by fortbuckley on Jun.07, 2009, under Uncategorized
What ENTITLEMENTS should we reduce, in order to control federal spending?
I want “Fort Buckley” to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Yes, that’s a twist on the old saying “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
Well, we all face a big problem in out-of-control federal spending. Unless you’ve lived in a cave for the past decade, we all know there’s a problem.
In a democracy, the citizens are part of the government. That not only means we have a voice, it means we have responsibility, too.
In the interest of using Fort Buckley as a means to helping our elected leaders (and us) deal with the tsunami of red ink that’s washing our kids’ futures away, I’m asking for your constructive suggestions on this topic: What ENTITLEMENTS should we reduce, in order to control federal spending?
A few ground “rules”:
- “Rules” is in scare quotes because…honestly, I can’t control what you say in the comments thread. You can troll this thread or threadjack it, and I can’t stop you. But, what would the point of that be? (Other than being a pest or malicious, that is?)
- If you want to blame this interest group or that federal agency or that voting block for our runaway deficit, I wish you’d post elsewhere. We ALL had a hand in this; now we ALL need to fix it. Fixing blame fixes nothing.
- I’m looking for practical solutions that our government can realistically implement. IMO, if you were to recommend abolishing Social Security altogether for everyone who is not yet drawing it…yes, that would be a way to fix our problem. But, respectfully, you’d have as much chance of pulling that off as I would of making the Arizona Cardinal’s roster. I’m trying to find specific things—even if they’re small things—that could help the spending problem. After all, we’re not going to find one grand solution to the federal spending crisis. It’s going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of cuts and reductions that will be cobbled together.
- I picked ENTITLEMENTS for this discussion thread because…well, we have to start somewhere. If you think our problems stem from spending too much on weapons programs or public works projects…that’s a discussion for another day. In order to keep this discussion focused and efficient, it’s best to have one target topic. For today, that’s federal entitlements.
To start off the discussion, here’s my suggestion: Reduce the retirement pay entitlements of any federal employee who’s 45 or younger, by as much as 20%.
FYI, that includes me: I’m a retired Army Reservist, so I start drawing federal retirement once I reach 60.
Why did I pick the age of 45? Here’s why: If you’re 45 now…
- ..you were 28 in 1992. That’s when Ross Perot ran for President as an independent. One of his main platform planks: out-of-control federal spending. SO…unless you went into a cave in 1991 and stayed there ever since, you should have known that we were on an unsustainable federal spending path. And, at the age of 28, you should have started to take responsibility for your future well-being. At the very least, you should have known that the federal government wasn’t in a position to guarantee that it could take care of you in retirement.
- …you have at least 20 years until you enter the window where most people retire. Even if you’re just now coming out of that cave, you still have time to build and execute a retirement plan.
Why am I picking on federal retirees? IMO it’s the overspending in Washington that’s going to kill us. If most of our dollars are siphoned off to Washington, we won’t have the funds we need to take care of state and local needs. Therefore, if a state or locality wanted to offer robust retirement benefits, it might not be able to because all the money is in D.C..
Personally, I don’t want to live in a society where the health of your community rises and falls on your Congressional delegation’s ability to wheedle money out of Washington. I’m a believer in as small a national government as possible. And I certainly don’t want the states to turn into beggars.
IMO, the real threat to our nation’s fiscal health comes from Washington. If all else fails, you can pack up and move out of a failing state (Welcome to Arizona, Californians!). Where do you go if Washington D.C. busts the bank?
OK—that’s enough from me for now. Here’s what I’d like to hear from you:
- What problems do you see with my idea: Reduce the retirement pay entitlements of any federal employee who’s 45 or younger, by as much as 20%?
- What are YOUR practical suggestions that can be implemented, for controlling federal entitlements? Should we, for example, means-test Social Security? If so, how?
This is Fort Buckley, signing off for now…
31 Comments for this entry
2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks for this entry
-
otc tamiflu
June 26th, 2009 on 3:57 pmobtaining tamiflu coral gables…
cost of tamiflu. tamiflu 75. case study of tamiflu. …
-
pediatric tamiflu
September 1st, 2009 on 11:13 pmtamiflu japan…
tamiflu effective h5n1. tamiflu injections. tamiflu in dogs. is tamiflu dangerous. canine parvovirus treatment tamiflu. tamiflu dosage for feline. …
Leave a Reply
Looking for something?
Use the form below to search this blog:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
Archives
All entries, chronologically...
June 7th, 2009 on 11:07 am
I would suggest closing down facilities that due nothing but waste money such as HUD office downtown and others like it that have supposed valuable information where there is none.
And you might also consider those little hide away make shift we will make you a citizen spots that none of us our supposedly privy to as well.
The myth of Social Security being a problem is just that a myth pay into it like the rest of us had to and quit sniveling.
I worked for years and never even got my back taxes now I get a check and they want to tax the back pay because it exceeded $10.000 Dollars however I did not receive my monies in one lump sum.
thereby making the I.R.S. claim that I owe them illegal.
I guess it is almost unAmerican not to be in debt.
anyway there are some real places of wasteful spending in Tucson and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Just look in your own neighborhood and I am sure you will see all kinds of wasteful spending.
June 7th, 2009 on 12:32 pm
First off it’s to late our wonderful newly inserted Governor Jan Brewer has already been begging for government handouts.
I don’t see why we need to purchase things, like a new trolley system, when we don’t have enough to pay our bus drivers, who seem to be asking for a raise every ten minutes and getting it.
It must be nice to be the only union in town with no competition.
Any way back to the subject at hand, concerning state and federal spending , what we need is state and federal savings programs to become available and then voted on by an informed public and or peoples not our so called elected officials who seem to have no restraints as to how much to realistically spend and when.
Actually the programs that are available now are not ineffective themselves but rather the incompetent fools who are allowed to work at said agencies are very ineffective as though they are cold and calculating to the point where nothing gets accomplished because they don’t wont it to.
It doesn’t matter if it’s good for the community all that matters is if we can somehow make these dealings a racial and or bias motive not to do good.
Thereby making possible solutions become a non reality.
June 7th, 2009 on 1:29 pm
I am getting SS and get State Retirement , something that I definitely earned. These are not \entitlements\. These are things that the government, Fed and state agreed to give me if I would agree to do my part and I did so.
Wipe out public retirement and who would work for the public sector ? Any one you would want to hire ? While I worked for the State, I knew that my counterparts in the private sector were making more money in the short run, but I also knew that I had a retirement system with a formula, which I could use to plan my golden years. Some prefer the big now, and others prefer the slow and steady and more sure way to plan for their future. Years after I was retired, I was talking to another state retiree and she reminded me of some of the people in the private sector who used to make fun of us, and she said, \you know what, they are still working !\
So,some have the private sector mentality others have the public sector way of thinking, and there is a place for all of us.
It seems to be a popular idea to balance the publicv budgets on the backs of the employees and the retirees , but those people earn their salaries and have worked to earn their retirements as much as the private sector worker has.
June 7th, 2009 on 7:06 pm
I am getting SS and get State Retirement , something that I definitely earned. These are not \entitlements\
Yes, they are. You’ve earned it, so you’re entitled to it. But, what happens when the federal government–or any government, for that matter—doesn’t have the money to pay you?
Wipe out public retirement and who would work for the public sector ?
Proposing a 20% cut in entitlements for people who won’t be retiring for another 20 years doesn’t sound like “wiping out public retirement” to me.
Eugene, back in the sixties and seventies, Social Security had many more current workers paying into it than we’ll have in 20 years or so. For the most part, entitlements are funded out of current revenues. If there are no revenues coming in—how do we pay the bills?
June 7th, 2009 on 1:39 pm
To start off the discussion, here’s my suggestion: Reduce the retirement pay entitlements of any federal employee who’s 45 or younger, by as much as 20%.
Here’s a question for you, which should be part of any serious proposal aimed at saving money (rather than just grinding axes):
How much money would your proposal save the federal government?
I don’t see any estimate of that amount in your post, and I think any analysis of the proposal would be incomplete without number figures.
June 7th, 2009 on 7:08 pm
Here’s a question for you, which should be part of any serious proposal aimed at saving money.
Sorry, but here at Fort Buckley, I get to pick the discussion topic.
(rather than just grinding axes):
Ummm…what?
June 7th, 2009 on 2:21 pm
Don,
I certainly welcome and approve the spirit you hope we’ll maintain in this thread.
I approve of the notion that the left (that’s me) and the right (that’s you) should talk with one another rather than at one another.
It seems to me that the term \entitlement\ is sometimes cloudy. Could you try to be more specific about what you mean by it? I’d like to be sure that we avoid emotionally loaded terminology.
Your justification for cutting retirement benefits because the 45 year olds should have known better when they were 28 seems merely retributive rather than based on a cost analysis of the most efficient means of achieving a cost cutting goal.
Art
June 7th, 2009 on 7:27 pm
It seems to me that the term “entitlement” is sometimes cloudy. Could you try to be more specific about what you mean by it?
Certainly. For the purposes of this discussion, “entitlements” means any program that sends you a check. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking Social Security and federal retirement benefits.
Your justification for cutting retirement benefits because the 45 year olds should have known better when they were 28 seems merely retributive rather than based on a cost analysis of the most efficient means of achieving a cost cutting goal.
If, by “retributive”, you mean I’m trying to punish younger workers (as in “punitive”, that’s not the case. Here are two reasons that I picked younger workers for this discussion:
1) Because they’re farther away from retirement, they have more time to respond economically. They have a window of opportunity to come up with an alternative plan.
2) I think we’ll find that many young workers are already planning for benefits reductions down the road. The people I talk to don’t expect to get every penny that Social Security or federal pension calculators tell them they’ll get.
rather than based on a cost analysis of the most efficient means of achieving a cost cutting goal.
True, but this is a discussion thread, not a formal policy proposal. I do this part-time. If we establish a threshhold that requires a diarist to have loads of linkable data at his/her fingertips before posting, pretty soon we’ll be discussing fluff topics.
I feel comfortable posting the proposal of a 20% reduction in entitlements for future federal employees because:
1) The people I’m mentioning—and that includes me, remember—-have 20 years to prepare.
2) I’m not recommending a catastrophic cut, like 50% or more.
3) This would be one of many things we Americans will have to do to bring our federal financial house in order. Plus, if a 20% cut for future entitlement recipients would fix our financial problems, I’m confident we’d have done it by now.
In the future, though, I will try to post links to supporting research and evidence.
June 7th, 2009 on 2:54 pm
“To start off the discussion, here’s my suggestion: Reduce the retirement pay entitlements of any federal employee who’s 45 or younger, by as much as 20%.”
Why 20%? Why not 30%? Why not 100%?
Why 45 or younger? Why not 25 or younger? Why not 55 or younger?
June 7th, 2009 on 7:29 pm
I picked the age of 45 because, IMO, a 28 year old is old enough to take responsibility for themselves. A 28 year old in 1992 with just a lick of common sense should have realized the real possibility that the federal government was going to get cash-strapped in the future.
Now, Red Star, do you have anything to add to this discussion?
June 7th, 2009 on 9:18 pm
Diarist Don Smith writes: “Now, Red Star, do you have anything to add to this discussion?”
Hey, it’s your diary Don Smith!
June 7th, 2009 on 10:54 pm
Hey, it’s your diary Don Smith!
Sorry Red Star—that dog won’t hunt on this blog. Do you have a constructive comment to add? If not, I won’t be approving further comments of yours.
June 7th, 2009 on 10:00 pm
Sorry, but here at Fort Buckley, I get to pick the discussion topic.
Wait, so you’re saying that you’ve got a proposal to save money — and yet you rather snottily declare it’s off-topic to ask how much money?
That’s about the strangest thing I’ve ever heard. Did you want us to discuss your proposal or not? Is it just a joke? Because a real proposal to save money would include, like, an estimate of how much would be saved.
June 7th, 2009 on 10:09 pm
Also:
I feel comfortable posting the proposal of a 20% reduction in entitlements for future federal employees because:
1) The people I’m mentioning—and that includes me, remember—-have 20 years to prepare.
By “prepare” do you mean “look for other jobs while hiring a lawyer to sue the federal government”? Cuz that’s what your proposal amounts to.
What exactly DO you do in order to earn that money our government sends you, anyway? I’m thinking we could just cut your salary — which, by your definition, is an “entitlement.”
June 7th, 2009 on 10:56 pm
kynn, I get the funny feeling I won’t be on your Christmas card list this year.
June 7th, 2009 on 10:49 pm
Apply FICA to all income – no cutoffs.
Eliminate corporate tax loopholes so corporations actually begin paying taxes. Currently they have a high rate that they do not pay.
Raise the top tax bracket to 10 million and tax at 90% over 10 million.
Jail anyone that uses the phrase \death tax\ and set the inheritance tax at 50% over 5 million.
Jail anyone that attempts to earn vast wealth in the US and hide it overseas.
Make medicare universal. At this point medicare ONLY insures the dying – or those within a few years of dying. That is the MOST costly group in the medical industry. Private insurers cover healthy populations that are decades from dying far less efficiently – 15%+ compared to 3%. If the healthy group NOT covered by medicare were added to the dying population medicare would be solvent instantly. It is only problematical because it isnt allowed to have a distribution of healthy and dying insured. The easily insured are left to the profits of the private insurers – profit derived through denial of coverage.
The term entitlement offends me. Corporate profits are not reason enough to fight and die for this or any other country … only quality of life for the common man is. And that – at some base level – should be right, not entitlement. Not free, but then its the common man that in the end pays for everything in anycase. It is earned.
(unedited)
June 7th, 2009 on 11:01 pm
The term entitlement offends me.
Jim, gimme a break here. Are you that easily offended? Come on…
It is earned.
No one’s disagreeing there, Jim. The problem is—if the government is broke, who’s going to pay?
June 7th, 2009 on 10:58 pm
Hey, it’s your diary Don Smith!
Sorry Red Star—that dog won’t hunt on this blog. Do you have a constructive comment to add? If not, I won’t be approving further comments of yours.
… am certain I dont like your attitude. I wont be posting here.
June 8th, 2009 on 6:36 pm
Jim, I’m sorry to hear that…because you did provide some constructive sugggestions. I think your proposal for Medicare WOULD make that program solvent. Personally, I hope the federal government never does anything like that…but you did put forth a proposal that would fix at least one federal funding problem we face. Your FICA proposal is worth considering, too.
As for my reply to Red Star—sorry you feel that way, but I take nothing back. He had it coming.
June 7th, 2009 on 11:24 pm
Don Smith writes: “Sorry Red Star—that dog won’t hunt on this blog. Do you have a constructive comment to add? If not, I won’t be approving further comments of yours.”
Hey, it’s your diary Don Smith!
June 8th, 2009 on 9:14 am
Our writer starts off by “taking someone elses money”, a key component to all Democrats “savings plans.”
When will this writer and “the others” realize taking away others peoples money is NOT cutting the budget – its stealing. Sure, they call it taxes – and they probably havent paid theirs YET.
I say we cut ALL foreign aid for ONE year… to start with. Lets see how much this “money pit” returns to the Government coffers. Let the world support themselves for ONE year. Let us support OURSELVES, first.
June 8th, 2009 on 6:21 pm
I contend that there’s plenty of money available, it’s just being misused. As to specific suggestions, here’s one that kills two birds with one stone: nationalize the defense industry. I know it’s an old idea, but I think a good one. If we take the profit out of war, not only do we reduce the incentive for going to war, but we save a whole bunch of money at the same time.
Another no-brainer for saving money is nationalized health care.
June 8th, 2009 on 6:55 pm
Leftfield, I do agree—nationalizing health care will save money. As the Canadian and British health care systems have proven, the quality of care will probably stink—but it will cost less.
June 8th, 2009 on 7:42 pm
If you don’t like reduced infant mortality and improved preventive health care at a vastly reduced cost, you probably won’t like the Cuban health care system either. Any of the industrialized nations and many of the non-industrialized nations have a better system of delivery with less waste. Where is it written that private businesses must make money off of health care?
June 9th, 2009 on 8:03 pm
If by stink, you mean that the richest will have only the same access to health care as the poorest, let it reek to high heavens!
June 10th, 2009 on 8:33 pm
How is Xanadu these days?
June 8th, 2009 on 7:54 pm
The very notion that we should be discussing how to cut down on government spending on social services, while spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military in order to maintain the empire and devise nifty new ways to vaporize people, all while ensuring that the corporate hand does not go empty is just plain offensive.
On the other hand, continuing on the way we have been will ensure the empire falls sooner rather than later.
June 8th, 2009 on 8:04 pm
The very notion that we should be discussing how to cut down on government spending on social services
Humor me here. As the title of the post says, what are your ideas for cutting entitlements? You’ve posted a few…do you have any more?
maintain the empire and devise nifty new ways to vaporize people
Man, I’m not even going to try and argue with that logic. Leftfield, I suspect that you and I are on different planets…
June 9th, 2009 on 8:01 pm
Here’s another one: we don’t go to war without an act of congress. No more wars of choice by executive fiat. Here’s another: we decide no longer to be held hostage to business interests. We abandon the notion that free speech extends to corporations, allowing them to pervert the electoral process and gain undue influence. We stop socializing business losses and start socializing business profits by making them pay their fair share.
June 10th, 2009 on 8:33 pm
Leftfield, thank you for your practical suggestions. You may unclench your fists of rage now.
July 8th, 2009 on 11:18 am
There are so many things that need to be done, but in the constant greed/fairness struggle the latter never wins.