PDA

View Full Version : So what will the republichickens cut?



LWW
01-20-2011, 04:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years </div></div>

A down payment on fiscal sanity. (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts)

LWW

pooltchr
01-20-2011, 05:19 PM
You gotta wonder why most of these programs have existed for so long in the first place.

I suspect if they keep looking, they can find a lot more programs we can get along without!

Steve

llotter
01-20-2011, 05:51 PM
That is a good list but I am afraid that it is still baby steps compared to what the Constitution lists in the Enumerated Powers.

Whole departments should be phased out, like education, agriculture, energy, environment, Labor, Commerce, HHS, HUD, interior. Now, that would be a really good start.

Nothing would spur the economy more or faster than to submit a plan to put the people back in charge of their own lives.

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:37 PM
End farm subsidies and overseas subsidies and you instantly save almost 600 billion a year.

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">End farm subsidies and overseas subsidies and you instantly save almost 600 billion a year. </div></div>

I looked around and couldn't find anything close to the potential savings you cite here. (Are you sure you didn't mean a 10-year total figure?)

I'm assuming by overseas subsidies you mean foreign aid? Or do you mean tax preferences to corporations to relocate plant and equipment?

Qtec
01-22-2011, 09:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You gotta wonder why most of these programs have existed for so long in the first place.

I suspect if they keep looking, they can find a lot more programs we can get along without!

Steve </div></div>

Yeah, I know. Who needs this stuff?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #990000">Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.</span></span> </div></div>

Mmmmmmm, what's this.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the Legal Services Corporation?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #990000">LSC is the single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation.</span></span> Established in 1974, LSC operates as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes <span style='font-size: 14pt'>equal access to justice and provides grants for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans.</span> LSC distributes about 95 percent of its total funding to <span style="color: #990000">136 independent nonprofit legal aid programs with more than 900 offices that provide legal assistance to low-income individuals and families throughout the nation.</span>

LSC promotes equal access to justice by awarding grants to legal services providers through a competitive grants process; conducting compliance reviews and program visits to oversee program quality and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements as well as restrictions that accompany LSC funding; and by providing training and technical assistance to programs. LSC encourages programs to leverage limited resources by partnering and collaborating with other funders of civil legal aid, including state and local governments, IOLTA, access to justice commissions, the private bar, philanthropic foundations, and the business community.

The Corporation is headed by a bipartisan board of directors whose 11 members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Who are helped by LSC-funded programs?

Nearly three out of four clients are women -- many of whom are struggling to keep their children safe and their families together. <u>Overall, the clients are the most vulnerable among us and are as diverse as our nation, encompassing all races, ethnic groups and ages, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>including the working poor, veterans, homeowners and renters facing foreclosure or evictions, families with children, farmers, people with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, the elderly and victims of natural disasters.</span> </u></div></div>

Waste of money. Get rid of it.........more tax cuts for the rich, that's what I say. They will take care of us.


Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Banker to Boehner
"We're trying to foreclose on poor people's houses and these lawyers keep showing up and making things difficult. Can't you do something about that?

Boehner

"Sure. No problem. Don't forget we're teeing off at 9.30 Tuesday.


<s>Legal Services Corporation</s>.

pooltchr
01-23-2011, 06:35 AM
There is a big difference between what someone needs and what someone wants.
You don't NEED a custom cue...there's always several on the wall of the pool room you can use for free.
Nobody is saying that the programs in place don't provide a service...just that we can't afford to have everything we WANT.
Our government is moving toward bankruptcy. We can not afford to try and be everything to everyone. We need to get back to the basics, as outlined in the constitution.
Yeah, it's nice to be able to help low income people with legal help, but what good does it do if the government ends up falling apart? How much help will we be able to provide if our dollars become worthless???

You are being short sighted. The day will come when we have to pay the piper. Of course, you don't pay taxes here, so it's easy for you to say "Yeah...go ahead and keep spending money you don't have". It is our kids who are going to be facing the repo man...unless he comes around sooner.

Steve

Qtec
01-23-2011, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You don't NEED a custom cue</div></div>..but you do need a cue.

As usual , you miss the whole point.

Q

pooltchr
01-23-2011, 07:03 AM
No, you missed the point. Our government can not afford to continue to give gifts that they can't pay for.

Tightening your belt may be uncomfortable, but it's better than losing your pants!

Steve

Sev
01-23-2011, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">End farm subsidies and overseas subsidies and you instantly save almost 600 billion a year. </div></div>

I looked around and couldn't find anything close to the potential savings you cite here. (Are you sure you didn't mean a 10-year total figure?)

I'm assuming by overseas subsidies you mean foreign aid? Or do you mean tax preferences to corporations to relocate plant and equipment? </div></div>

I was pretty sure that I was accurate on that. You could be correct. This was sponsored by I believe 3 congressman.

pooltchr
01-23-2011, 11:50 AM
Government acccounting is not the easiest thing to decipher, but I believe foreign aid is running about 20 billion per year from what I could gather. Still, a significant amount of money to be saved.

Steve

Sev
01-23-2011, 02:31 PM
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=332895&gonew=1#UNREAD
By DICK ARMEY AND MATT KIBBE

The primary economic challenge today is that our government spends too much money it doesn't have, and it is involved in too many things it cannot do well and shouldn't do at all. This burden is manifested by a $1.3 trillion annual deficit and a $14 trillion national debt. The more pernicious effects of this fiscal drag are unseen: a debased dollar, massive (and hidden) unfunded liabilities, and a crushing burden on would-be job creators.

Milton Friedman correctly argued in 1999 that the "real cost of government—the total tax burden—equals what government spends plus the cost to the public of complying with government mandates and regulations and of calculating, paying, and taking measures to avoid taxes." He added, "Anything that reduces that real cost—lower government spending, elimination of costly regulations on individuals or businesses, simplification of explicit taxes—is a tax reform."

Since 2007, Congress has been on an unprecedented spending binge. That means a first and obvious budget-cutting step would be to return discretionary spending to the baseline before things got so out of control. If Congress returned to the baseline before the supposedly "temporary" stimulus bill of 2009, $177 billion per year would be saved, according to calculations by FreedomWorks based on figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). <span style="color: #009900">If spending went back to the 2007 baseline, the beginning of the first Pelosi Congress, $374 billion would be saved. Over 10 years, that is $748 billion and $1.56 trillion in savings, respectively.</span>

Repealing ObamaCare is another obvious source of reduced spending. The absurd claim that this government takeover of health care produces budget savings is based on budget gimmickry—such as assumed Medicare cuts that, according to estimates by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, would put 15% of our hospitals out of business, and thus will never happen. The claim also ignores the historically explosive growth in other similar programs. Medicare grew nine-fold larger than was projected during its first 25 years. In its first 10 years alone, the program experienced a 700% cost overrun.

<span style="color: #009900">But let's for the moment accept CBO's numbers on ObamaCare spending. They still mean that repealing the health-insurance exchanges and the premium subsidies, including the expansion of Medicaid, saves $898 billion over 10 years. <span style="color: #009900"></span><span style="color: #009900"></span> Repealing the individual mandate alone—and thus reducing rather than eliminating these premium subsidies and Medicaid outlays—would cut $252 billion.</span>

View Full Image

Getty Images
Still more savings can be realized by eliminating taxpayer-funded bailouts. We need to cut the cord between taxpayer wallets and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus, the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said last March of Fannie and Freddie, "Taxpayers have already contributed more than $127 billion to the bailout and they are on the hook for hundreds of billions more." The CBO estimates that the cost to taxpayers could rise to $389 billion. Others estimate it will take around $1 trillion. Fannie and Freddie need to be broken up and returned to the private sector now.

There's more, much more. <span style="color: #009900">Eliminating subsidies to ethanol and for unproven energy technology produces $170 billion in savings over 10 years, according to the Cato Institute's recent "A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget." Scaling back the number of government employees to fiscal year 2008 will save $35 billion, according to calculations from the office of Wyoming's Rep. Cynthia Lummis.</span>

Other 10-year Cato spending cut estimates:<span style="color: #009900"> Scrapping the departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development saves $550 billion; ending farm subsidies would produce nearly $290 billion. </span>Cutting NASA spending by 50% would save $90 billion. Repealing Davis-Bacon labor rules produces $60 billion. Ending urban mass transit grants would save $52 billion. Privatizing air traffic control, as other nations have done, saves $38 billion. Privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies and save $31 billion. Reform federal worker retirement, $18 billion. Retire Americorps, $10 billion. Shutter the Small Business Administration, $14 billion.

<span style="color: #009900">Defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny. With such dramatic increases in appropriations, it is not plausible that all resources are being spent prudently. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed savings of $145 billion over five years. That's a start.</span>

Entitlements—56% of the annual budget and growing—are the most difficult but also the most important programs to reform, because the total unfunded liability tops $100 trillion for Social Security and Medicare alone. The federal government does not put these liabilities on the books, but serious budgeting requires that we deal with this ominous long-term burden now.

The most complete work on entitlement reform comes from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee. Mr. Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" combines a gradual slowing of Social Security benefit growth with optional personal accounts that seniors would own and control. As for the Big Three health-care programs—Medicare, Medicaid and tax subsidies for employer-sponsored health benefits—he converts them into capped contributions to individuals (part of Medicaid would be block-granted to states).

This is a powerful, patient-driven approach, allowing individuals to take control of their own dollars. In total, the Ryan approach would powerfully realign incentives and would, according to the CBO's analysis of the Roadmap last January, reduce government spending by $370 billion a year in 2020.

We've identified almost $3 trillion in real spending cuts over a decade, and have only scratched the surface. New House rules enable Mr. Ryan to create the conditions for reform via enforceable spending caps on all domestic government spending if Congress fails to produce a budget. He should use this authority to halt the current spending binge.

None of this will be easy. Many will likely demagogue any reduction in the rate of growth of spending as a devastating "cut." But the politics of spending has changed, and there is an expectation among fiscally conservative voters—Republicans, independents, tea partiers and even Democrats—that the government tighten its belt, just as American families have been forced to do. Some in the Republican establishment have already started complaining that this is too politically difficult. These naysayers misread today's political climate. Should they succeed in blocking change, tea party voters will hold them just as accountable as big-spending Democrats.

Messrs. Armey and Kibbe are, respectively, chairman and president of FreedomWorks. They are co-authors of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto" (HarperCollins, 2010).

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 11:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the Legal Services Corporation?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #990000">LSC is the single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation.</span></span> Established in 1974, LSC operates as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes <span style='font-size: 14pt'>equal access to justice and provides grants for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans.</span> LSC distributes about 95 percent of its total funding to <span style="color: #990000">136 independent nonprofit legal aid programs with more than 900 offices that provide legal assistance to low-income individuals and families throughout the nation.</span>

LSC promotes equal access to justice by awarding grants to legal services providers through a competitive grants process; conducting compliance reviews and program visits to oversee program quality and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements as well as restrictions that accompany LSC funding; and by providing training and technical assistance to programs. LSC encourages programs to leverage limited resources by partnering and collaborating with other funders of civil legal aid, including state and local governments, IOLTA, access to justice commissions, the private bar, philanthropic foundations, and the business community.

The Corporation is headed by a bipartisan board of directors whose 11 members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Who are helped by LSC-funded programs?

Nearly three out of four clients are women -- many of whom are struggling to keep their children safe and their families together. <u>Overall, the clients are the most vulnerable among us and are as diverse as our nation, encompassing all races, ethnic groups and ages, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>including the working poor, veterans, homeowners and renters facing foreclosure or evictions, families with children, farmers, people with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, the elderly and victims of natural disasters.</span> </u></div></div>

Waste of money. Get rid of it.........more tax cuts for the rich, that's what I say. They will take care of us.


Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Banker to Boehner
"We're trying to foreclose on poor people's houses and these lawyers keep showing up and making things difficult. Can't you do something about that?

Boehner

"Sure. No problem. Don't forget we're teeing off at 9.30 Tuesday.


<s>Legal Services Corporation</s>.




[/quote]

This was the only veto Reagan ever made on the grounds of too much spending, iirc.

Not that he objected to the amount of spending. That there was ANY spending at all for this area.

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:38 AM
53% of the budget is now Soc Sec, Medicare and Defense.
This is unsustainable.