Reducing Federal Spending

There has been a lot of talk over the past year about federal spending and the "national" debt. Those typically on the left, or socialists as I call them, want to increase taxes on the "rich", keep the taxes the same for the "middle class", and lower the taxes for those at the low end of the income bracket. Those on the "right" typically are OK with everyone getting a tax break although they don't see any problem with the tax structure i.e. increased percentage imposed as you make more money. The flaw in both sides is that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes because they are rich but they both will argue on how much is too much.

There are those who say cut taxes but don't mention anything about cutting spending or will suggest cutting a couple million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget which is a drop in the bucket. The areas of the budget that should have cuts made differ depending on which side of the aisle you are on. For most Democrat/Socialists defense is the only option and for most Republicans/Decepti-Cons defense is the sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. The only place that both sets of people tend to never want to touch is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it is these entitlement programs that are bankrupting the Republic and need to be done away with as soon as possible while still fulfilling the promise that was made to the elderly and those who are nearing retirement age.

Now you may think that I am just one of those heartless bastards who want granny and grandpa to die a slow, painful, and agonizing death because they can't afford there medicine, doctor visits, or a place to live much less food if it weren't for their government benefits. If you assume that, you are wrong. Medicaid should be abolished on the federal level completely and if the individual States want a program like that they are free to do so but if they go bankrupt because of it they don't get bailed out for their poor choices. Social Security and Medicare can both be phased out. In both cases there would be a cut-off date where anyone born before the date will be eligible when they reach retirement age or they may opt out if they so desire. Those born after the cut-off date would not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare but they will be young enough that they will have the opportunity to plan for their own retirement there will be some who were born after that date who have already paid into the system that may ask, "What about the money that I already paid in?" Unfortunately, they will never see that money again because the government doesn't have the money to give back. Life sucks sometimes get over it.

Although Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a significant part of the federal budget, there are areas and agencies that can be eliminated either by abolishing the agency or defunding it which would have the same effect. Many of the agencies or bureaucracies that are in existence are unconstitutional and should be abolished anyway regardless of what the Supreme Court or some federal judge may say. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted by some nitwit with a law degree who studied "constitutional law." In constitutional law courses don't teach the Constitution all it does is teach case history which is opinions of judges who ruled in the past.

If you visit you will be able to get a list of all federal agencies, a list so long that they had to have a tab to click on for each letter in the alphabet except Q-X-Y-Z. If you go through these lists, most of the agencies can be eliminated posthaste. Among the first agencies I would eliminate immediately would be Agriculture, Education, Energy, the EPA, FDA, forestry, parks, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Developement, OSHA, Labor, FCC, FEC, and BATFE. In addition, I would reduce the funding for the DEA, Transportation, Commerce, State, and Justice. These cuts alone would reduce federal spending significantly.

Another huge cut I would make would be foreign aid and funding for the United Nations, NATO, and the IMF. These all would be cut immediately and completely. If people want to contribute their time and money to help those in need, they are free to do so without the coercion of the government. When individuals choose to give, they tend to make sure that their money and time will be put to good use instead of giving money to another government whether corrupt or not. When we give money to another nation, with the money, the United States feels that they are then entitled to tell the nation on the receiving end of the funds transfer what to do and how to run it's country and they may feel they have to listen to us politely or risk getting cut off in the future. With us no longer giving other nations money, they are free to tell us to mind our own business; after all, who are we to tell another country what to do. If Israel wants to bomb Iran, who are we to say no. Israel has its own interests to think about. In addition to cutting all foreign aid, I would also start closing military bases overseas and bring the troops home. In an age when we can deploy troops around the world in a matter of hours, and a Navy that is always out to sea in all corners of the globe, we don't need to occupy any foreign nation. Some may call me an isolationist, I say I am a non-interventionist.

One of our great founding fathers warned of being drawn into foreign entanglements. We were also warned that when we ally ourselves with another nation, we also get their enemies. Lastly, we were also warned not to go searching abroad for dragons to slay. It would be wise for us to take heed and follow the advice of our founders. If you are believe that we should be involved in conflicts across the globe, then at least you should demand an official declaration of war. If you want to allow Congress to give that power to the President, the Constitution must be amended to strip them of that power and give it to the President but I warn you, that in doing so, you give the President almost dictatorial powers.