Eliminate the military.
Matthew Desmond had a whole chapter about this in one of his books. Basically a list of subsidies and programs that help people who don't need help, that we prioritize instead of programs that will actually reduce poverty. I don't remember them all but I think the mortgage interest deduction was the biggest.
Trump would rather just run up the debt to fund his tax cuts for billionaires again, meanwhile repubs in congress will claim we don't have enough money for programs like school lunch.
Eliminate the military.
Yeah, that's a good idea...sure!
But, it could be re-tooled for the modern era, its global scope could be reigned in to be truly defense of the country and not defending against the spread of ideals that are in opposition to the US, maybe pull back on being the global police.
The problem is that it is globally connected world and the natural resources that power the new age are located in some not so great parts of the world.
So yeah, military is pretty important.
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
Most of the Federal budget, including social security, is mandatory spending of $3,800,000,000,000 per year. Defense gets another $800,000,000,000 of discretionary spending, and there's $917,000,000,000 of non-defense spending. I'm using zeros because the words used for these amounts are ridiculous.
It seems hard to find traditional big ticket reductions. So I’d think someone like Musk would want to make a shoot-for-the-stars effort involving new tech, AI, etc.Clearly you have not followed Musk's cost-cutting measures implemented at his own companies, nor the proposals that the GOP has put forward and attempted to implement (with some success) over the last few decades.
We know, for example, that ~25% of Medicare expenses go to last-year-of-life care. Maybe medtech and AI can whittle this down in a positive, win-win way?
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
Most of the Federal budget, including social security, is mandatory spending of $3,800,000,000,000 per year. Defense gets another $800,000,000,000 of discretionary spending, and there's $917,000,000,000 of non-defense spending. I'm using zeros because the words used for these amounts are ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States#/media/File:2023_US_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States
Given the hardwired costs associated with SS and Medicare, and the importance of the military with the challenges we face today, It seems hard to find traditional big ticket reductions. So I’d think someone like Musk would want to make a shoot-for-the-stars effort involving new tech, AI, etc.
We know, for example, that ~25% of Medicare expenses go to last-year-of-life care. Maybe medtech and AI can whittle this down in a positive, win-win way?
Same with military: We know future wars will be fought with AI and that these new solutions will likely make the existing high-expense tools like aircraft carriers etc. less valuable. Start modeling that?
I’m not sure I see a lot of savings if we don’t work smarter. It’s easy to poopoo ideas that involve new innovations as pie-in-the-sky, but you gotta start somewhere.
Capping or slowing the rate of growth of defense and other spending will help, and evaluating all programs for efficiencies and needs. Just slowing the rate of growth can have a material impact over 10 years without having to make drastic cuts immediately. Sort of reverse compounding.
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
I’ve always viewed it as an entitlement because people (for legitimate reasons) feel assume they are entitled to those payments.
- I’d like to see the IRS generate a listing of how many times each paragraph of the tax code is used each year. Paragraphs infrequently used are likely obsolete or represent carveouts to specific special interests… both should require justification to be kept.Speaking of cuts and the IRS, there is one way to dramatically increase government revenues without making cuts. Fund the IRS. The IRS has the best return on investment imaginable - they get 5x to 9x the amount invested, by catching tax cheats. Funding the IRS gets the government more revenue from people who cheat on their taxes. Unfortunately I don't have a lobbyist, but I suspect the people cheating on their taxes do.
There's the definition "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group", which lumps all payments and benefits into the word entitlement. But that strips away the basic nature of it as a bank account. When someone works, social security taxes are deducted from their wages. That is like depositing to a bank account. Congress then steals the money... I mean and then the taxes are deposited into the social security trust fund. When someone reaches retirement, the government mails them checks. I'm comparing this to making withdrawals from a bank account.
- I’d like to see the IRS generate a listing of how many times each paragraph of the tax code is used each year. Paragraphs infrequently used are likely obsolete or represent carveouts to specific special interests… both should require justification to be kept.Speaking of cuts and the IRS, there is one way to dramatically increase government revenues without making cuts. Fund the IRS. The IRS has the best return on investment imaginable - they get 5x to 9x the amount invested, by catching tax cheats. Funding the IRS gets the government more revenue from people who cheat on their taxes. Unfortunately I don't have a lobbyist, but I suspect the people cheating on their taxes do.
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
I’ve always viewed it as an entitlement because people (for legitimate reasons) feel assume they are entitled to those payments.
There's the definition "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group", which lumps all payments and benefits into the word entitlement. But that strips away the basic nature of it as a bank account. When someone works, social security taxes are deducted from their wages. That is like depositing to a bank account. Congress then steals the money... I mean and then the taxes are deposited into the social security trust fund. When someone reaches retirement, the government mails them checks. I'm comparing this to making withdrawals from a bank account.
- I’d like to see the IRS generate a listing of how many times each paragraph of the tax code is used each year. Paragraphs infrequently used are likely obsolete or represent carveouts to specific special interests… both should require justification to be kept.
Given the hardwired costs associated with SS and Medicare, and the importance of the military with the challenges we face today, It seems hard to find traditional big ticket reductions. So I’d think someone like Musk would want to make a shoot-for-the-stars effort involving new tech, AI, etc.
We know, for example, that ~25% of Medicare expenses go to last-year-of-life care. Maybe medtech and AI can whittle this down in a positive, win-win way?
Same with military: We know future wars will be fought with AI and that these new solutions will likely make the existing high-expense tools like aircraft carriers etc. less valuable. Start modeling that?
I’m not sure I see a lot of savings if we don’t work smarter. It’s easy to poopoo ideas that involve new innovations as pie-in-the-sky, but you gotta start somewhere.
I think aircraft carriers and subs are the most effective balance of show of strength, flexible response and deterrence that a country could have, and there aren't that many carriers - 25 in total, 11 of those are the US(all nuclear) - France has the only other nuclear carrier but its pretty small.
Capping or slowing the rate of growth of defense and other spending will help, and evaluating all programs for efficiencies and needs. Just slowing the rate of growth can have a material impact over 10 years without having to make drastic cuts immediately. Sort of reverse compounding.
Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
I’ve always viewed it as an entitlement because people (for legitimate reasons) feel assume they are entitled to those payments.
There's the definition "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group", which lumps all payments and benefits into the word entitlement. But that strips away the basic nature of it as a bank account. When someone works, social security taxes are deducted from their wages. That is like depositing to a bank account. Congress then steals the money... I mean and then the taxes are deposited into the social security trust fund. When someone reaches retirement, the government mails them checks. I'm comparing this to making withdrawals from a bank account.
It's not a terribly robust comparison though. The money one pays via SS taxes are very rarely 1:1 what they will get out of it, and that's by design. If you are a high wage earner most of your life you are unlikely to recoup what you "paid into the system'. If you die single a week before your first disbursement you're SOL. If you are middle class and live to be 100 it's likely the best ROI you will ever have.
The brilliance of social security is that they've convinced people across the political spectrum that it's their money which they paid into the system and therefor should never be cut. They even deliberately selected language to reinforce this notion, mailing 'benefit verification statements' and referring to future payments as "obligations'.
Roosevelt even commented that his administration designed the SS payroll tax system so that "no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program"
My view is that the fact that I've paid a bunch of money into social security to support people of my parents and grandparents generation does NOT create a legal or moral obligation for people of my (hypothetical) children or grand children's generation to pay money into social security to support me.
Social security could go away, or (more likely) get means tested at any time and I won't be that upset about not seeing any money myself.
The social security taxes I've paid and will continue to pay are an investment in not having old people living on the streets or eating cat food, and I consider that well worth what I've paid whether or not I ever see a dime of benefits from future generations doing the same for me.
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries. There's no legal obligation to pay the complete amounts dictated by the current formula, nor any legal or logistical barrier to changing the formula, although there are certainly political barriers to doing so.
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money.If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries.
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money.If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries.
The US government can’t run out of or exhaust it’s ability to spend US dollars, and is ultimately not constrained by line item budgeting.
The government can always continue to make SS benefit payments and would not “spend tax collections” to do so. Taxing and bond issuance are simply devices to take money out of circulation. Our “leaders” and their media asswipes bullshit us into thinking that government spending is like your household spending—but unless you can print money it’s just not.
The only problem with having the government create money and give it away arises when there’s not enough goods and services to spend it on. That creates inflation.
If we’re able to increase productivity (more goods and services at current input levels) we’re good to go.
I didn't want to tangent earlier, but I agree most people receive less than what they paid in. I seem to recall the formula applied 90% of income in the lowest "bracket", and about 1/7th of the highest bracket of income. And then you get more or less depending on if you outlive your life expectancy or not. Once someone's income exceeds $168k, they stop paying social security tax on that income. As to the naming, I think retirees wouldn't care what it was called as long as the checks kept coming.Next year I expect we'll hear about "social security" called an "entitlement". What gets ignored is that I put money into social security, and when I retire, I take my money out. The discussion will ignore that social security tax funds social security payments. There are special cases, but for most people, that isn't an entitlement - they are just getting their money back.
I’ve always viewed it as an entitlement because people (for legitimate reasons) feel assume they are entitled to those payments.
There's the definition "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group", which lumps all payments and benefits into the word entitlement. But that strips away the basic nature of it as a bank account. When someone works, social security taxes are deducted from their wages. That is like depositing to a bank account. Congress then steals the money... I mean and then the taxes are deposited into the social security trust fund. When someone reaches retirement, the government mails them checks. I'm comparing this to making withdrawals from a bank account.
It's not a terribly robust comparison though. The money one pays via SS taxes are very rarely 1:1 what they will get out of it, and that's by design. If you are a high wage earner most of your life you are unlikely to recoup what you "paid into the system'. If you die single a week before your first disbursement you're SOL. If you are middle class and live to be 100 it's likely the best ROI you will ever have.
The brilliance of social security is that they've convinced people across the political spectrum that it's their money which they paid into the system and therefor should never be cut. They even deliberately selected language to reinforce this notion, mailing 'benefit verification statements' and referring to future payments as "obligations'.
Roosevelt even commented that his administration designed the SS payroll tax system so that "no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program"
Annuities do not require insurance. Over 80% of the money is paid out to retired workers, which is the situation I described. Survivors and disability payments each make up a small fraction of overall payments. For someone on disability, it is an insurance contract that pays out as an annuity. But for over 80% of the money, people who paid in receive annuity payments.There's the definition "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group", which lumps all payments and benefits into the word entitlement. But that strips away the basic nature of it as a bank account. When someone works, social security taxes are deducted from their wages. That is like depositing to a bank account. Congress then steals the money... I mean and then the taxes are deposited into the social security trust fund. When someone reaches retirement, the government mails them checks. I'm comparing this to making withdrawals from a bank account.
A lot of people think this, but it is wrong. Social Security has never functioned or intended to be like a bank account. Social Security is insurance. More specifically, it is an inflation-adjusted annuity with survivor's and disability benefits. In fact, what we are calling Social Security is formally known as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. We call it Social Security for short, because OASDI is administered by the Social Security Administration.
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money.If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries.
The US government can’t run out of or exhaust it’s ability to spend US dollars, and is ultimately not constrained by line item budgeting.
The government can always continue to make SS benefit payments and would not “spend tax collections” to do so. Taxing and bond issuance are simply devices to take money out of circulation. Our “leaders” and their media asswipes bullshit us into thinking that government spending is like your household spending—but unless you can print money it’s just not.
The only problem with having the government create money and give it away arises when there’s not enough goods and services to spend it on. That creates inflation.
If we’re able to increase productivity (more goods and services at current input levels) we’re good to go.
Do not misquote me - the entire point is that the government can only exhaust its ability to create new money if congress does not approve of a higher debt ceiling once the previous one has been reached.
The government defaulting would be a political move, and, curiously, the public does understand this on some visceral level given the backlash those shenanigans have faced in the past.
Here is the full quote:
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money and that is why the discussion of possible default never is about having depleted the account of taxes collected (because such an account doesn't exist because the money collected in taxes is destroyed upon collection; only applies to federal not state taxes because only the federal government can create new money) but always about the debt ceiling, which is the limit imposed by congress on the creation of new money.
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money.If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries.
The US government can’t run out of or exhaust it’s ability to spend US dollars, and is ultimately not constrained by line item budgeting.
The government can always continue to make SS benefit payments and would not “spend tax collections” to do so. Taxing and bond issuance are simply devices to take money out of circulation. Our “leaders” and their media asswipes bullshit us into thinking that government spending is like your household spending—but unless you can print money it’s just not.
The only problem with having the government create money and give it away arises when there’s not enough goods and services to spend it on. That creates inflation.
If we’re able to increase productivity (more goods and services at current input levels) we’re good to go.
Do not misquote me - the entire point is that the government can only exhaust its ability to create new money if congress does not approve of a higher debt ceiling once the previous one has been reached.
The government defaulting would be a political move, and, curiously, the public does understand this on some visceral level given the backlash those shenanigans have faced in the past.
Here is the full quote:
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money and that is why the discussion of possible default never is about having depleted the account of taxes collected (because such an account doesn't exist because the money collected in taxes is destroyed upon collection; only applies to federal not state taxes because only the federal government can create new money) but always about the debt ceiling, which is the limit imposed by congress on the creation of new money.
The debt ceiling is simply another political contrivance and is certainly NOT what the ”ability” to pay SS is about. In the real world it’s about keeping inflation in check.
And FWIW—When the federal government receives taxes from us the money is set as a credit in their account at the treasury. This money is effectively taken out of current circulation. When the federal government spends money it debits its account at the treasury and credits an account in a commercial bank. The adds money into circulation.
We disagree.
Eliminate the military.
Yeah, that's a good idea...sure!
But, it could be re-tooled for the modern era, its global scope could be reigned in to be truly defense of the country and not defending against the spread of ideals that are in opposition to the US, maybe pull back on being the global police.
The problem is that it is globally connected world and the natural resources that power the new age are located in some not so great parts of the world.
So yeah, military is pretty important.
This piece is about the impact of major cost cutting on Trump country:Budget overhaul could cut deep in Trump country
By Andy Sullivan and Ally J. Levine
Published Dec. 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump has tasked billionaire Elon Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy with finding deep cuts to the $6.2 trillion U.S. federal budget. It may not be easy: the two are likely to discover that any substantial reductions would have a deep impact across the country, especially in the states that voted to return Trump to the White House.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-TRUMP/BUDGET/xmvjbqgmkvr/?lctg=63f53ca6fb5bf83d07046add
How do you campaign on a policy and then only "discover" after the election what the likely outcome will be?
If the government doesn't have enough money to pay the interest its bonds it is legally in default with all sorts of bad consequences.
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money.If the government doesn't have enough money in a specific budget category (current payroll taxes plus trust fund), it pays less money out to social security beneficiaries.
The US government can’t run out of or exhaust it’s ability to spend US dollars, and is ultimately not constrained by line item budgeting.
The government can always continue to make SS benefit payments and would not “spend tax collections” to do so. Taxing and bond issuance are simply devices to take money out of circulation. Our “leaders” and their media asswipes bullshit us into thinking that government spending is like your household spending—but unless you can print money it’s just not.
The only problem with having the government create money and give it away arises when there’s not enough goods and services to spend it on. That creates inflation.
If we’re able to increase productivity (more goods and services at current input levels) we’re good to go.
Do not misquote me - the entire point is that the government can only exhaust its ability to create new money if congress does not approve of a higher debt ceiling once the previous one has been reached.
The government defaulting would be a political move, and, curiously, the public does understand this on some visceral level given the backlash those shenanigans have faced in the past.
Here is the full quote:
The answer is that the government has to exhaust its ability to create new money and that is why the discussion of possible default never is about having depleted the account of taxes collected (because such an account doesn't exist because the money collected in taxes is destroyed upon collection; only applies to federal not state taxes because only the federal government can create new money) but always about the debt ceiling, which is the limit imposed by congress on the creation of new money.
The debt ceiling is simply another political contrivance and is certainly NOT what the ”ability” to pay SS is about. In the real world it’s about keeping inflation in check.
Once the debt ceiling is reached the ability of creating new money is effectively exhausted until the ceiling is raised again by Congress - messing with the debt ceiling is probably the crudest and least workable approach to manage the money supply, i.e. control of inflation etc.QuoteAnd FWIW—When the federal government receives taxes from us the money is set as a credit in their account at the treasury. This money is effectively taken out of current circulation. When the federal government spends money it debits its account at the treasury and credits an account in a commercial bank. The adds money into circulation.
That is incorrect, when the federal government has figured out how much tax you owe (duh...), it is recorded the General Account of the Treasury as a debt you owe.
Once you have paid your taxes your liability goes to zero as does your record in the General Account. This is the step where the money is destroyed (= taken out of circulation).
All that's left is your tax receipt which is also recorded in the General Account and serves as the record of incoming funds which, together with outgoing fund receipts, allows for assessing overall balance - these are accounting tools no more and no less.
When the government has to fund outgoing payments, for example to fund its own operating accounts at commercial banks, it creates new money and that is recorded in the General Account as government debt.
If this sounds odd, consider how taking out a loan from a commercial bank works:
The bank approves the loan and turns around to sell government bonds back to the Treasury and the Treasury creates new money to buy these bonds which goes into the bank's account.
The new money appears in your account as does a credit note with the exact amount and a coupon attached, ready to be spent.
Once you pay back the loan the balance disappears from your account and your liability (credit note + interest) goes to zero.
The paid off loan appears as a positive position in the bank's account and the bank turns around and buys back the bonds from the treasury creating a government liability at that instant, as well as a record of payment received in the General account with the money effectively destroyed (taken out of circulation).
What you are describing is the false analogy between a sovereign government's control of the money supply and its methods of internal accounting, and private households/businesses who do not have the ability to create new money to match their liabilities - this is a fundamental difference that is not understood by many.
This piece is about the impact of major cost cutting on Trump country:Budget overhaul could cut deep in Trump country
By Andy Sullivan and Ally J. Levine
Published Dec. 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump has tasked billionaire Elon Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy with finding deep cuts to the $6.2 trillion U.S. federal budget. It may not be easy: the two are likely to discover that any substantial reductions would have a deep impact across the country, especially in the states that voted to return Trump to the White House.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-TRUMP/BUDGET/xmvjbqgmkvr/?lctg=63f53ca6fb5bf83d07046add
Here's the phrase that gets me: "... likely to discover ..."
How do you campaign on a policy and then only "discover" after the election what the likely outcome will be?
I'm expecting that Trump v.2 will backpedal hard on this, or, if they forge ahead, that maybe, just maybe, their supporters will finally wake up.
For anyone interested in what I am talking about, here is a short video explaining modern monetary theory (MMT) as well as a link to a PDF.
There are no ifs or buts, this is how it works and most other takes on macroeconomics, particularly from the right wing nutter faction, are simply fantasies and utter nonsense when it comes to how a fiat currency works:What is modern monetary theory
Richard J Murphy
You can’t discuss macroeconomics without knowing about modern monetary theory. So, what is it all about? In this longer-than-usual video I offer my explanation. You won’t regret finding out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_vNAY2Nrm0Modern monetary theory: an explanation
Professor Richard Murphy
April 2023
Modern monetary theory (hereafter, MMT) is an explanation of the way in which money works in an economy.
It also explains the consequent impact that the best use of money, using this understanding, might have on behaviour in that economy.
The core suggestion made by MMT is that a government is constrained by the real productive capacity of its economy and not by the availability of money, which it can always create.
Secondary insights are that money is created by government spending and is destroyed by taxation.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Modern-monetary-theory-v2.pdf
...
Note: there are some left leaning ideologues, that misinterpret MMT to mean that the government can and even should print as much money as possible. Mosler does not intend that AT ALL and it would certainly be inflationary (including per the MMT model). We can print one hell of a lot more money than the Monetarists estimate however. And this can be leveraged if the new money is spent on productive purposes, especially infrastructure spending.
Counterpoint - a cryptobro told me that fiat is bad because only a deflationary currency that nobody has ever really used for anything other than destroying the planet is the way of the future.
So . . . checkmate.
Although non-fiatfiatcurrencies effectively disappeared throughout the world after the USA abandoned the gold standard in 1971 there remains an apparent feeling that all government debt is created by borrowing and that the debt in question must be repaid because it only exists by depriving the private sector economy of the capital that it needs to fund productive economic activity. MMT shatters the myths underpinning these claims in five ways.
I have to smile at the infatuation some people have with MMT—“Modern Monetary Theory”, which is certainly not modern, is argued with as many fiscal goals as monetary ones, and is less a theory than a simple explanation of government accounting practices.
...
...And yet, there are still a lot of fools who continue to equate government operations with households/businesses and draw harebrained conclusions from this false premise, while a simple assessment of government accounting and the nature of government debt leads to straightforward explanations.
Here’s the thing: While it is obviously true the US government has no need to raise money through taxation or bond issuance to “spend” as it wishes, the volume of money in the economy needs to be on par with the availability of goods and services or prices will increase naturally to force a balance (inflation).
...
I have to smile at the infatuation some people have with MMT—“Modern Monetary Theory”, which is certainly not modern, is argued with as many fiscal goals as monetary ones, and is less a theory than a simple explanation of government accounting practices.
Here’s the thing: While it is obviously true the US government has no need to raise money through taxation or bond issuance to “spend” as it wishes, the volume of money in the economy needs to be on par with the availability of goods and services or prices will increase naturally to force a balance (inflation).
And keep in mind the fact that both liberals and conservatives have played this game for many decades. A liberal government can “spend” money on social programs to the breaking point, but conservatives can enact significant tax cuts that have the same monetary effect—and then claim the social programs are “too expensive”. It’s all the same shit…
I just wish the few politicians who actually understand all this would stop the obfuscation and focus on the real opportunity of growing productivity. Productivity growth is the best tool to defeat inflation in the left-vs.-right contest.
Right, no voodoo economics or PhD required.
We can print one hell of a lot more money than the Monetarists estimate however. And this can be leveraged if the new money is spent on productive purposes, especially infrastructure spending.
I just wish the few politicians who actually understand all this would stop the obfuscation and focus on the real opportunity of growing productivity. Productivity growth is the best tool to defeat inflation in the left-vs.-right contest.
I think the best part about this idiotic DOGE.. thing? Is that it's promoting efficiency, by starting, from scratch, another version of an organization that already exists: the Congressional Budget Office! And that it has two leaders! Seems like the first recommendation should be to reduce the top level headcount at DOGE by 50%, then shut itself down do reduce waste on duplicated efforts!
Here are a couple thoughts on my part:
1) It's important to recognize that the whole "efficiency" thing isn't just about whacking whole departments, it's about cutting out the bloat within departments. It's also about eliminating politically-motivated procurement requirements or incentives that drive costs higher, e.g. preferences for minority- or woman- or veteran-owned vendors.
Housing can go, as can much of Transportation. The fact that my town of 30,000 residents is waiting for a federal handout to widen a local road is just stupid. The management of roads needs to be pushed to more local levels of government.
Department of Labor, too.
3) The military is a bit of a mess. Too much brass, too many pet projects, too much bureaucracy in procurement.
My vision, if you want to call it that, is that instead of taxes going all the way to DC, then distributed back to the municipalities (minus the cost of a bunch of bureaucrats), the funding be both generated and spent locally. I.e. trade federal taxes for local taxes.QuoteHousing can go, as can much of Transportation. The fact that my town of 30,000 residents is waiting for a federal handout to widen a local road is just stupid. The management of roads needs to be pushed to more local levels of government.I'm all for reducing the DOT but when DOGE is discussing efficiency, it's also talking about budget. Can your town widen the local road without relying on funding from elsewhere?
Can you elaborate? Unlike my teenage son, in a disagreement, I prefer to be right rather than to win, so if I'm off base, I'd love to hear why/how so I can correct my views.QuoteDepartment of Labor, too.That sounds like a FAFO move.
And that's a prime example, IMO, of people (wrongly) thinking of the federal government's role.Quote3) The military is a bit of a mess. Too much brass, too many pet projects, too much bureaucracy in procurement.There's a base near me that's on the chopping block every time they talk about closures but the local congressling saves it. The DOD wants to close it but blah-blah-local-economy.
Here are a couple thoughts on my part:
1) It's important to recognize that the whole "efficiency" thing isn't just about whacking whole departments, it's about cutting out the bloat within departments. It's also about eliminating politically-motivated procurement requirements or incentives that drive costs higher, e.g. preferences for minority- or woman- or veteran-owned vendors. I would argue that anything DEI-related (like this (https://www.usajobs.gov/job/818735300) or this (https://www.usajobs.gov/job/813144100) or this (https://www.usajobs.gov/job/805792700) or this (https://www.usajobs.gov/job/799708300), at salaries nearing $200k/year(!)) needs to go. At best, it's a waste of money IMO, and at worst, it actively destroys productivity and morale. The lions share of anything social-media or PR-related can likely go as well. Use-it-or-lose-it budgets need to go away. Procurement needs to be streamlined. How many hundreds of billions of dollars were wasted or defrauded during the pandemic?
2) What departments or major spending should go? Definitely Education is a valid target. You're going to have to work really hard to convince me of the net benefit of the federal DoE. They take tax dollars in, dole taxpayer dollars out, and employ a bunch of people in the process. Taxpayer-subsidized student loans are definitely on the menu. They subsidize college attendance, not graduation or marketable skills or knowledge, and have contributed to the tremendous inflation in college costs over the past 50 years. Housing can go, as can much of Transportation. The fact that my town of 30,000 residents is waiting for a federal handout to widen a local road is just stupid. The management of roads needs to be pushed to more local levels of government. Department of Labor, too.
3) The military is a bit of a mess. Too much brass, too many pet projects, too much bureaucracy in procurement. Too many cooks in the kitchen, too many pie-in-the-sky dreams driving unreasonable requirements. A friend who worked on a particular fighter jet told me that there was a senator who wanted his rather petite granddaughter to be able to fly a new fighter design. The cost to re-engineer just one of the fighter's systems to accommodate her physiology was in the eight figures. The process of procuring an existing, off-the-shelf product is stupidly complex--one part of the organization says they want it, another has to write up requirements saying "we need a device that does X, Y, and Z," a third department then takes those requirements and then looks around to see if such a widget exists, a fourth department controls the money, and a fifth has to do the approvals, and nobody wants to stick their neck out.
All that said, US military spending is near its lowest level, as a share of GDP, in nearly a century (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget). The only time our military spending has been lower (as a share of GDP) was in the few years leading up to 9/11.
So your first point talks about using a scalpel, and the next point is cannon. You call out the DoEd and talk about student loans but ignore all of the other programs they are engaged in, like Special Education and Head Start. How do you decide the scalpel/cannon method for which department?That's a great question, and plays into a much broader question of "how do you determine if a program has been/will be worth it?" Politicians LOVE to spend money in order to appear to be solving a problem, but there never seems to be a feedback mechanism to determine if a program was effective and what, if any, unintended consequences followed.
My vision, if you want to call it that, is that instead of taxes going all the way to DC, then distributed back to the municipalities (minus the cost of a bunch of bureaucrats), the funding be both generated and spent locally. I.e. trade federal taxes for local taxes.QuoteHousing can go, as can much of Transportation. The fact that my town of 30,000 residents is waiting for a federal handout to widen a local road is just stupid. The management of roads needs to be pushed to more local levels of government.I'm all for reducing the DOT but when DOGE is discussing efficiency, it's also talking about budget. Can your town widen the local road without relying on funding from elsewhere?
Yet even that [$100M in county debt] will not cover everything: Mountain Charlie Road represents only one emergency road repair out of 80 that the county has no money and, until now, no plan to repair.
QuoteCan you elaborate? Unlike my teenage son, in a disagreement, I prefer to be right rather than to win, so if I'm off base, I'd love to hear why/how so I can correct my views.QuoteDepartment of Labor, too.That sounds like a FAFO move.
So your first point talks about using a scalpel, and the next point is cannon. You call out the DoEd and talk about student loans but ignore all of the other programs they are engaged in, like Special Education and Head Start. How do you decide the scalpel/cannon method for which department?That's a great question, and plays into a much broader question of "how do you determine if a program has been/will be worth it?" Politicians LOVE to spend money in order to appear to be solving a problem, but there never seems to be a feedback mechanism to determine if a program was effective and what, if any, unintended consequences followed.
So here's a counter-question: why ought Head Start and SpEd be taxed/funded/administered on a federal level, rather than on a state level?
My vision, if you want to call it that, is that instead of taxes going all the way to DC, then distributed back to the municipalities (minus the cost of a bunch of bureaucrats), the funding be both generated and spent locally. I.e. trade federal taxes for local taxes.QuoteHousing can go, as can much of Transportation. The fact that my town of 30,000 residents is waiting for a federal handout to widen a local road is just stupid. The management of roads needs to be pushed to more local levels of government.I'm all for reducing the DOT but when DOGE is discussing efficiency, it's also talking about budget. Can your town widen the local road without relying on funding from elsewhere?
I'm all for it but you've gotta realize that less populated areas won't have enough tax base to maintain let alone add new roads.
There's a county road in California that was washed out and the county is waiting on millions for repairs (discussed in one of Real Estate threads). It probably shouldn't be repaired because it only serves a handful of people but that's an example of infrastructure that would be delayed if not shelved.
This type of scheme would disproportionally hinder rural areas and small towns.QuoteQuoteCan you elaborate? Unlike my teenage son, in a disagreement, I prefer to be right rather than to win, so if I'm off base, I'd love to hear why/how so I can correct my views.QuoteDepartment of Labor, too.That sounds like a FAFO move.
The DOL was created in the early 1900s because of labor/management disputes. It's responsible for OSHA and fair pay and employment discrimination and child labor laws. Cutting the DOL budget by 75% (or whatever) sounds great, and it would save $11B, but workers would quickly realize that the DOL is necessary when they're in a disagreement with their employer about overtime pay and factory safety.
In other words,
"We don't need this oversight! We trust our company HR!"
<a year passes>
"Hey, why are so many kids working on the slaughter house floor?"
Here are a couple thoughts on my part:
1) It's important to recognize that the whole "efficiency" thing isn't just about whacking whole departments, it's about cutting out the bloat within departments.
For example, one of the big headaches around government procurement are all the rules designed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Getting rid of those rules would make everything cheaper and more efficient, but then there would be more waste, fraud, and abuse, and people would want new rules to end waste, fraud, and abuse.
So your first point talks about using a scalpel, and the next point is cannon. You call out the DoEd and talk about student loans but ignore all of the other programs they are engaged in, like Special Education and Head Start. How do you decide the scalpel/cannon method for which department?That's a great question, and plays into a much broader question of "how do you determine if a program has been/will be worth it?" Politicians LOVE to spend money in order to appear to be solving a problem, but there never seems to be a feedback mechanism to determine if a program was effective and what, if any, unintended consequences followed.
So here's a counter-question: why ought Head Start and SpEd be taxed/funded/administered on a federal level, rather than on a state level?
Because it levels the playing field between kids in rich and poor states/areas. I can afford to move if federal special Ed funding gets cut and my state or county doesn't (or can't afford to) pick up the slack, but most people cannot.
There's also talk of that getting kicked over to health and human services (not back to the states) if the DOE gets cut, and I really don't want Kennedy and his quack theories anywhere near my children.
There's plenty of international data suggesting that early childhood education is a great monetary investment for countries in terms of future tax revenue, reduced crime, etc. in addition to quality of life for children and families (just google it). It would be penny wise-pound foolish to cut it.
Use-it-or-lose-it budgets need to go away.
For example, one of the big headaches around government procurement are all the rules designed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Getting rid of those rules would make everything cheaper and more efficient, but then there would be more waste, fraud, and abuse, and people would want new rules to end waste, fraud, and abuse.
For example, one of the big headaches around government procurement are all the rules designed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Getting rid of those rules would make everything cheaper and more efficient, but then there would be more waste, fraud, and abuse, and people would want new rules to end waste, fraud, and abuse.
My god, the motherfucking hoops we jump through in order to spend money. The general public has no earthly idea. The only thing worse than this stupidity would be removing the hoops altogether. Though, I could definitely get behind reducing a few of the hoops.
Right now, in order to make sure there are zero missed IT procurements, we're required to submit an IT checklist for all purchases. My XO just submitted a Purchase Order, with attached IT checklist, for bolts, screws, nails, filters, UV lights, etc. That particularly stupidity is just stupidity.
Your Humble Government Servant,
AboutTo NotBePaid
And if government were run like a business, which is a weird fantasy of a lot of people, it would be vastly worse than it is now. Which business? Look at the most profitable companies in the world right now - Facebook, Google, Amazon and all the other hopelessly enshittified tech companies that get provide continually worse service while sticking it to providers, customers and clients in every direction. Sounds like a great idea. Sheesh.I think you've got it a bit backwards. As tech companies approach monopoly power, they become like the government--bloated, inefficient, wasteful, etc. Spending gobs of money on what something that caught an executive's eye, or on pet projects? That sounds remarkably similar to government....