How to Cut Government Spending

[Saydrah]

Since this got interesting in the "redistribution of wealth" topic:

How do you propose government spending be cut without damaging programs that we truly do need- for example fire, police, aid to those who need it, etc.?

I say stop spending money on prosecuting victimless crimes. Stop the war on drugs already. Stop spending money razing opium fields in other countries. Stop spending money keeping people in prison who should be in treatment so they can become productive citizens again. Stop HANDING gangs and criminals an easy source of money by making highly addictive substances only obtainable illegally. And start effing TAXING drugs- because if everyone who smokes pot paid the same taxes cigarette smokers do, we could AFFORD to be putting all the people addicted to harder drugs in treatment instead of jail- or pay off some of the deficit, or improve schools, or health care.... and that's just ONE drug.

Now, let me first say this: I despise drugs vehemently. My drug of choice is alcohol, in moderation (mostly), in the privacy of my own home (usually), and having recently seen my first example of true alcohol withdrawal happening to someone I care about, I'm reconsidering even that. I don't allow drugs in my home or around me, and if anyone offers pot to me, I'm very quick and clear in explaining that, while I support personal choice, I think it's an incredibly STUPID choice, and smells awful. I've never even smoked a cigarette or hookah, much less anything illegal. So I have no personal interest, except as a US citizen, in holding this perspective. In fact, given some personal experiences that caused my extreme distaste for marijuana and people who smoke marijuana, it would be more natural for me to want higher penalties for its use.

But it just doesn't make FINANCIAL sense. Do you think most kids, if their first exposure to drugs wasn't "OH MY GOD NEVER DO THAT EVER YOU WILL DIE JUST SAY NO OMG" would be so interested in them? When you think about it objectively, what seems stupider than rolling up a dried plant and smoking it, except maybe injecting a toxic substance in your veins? If it wasn't so taboo, they wouldn't think it MUST be so exciting. And making it so exciting by making it illegal just creates a huge illegal industry that isn't paying taxes and is COSTING the country money to try to get rid of it, with very little success.

[Seshat]

War on Drugs

I believe that redirecting 'fighting drugs' money into catching mental illness as early as possible and treating everyone who is mentally ill would provide a net social gain, especially if you factor in productivity of those mentally ill who become able to function.

This is because I believe that a significant proportion of the regular drug users, especially the addicts, become so because of an acknowledged or unknown psychiatric or psychological condition.

However, the social support network for the mentally ill just isn't in place yet. Over here in Aussieland, we need more crisis support, more hospital beds, more places in assisted-care living, more respite care, more diagnosticians, more treating psychiatrists and psychologists - everything.

There is good news, though. I read one doctor saying that we're doing remarkably well with improving mental health services over his lifetime. When he started practice, patients with mental illness would be brought to him when the family just couldn't cope with them any more. Gibbering people who refused basic hygeine and were either withdrawn or violent. Now, he gets patients walking in on their own, well groomed and clothed, saying 'Doctor, I just can't cope anymore, everything's getting me down and I feel like I'm losing it.' It's a vast improvement, and his experience has been that the patients who come to him early never get to the gibbering stage.

So that's looking hopeful. If we continue along these lines and continue to improve psychiatric and psychological services, we may yet win the 'war on drugs' by removing a large chunk of the demand.

As a side note: religious services also contribute to mental health - many ministers of many religions get training in counselling of various sorts, and do a lot of preventative mental health care. For example, sitting shivah, (a Jewish bereavement tradition) helps prevent normal healthy grief from spiralling into clinical depression.

[linguist]

Do you think most kids, if their first exposure to drugs wasn't "OH MY GOD NEVER DO THAT EVER YOU WILL DIE JUST SAY NO OMG" would be so interested in them? .


this is one of the biggest problems with the whole "just say no" campaign. kids are taught that drugs are dangerous, and you will die or get hurt or hurt someone else if you do them. then they go on to experiment and find that not only did they not die or have anything else bad happen to them, it actually felt good. it leads to an inherent mistrust in what the authority figures have to say about drugs.

i don't do drugs (anymore), but i do support people having the choice to do them if they so desire, provided that they harm no others in the process. i just think our whole drug education system is screwed up, and if we really wanted to do away with drug abuse, a more honest approach to educating our kids is needed.

[daleduke17]

We (The USA) need to stop, in addition to what you said Saydrah, trying to police the world. There are times that a country needs to invade one, but, there needs to be a limit.

Also, cut back the amount of money made by Congress. Yes, they do an important job, but, do they really need to earn almost $170,000 a year? Cut that in half and follow something like this:

House Speaker and President Pro Tempore: 85,000
House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders: 70,000
Rest of Senate and House: 50,000

I just saved approximately $64,000,000 a year right there.

The President and Vice President could use some trimming as well. Take them down by half (savings of $300,000). The Chief Justice and Associate Justices are a little rich, so, maybe cut them by 25% (total of $500,000 savings).

According to cfr.org, the budget for the war on drugs is just around$12,700,000,000 (12.7 billion). Add that into my savings on wages of around 65,000,000 and there is quite the little chunk of money. What could the USA do with almost 13 BILLION dollars? 260 Million to spend on each state, or use to fund different projects.

[Greenday]

We can't stop funding the War on Drugs. How many more people do you want to be unemployed? You'd be laying off a lot of people.

As for cutting the salaries of the government officials, $50k a year for the rest of the senate and the house? No offense, but that's dirt cheap for people who makes laws and such. Besides, a savings of $64 million is in the decimals of percentage of the US debt.

How about not giving the rich such ridiculous tax cuts? Make them actually pay some money for their taxes.

Ditch No Child Left Behind. It's obviously a waste of money. It's not doing anything.

I'm sure there are a lot of other things out there that are totally ineffectual and a waste of money. Cut them too.

[Boozy]

We can't stop funding the War on Drugs. How many more people do you want to be unemployed? You'd be laying off a lot of people.

Oh dear.

That's like saying that the government should just offer jobs to all the unemployed people, therefore the unemployment rate could be kept at zero at all times.

[Seshat]

That's okay - there're lots of people needed in the social work field.

[Saydrah]

I sympathize with the job losses that ending the war on drugs might result in, but frankly rather than keep treating people with a disease like criminals instead of patients, I'd pick a few lost jobs as the lesser of two evils.

However, since prisons are overcrowded and understaffed currently, it might not be as much of a net job loss as you think- but they might be able to contain the violent criminals who DO belong in prisons a little better, get more officers on the street stopping rapes and murders rather than busting prostitutes and junkies, and the folks who did lose their jobs could always work in the rehab programs that would be opened (and many of which would be funded privately by for-profit companies, and taxed) to care for the addicts no longer being treated like criminals. Even if the government did have to create some sort of public program to find jobs for those whose jobs were cut by ending the drug war, legalization and taxation of drugs could easily fund such a program.

I also count prostitution as a victimless crime that we need to stop prosecuting. It's not going to go away- it's the world's oldest industry, and we're putting people who work in the sex industry in danger by arresting them instead of protecting them from violent crime. Let people use their bodies to earn money if they want.

[ArcticChicken]

I agree, we should legalize pot, at least. The taxes on that alone.
I also agree that the income tax needs to be redistributed.
I cannot agree about slashing the salaries of the men and women who run the country. $50,000 a year is simply not enough to do their jobs properly. They need to maintain homes in both DC and their home states, and they need to travel constantly. Plus various and sundry other things that I have no idea of.
How about we slash the DOD budget instead. The US spends more than twice as much as the next four top-spending countries combined, we can still be the top spending nation in the world without spending that much.

[Amethyst Hunter]

TOTALLY agreed re: the War On Drugs. As far as the lesser stuff (like weed) goes, anyway...tax the shit out of it and it'll lose its appeal fast, while at the same time workplaces should be allowed to determine whether or not they would permit such partaking and hire/fire as such.

Also agreed on cutting (way) back on government critters' salaries and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

I'd also like to add that such cuts and aid should also be cut (IMO) to most of the religious organizations in this country. Now before anybody jumps down my throat at this, let me explain: The so-called 'faith-based' organizations that the current idiot-in-chief favors have been known to harbor what are termed Dominionists (basically, people who want this country ruled by *extremely strict* Biblical law instead of our Constitution), or have supported them. This is only a small chunk of the big religion problem in this country (USA), but cutting off these groups' source of money would IMO go a long way towards reducing the abuse of organized religion. There are some religious groups who will in fact *refuse* aid to people if they 1) are not part of that group, 2) refuse to join said group, or 3) will not first permit the sermonizing *before* receiving said aid. There were reports of this type of abuse going around during the Katrina disaster, for instance.

For those religious organizations that *do not* discriminate according to some twisted code, I would support their receiving government monies. But in general, I think the majority of that money would be better spent elsewhere rather than funding a new breed of religion-based persecution.

Have to disagree on the prostitution though. It's not such a 'victimless' crime as it seems. Rape, physical abuse, and even murder are rampant in the sex industry, not to mention the constant threat of disease (which can then be passed on to a partner in cases of marital infidelity). Self-esteem is all but destroyed for many women (especially those who were forced into it by abusive relatives or boyfriends) - really, how secure in yourself can you be if you let a bunch of guys use you as a cum-hole, no matter how consensual the act might be? And there's also the whole issue of the marital bond itself.

However, rather than locking up the prostitutes themselves (which doesn't solve much IMO; they do their time, get out and go right back to what they were doing before), they should go after the johns more. And programs to help prostitutes get out of the business and into legit work where they don't have to sell their bodies would go a long way towards reducing prostitution as well.

I'm sure I'll think of more...

[AFPheonix]

DoD has a huge budget that could use some examining. I realize that some of its expenditures drives whole economies in some states, but on the other hand it's spending just to keep a community afloat and that's not entirely right, either.

Farm subsidies are another expenditure that could really be retooled for better benefit per dollar.

Health care expenditures could really be retooled under a universal plan, I think. If we went to a single basic plan for everyone, we could merge medicare, medicaid, and tricare under that one umbrella, streamlining and simplifying the process to get more bang for our buck.

"Pork" gets a lot of grief, but in a lot of instances that's how individual reps take care of their constituents at home. I think that each should be examined, but a lot of the time it's for a good purpose.

Cutting back on our debt would also free up quite a bit of cash from interest payments. I understand a certain amount of debt is desirable and keeps money moving, but the extensive debt that we have now is simply eating away at resources.

[CancelMyService]

The Defense budget is so ridiculously bloated, they could ask for a budget of infinity billion dollars and get it passed with no problem since god forbid any Congresscritter actually want accountabilty and end up labled a "troop-hater" or whatever other grade school insult that Republicans call people with common sense these days.

Money has to be spent to defend the nation, no one denies that, but huge amounts go to waste with no fear of any consequence since the military answers to no one. If anyone manages to work up the nerve to ask what exactly is going on with our billions, they get told it's top secret so STFU and keep the checks rolling in.

It's always hilarious to see the people who are always advocating budget cuts to social programs are always in favor of any and every defense budget that comes down the pike.

[protege]

Here's something else to consider. Why are most religious organizations classified as "non profit" entities? Locally, many of them do not pay property taxes...yet own some very expensive properties in some cases. What's up with that? Why aren't they paying their fair share for city/county/state services?

[CancelMyService]

Yeah, that's the other side of the "separation of church and state" coin that never gets mentioned. Churches want to have their fingers in politics while remaining tax free.

I say if churches want to have a say in elected leadership, fine. But you gotta start paying taxes the minute you start pushing a political agenda. That would put the brakes on all that political meddling so fast it could cause whiplash.

[Seshat]

I cannot agree about slashing the salaries of the men and women who run the country. $50,000 a year is simply not enough to do their jobs properly. They need to maintain homes in both DC and their home states, and they need to travel constantly.

So provide them with homes in DC suitable to their jobs, owned by the government, maintained by the government. While you're at it, give them offices and a budget for staff, materials, and helping people who've fallen through the cracks in the system.

Regarding that last item: there're always a few people for whom the system - any system - doesn't work well enough. That's one place where government representatives should use their own discretion and get people help.

As an example, I have a severely disabled friend who wasn't getting enough help from the system as it stood, just because of the severity and nature of her disabilities. I brought her to the attention of her local rep, and he was able to get her re-assessed and also to call in a favour from a charity that houses the disabled. (She was struggling with housing intended for healthy people.)

As it turned out, in that one case, he just had to tweak the system. But if there was a budget in place for patching over 'cracks' in the system (and that charity didn't have a place for her), he could have gotten her a standard Housing Commission apartment and spent some of that budget on having it altered for her disabilities. That's the sort of 'system patching' I envisage for this hypothetical budget for government reps.

[Saydrah]

Seshat, I think that would be a good idea, though it wouldn't result in a cost savings, since housing in DC is EXPENSIVE. I actually think we should RAISE the salaries of elected representatives significantly. Why? Because more money attracts more applicants, and if you didn't practically have to already be independently wealthy to be a Senator, what with travel, housing, and campaign expenses, we might see more people from the middle class and below trying to run and make a difference. Paying housing and living expenses as you suggested would be another good way to attract a better quality of candidates.

Amethyst, it's the moralizers in government who perpetuate the misconception that women (or men) in the sex industry "have to sell their bodies." Yes, rape, drug abuse, assault, and murder happen frequently in sex work, as they do in all work that is illegal. You can't protect someone who you've illegitimized by making their entire existence illegal. If it were decriminalized, sex workers could report crime quickly and without fear. They could also work indoors in buildings with security, rather than walking the streets to attract clients. They could advertise in the phone book and use google to pre-screen clients, rather than taking whoever drives up. It would be a safer industry and an industry that would keep to itself, in its own "red light district," rather than prowling residential areas and business districts for johns.

For a good example of someone who works (legally) in the sex work industry, http://mistressmatisse.blogspot.com is an excellent blog. The author is a pro-domme and a former escort who often writes about the thornier issues surrounding sex work. Nobody ever forced her to be an escort- she had a happy childhood, had money to go to college, she could be anything she wanted, but she decided what she enjoyed was using her sexual skills and her body to make money, so that's what she did.

[DarthRetard]

GreenDay, I'm not sure you understand why the rich get so much more in the way of tax cuts than the lower or middle class. They make more, so they already pay more in taxes. My father makes anywhere from 135K-175K a year, and no matter what he gets in tax cuts, he'll still pay more than someone in a lower tax bracket. Giving them more money allows for a larger investment back into the economy on their part. Tax cuts increase confidence in government, and increases purchases of bonds and stocks. Tax cuts also stimulate the economy by encouraging spending. Encouraged spending leads to companies making more money, and theoretically, more jobs. The United States unemployment rate is actually anywhere from fairly standard-excellent for a nation of our size and economic standing.

[Seshat]

Seshat, I think that would be a good idea, though it wouldn't result in a cost savings, since housing in DC is EXPENSIVE.

Not in the first few years, no. But once the houses had been bought and the salaries reduced by an appropriate amount to represent DC housing expenses, that cut would eat into the purchase cost of the house. After a decade or two, the house would be completely paid for by the salary reduction.

The savings would then be salary reduction - maintenance (since house/land doesn't depreciate if properly maintained). House maintenance costs don't increase based on location, except in that labour costs vary (and in remote locations, parts costs have shipping as well - which doesn't apply to DC).

Therefore, if DC housing is quite expensive, that would be a hefty salary reduction and a normal (for snobby-rich housing) maintenance cost. Quite a significant sum, it seems.

[Sylvia727]

Cut the war on drugs. Legalize marijuana if you want, but the street price of all drugs will go down once the heavy restrictions are lifted. Teach kids to make educated decisions about what they put into their own bodies.

Cut the crap about abstinance, nobody's buying it. Put more money into birth control, safer sex education, and destigmatize the issue so kids can come to authority figures for help. Once women figure out how to protect themselves, we should see less unwanted babies in the foster system and less teenage mothers on welfare.

Withdraw from Iraq. We're just pissing everybody else off at this point, and regardless of how you feel about the initial thrust, it's turned into another Vietnam. We can't win by staying there. Divert some of the war budget into nonviolent military pursuits, like counter-terrorism and national guard, but most of it should go back into the pool.

Streamline government spending by reducing unnecessary expenses and combining redundant agencies. In my county, one department gives driver's tests and an entirely different department prints the card off. How does that work?

Stop giving money to people who don't need it. Kicking back money to the oil company--that isn't used to benefit the citizens--is not the best use of tax money. Same for tobacco, or any other lobbyist group.

[crazylegs]

Most drugs are addicictive, ie Nicotine, Heroin, Meth/Amphetamine, Cocaine et cetera.

Legalising these drugs would not prevent them from being addicitve, by then increasing the cost by taxation we will have the situation where more people are taking more expensive drugs. This will lead to more crime as people will have to examine other avenues to purchase their (hypothetical) legal drug.

Before people start saying this doesn't happen with cigarettes let me say this.

On the high street where I live on a saturday you can see homeless people pick up other people butt ends and remove any tobacco they can from them so they have enough to have a smoke.

Let me also say this.

A heroin addict is not the same as a nicotine addict

A heroin addict will (when he requires his fix) develop flu like symptoms, they will sweat, they will have terrible stomach cramps, they will have aching joints, their every waking moment will be transfixed with obtaining their next hit, it is all they can think of, they will do whatever it takes to get their heroin.

I've seen cases of addicts stealing cheques from the back of cheque books of their frail 80+yo mothers and stealing £1500 ($3000) so they can have a good supply for a few weeks.


On the topic of cannabis, can we think of anything else we smoke that for a long time we thought had no health problems, that has hundred of chemicals in it that cause cancer, birth defects and other helath problems AKA tobacco.

Now tell me that legalising drugs will stop this.

[Seshat]

The 'war on drugs', treating addicts as criminals, is not working. Decriminalising the addicts is not the same as decriminalising pushers.

My solution to drugs is tightly tied in with my thoughts on mental health. Ensuring that mentally ill people are identified and treated to the best of current human ability to do so will reduce the number of people who turn to 'self-prescribing': drinking or smoking or getting themselves high on heroin or cocaine or whatever to try to silence the voices or find oblivion in the bottom of a bottle.

Those people are sick, and need to be treated as sick. Send them to the medical system, not the criminal system. Now, the rest of the people who take drugs - them, I don't know what to do with.

As for the pushers and the drug lords - people who prey on sick people are scum. Toss them into prison, and you won't hear any objection from me.

[crazylegs]

Seshat,

I fully agree with expanding the provision for mental health, and the thought of screening all for problems would, as you suggest, probably pay for itself with regards to stopping those who self prescribe from turning to crime.

I also agree with you with regards to going after those who deal and having stiff prison sentences to deal with them. However, decriminalising addicts would result in the same situation as prohibition in the 20s where it was an offense to Transport/Sell/Produce alcohol but not to drink. This lead to speakeasys (sp?) and higher echelons of society flouting the ban. By not making possesion/purchase illegal we would have the bizarre situation of having lawful addicts who have no way of generating their next fix.

I do belive there should be far more in the way of treatment programmes and I believe that those who are not compliant should be detained for their treatment. There are plenty of examples of addicts walking out half way though treatment and falling straight back into addiction. If however the programmes looked at health provision as well as threatment of the symptoms (the addiction) they would probably be more succesful.

[Hellbound Alleee]

Well, we could dismantle the government entirely and have a voluntary community system based on natural markets with Insurance/Moderation boards, with people voluntarily spending their earned money on the things they value, like education, infrastructure, medicine, and charity.

That would cut government spending.

[Girly]

So provide them with homes in DC suitable to their jobs, owned by the government, maintained by the government. While you're at it, give them offices and a budget for staff, materials, and helping people who've fallen through the cracks in the system.

Just as an FYI, condo's in the DC area are going for around a STARTING price of 300k. There are 435 members of congress. That would be a total of $130,500,000 for condo's alone.

When you start to get to houses, of course, the prices go way up :)

Now, provide them with their offices, staff, materials, and an additional budget to help people that fall through the cracks (I'm not quite sure how that relates to everything else, but ok), and you are talking about expanding your savings by slashing their salaries to less than nothing.

[Seshat]

However, decriminalising addicts would result in the same situation as prohibition in the 20s where it was an offense to Transport/Sell/Produce alcohol but not to drink. This lead to speakeasys (sp?) and higher echelons of society flouting the ban. By not making possesion/purchase illegal we would have the bizarre situation of having lawful addicts who have no way of generating their next fix.

I hadn't thought that through far enough, obviously. Thank you.

Now, provide them with their offices, staff, materials, <snip> and you are talking about expanding your savings by slashing their salaries to less than nothing.

But you're already paying for all of that plus living expenses. Admittedly, you're paying for a mortgage on a house rather than the house itself - but that just means the government is paying interest to a bank, via the member of parliament.

And the MP (or congressman, or whatever term) is just going to turn around and sell the house - probably to another MP - when his term is over. Who will start a new mortgage, and spend a sizeable chunk of his salary paying interest to a bank. And at the end of his term, sell the house to another MP, who will start a new mortgage, and spend a fair chunk of his salary paying interest to a bank.

Sure, not all the MPs houses get sold to MPs - but I'd be willing to wager that at the end of multiple MPs terms, the number of upper class DC homes sold by outgoing MPs roughly matches the number of upper class DC homes bought by incoming MPs.

You can get off that treadmill for good by reducing MP salaries by the average cost of a DC mortgage for a DC upper class home, buying homes for them, and paying them off for somewhere between 30 and 50 years: or the average term of a DC mortgage, if it's not that.

Also, your MPs (congresscritters, whatever) are presumably paying for staff and offices out of their own salaries. Which means you're already paying for staff and offices. Offices are another thing which can be bought once and are then owned forever; or which can be paid for indefinitely through letting the MPs keep buying them off each other (directly or indirectly). Why not make them a permanent asset too?

Staff and materials, on the other hand, are always going to be a repeating cost. It makes little total difference whether they're factored into the salary of the MP or handed out as a budget item. For that one, doing whichever better suits the local culture has little total effect on the national budget.


As for the bit I snipped - helping people who've fallen through cracks in the system - that may be a cultural thing. I believe it to be part of the purpose of representatives. Representing those for whom the current system doesn't work right.

[powerboy]

First off, get the troops out of Iraq. That would save a lot of money right there. Second, lower how much the government officials make. They are not proving that they should make almost 1/2 million a year. Third, tax the shit out of drugs.

[MadMike]

I've seen quite a few suggestions I agree with -- ending the war on drugs, stop trying to legislate morality, and stop letting the churches get out of paying taxes especially if they want to be involved in politics.

I think another way to cut government spending is to simply cut the government. First of all, the size of it. Do we really need this many congresspeople and legislators? And do they really need to make such ridiculously high salaries, which they can increase anytime they want to? I saw we cut out the dead wood, and the few that are remaining, the ones that are actually interested in what's good for the people, rather than themselves and their friends, can have a reasonable, slightly above-average salary.

[Boozy]

Let's see...you have 100 Senators making $188,000 per year. 435 congressmen making $167,000. Total payroll for these legislators is approximately $91 million.

Sound like a lot?

Total expected expenditures for fiscal 2008: $2.9 trillion

I don't think cutting salaries is the silver bullet you're looking for. It represents such a tiny portion of the US budget that I don't think its even worth talking about, especially for a country hemorrhaging money the way yours is.

[claidhmore]

I'd say legalize marijuana (sp?), but treat it like alcohol - if you do something stupid (like vehicular manslaughter or something like that) and you're high, it should be classified as a felony and have your license yanked as well as spend some quality time in prison.

I just get this feeling that some people believe that once pot is legalized there will be one huge cloud of smoke over the US as everyone tries it at once, then everyone get lung cancer and die. I just can't see that happening - sure, some people will get stupid with it and those people should get nailed, but otherwise tax the hell out of it and use that revenue for any number of things that could use a cash influx.

[crazylegs]

I'd say legalize marijuana (sp?), but treat it like alcohol - if you do something stupid (like vehicular manslaughter or something like that) and you're high, it should be classified as a felony and have your license yanked as well as spend some quality time in prison.

.

If there was apparatus that could detect TNC (I think thats the active compound) in breath levels like you can with alcohol then I would say yes, as it stands there is not, so unless you take blood which is an invasive procedure then at the moment I would say not.

However, how long have we as a species been smoking tobacco? How long have we realised that there are *serious* side effects? What side effects will there be when people get addicted (as I'm sure there will be), what about people who smoke a couple of joints every day for 30 years, what effect will it have on their mental state?

Until we can answer the question of side effects maybe its a moot point anyway.

[AFPheonix]

I imagine we as a species have been smoking marijuana for about as long as tobacco.