How to Cut Government Spending

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[Seshat]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.