is there's no mandate to reduce spending, so let's tax people into wanting to reduce spending.
A better cure long term: adjust taxation to a level sufficient to pay for what we ostensibly agreed to spend. Once the bill is seen then people will be more likely to roll back the spending to responsible levels.
Or they decide they like 'em there, who knows?
Could work that way except for human nature. Politicians can't stop spending to buy votes. Voters who pay very little in taxes (approximately 50%) like their goodies.
Expanding the number of tax brackets and increasing taxation overall (meaning a higher top rate and ostensibly some at lower incomes too) would be the play.
Yeah, if you could find a way to make more than half the citizens feel the effects of an increase in taxes. As it is now, only about 43% pay any income tax, about 66% pay payroll taxes (12.4% rate) and 31 million families receive earned income credit. The nanny state has a big head start.
Your numbers are a bit off. Yes, ~47% pay no income taxes - but 66% of that 47% pay payroll taxes, so it's really ~28% that pay no income or payroll taxes.
But then also consider this - they all pay sales tax (where sales taxes are present). And if an item has tariffs (which are taxes by another name) - they pay those too.
Tariffs are simply part of the cost of imported goods. Sales taxes are a state matter - not part of the federal revenue stream. We actually compound taxes by paying sales tax on the tariff portion of an item's price. We also compound taxes by paying state sales tax on the federal tax portion of a gallon of gasoline, at least we in Georgia do. Nothing against the points you make, but I can't imagine even 50% of the voters being affected enough to demand spending restraints - ever.
Almost half of the voters believe Bernie and AOC when they say the rich and the corporations can pay for their social and environmental programs. Reality is that the top 50% of earners pay about. 97%
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on ones viewpoint) the Democrats are likely to cave and negotiate something away, 'cause that's what they tend to do.
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1656066591707090946?s=20