If you (not politicians) were going to cut federal spending,

[Slartibartfast]

I'm curious what the local and state citizens would vote for in the case that these pork-filled programs were turned over to them. Would the citizens vote for them? Because while I completely agree that MANY MANY MANY of the current federal programs are either bogus or need to be under the control of state and local governments, the fact is, if they're turned over to state and local, we as citizens will see a rise in our city, county, and state taxes. Sure, we'd see lower federal taxes but in reality, if the citizens vote for it, it's just a shifting of money from one venue to another. It's still coming out of the pockets of those who voted for it.

 

Some of it could be cut but as it stands, we'd need more people in our state and local governments to keep these programs running. Somebody's gotta pay for that. It's one thing to vote for a Senator and take whatever he dishes out while he's on the Hill, but when it really comes down to it and you see your state and local taxes going up, are you still going to vote for it?

 

The thing is, I probably wouldn't vote for some of it and I am sure others feel the same.

 

There are some things that do not actually benefit the majority of people in a state. Big Dig was a mess and cost an unbelievable amount of money but it did benefit Massachusets.

 

Then there are some things that are just not very "pretty" or look flat out BAD. I don't know that I would vote for tree research but we spent 100 million on it.

 

Here is an article about Kansas

 

http://wichita.bizjournals.com/kansascity/blog/2010/04/kansas_brings_home_the_bacon_according_to_a_summary_of_congress_pork-barrel_spending.html

 

Which..well everyone mentioned is actually a Conservative. I am not trying to attack Conservatives but stating that it is something they all indulge in. We need more transparency. We need to know what we are actually spending money on and not just what but why? Why are we spending 100 million on tree research? There is probably actually a good reason but I don't know what it is. :lol:

 

Here is a free PDF from the Citizens Against Government Waste

 

http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2010/2010-pig-book-summary.pdf

 

They didn't actually tell me what the 100 million tree research was about, I have a hard time raging when I don't know what it is.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Sis

[FaithManor]

I would vote for higher city and local taxes because that money would be used by local bureaucrats who have to face me at the grocery store, at the township hall meeting, at the courthouse when I register my deed, etc. Citizens know what they need locally and they are FAR better able to prioritize their spending than a federal government so far removed from my community.

 

We've recently had an audit of our county government. Guess what? Despite the trying times, they've done an absolutely fantastic job of managing the money and prioritizing the spending....no bloat, no fraud, no stealing the public money. Since we citizens of this county can and many do attend county commissioner's meetings, we are able to hold them accountable....they have to face us and many of us they know by name and we attend each other's churches, see each other at the high school football game, end up standing in the same grocery lines, etc. It makes it a lot tougher to abuse the tax payers. It makes it a lot easier for you to lose your political job come next term.

 

I would absolutely, positively vote for higher local taxes and even state income tax if federal taxes were minimal.

 

Faith

[Garga]

I don't know enough about how the government spends money except this:

 

A friend of mine worked for the government. About 4 years ago, she had a baby and wanted to pump breast milk at work. She asked for a lock to be put on her office door. She was quoted $500 for the lock and installation.

 

She could have gone to Home Depot and put on her own lock for $20 or so.

 

She just opted to push a chair against her door when she was pumping.

 

I guess I'd try to start there: cutting the outlandish prices for everyday things (like installing a lock--or a Senator's leather chair, etc.)

Edited October 6, 2010 by Garga

[Slartibartfast]

WOW

 

The Defense earmarks are staggering. Huge anonymous defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not want.

 

They should be required to own up to this

 

 

$2,500,000,000 for the procurement of ten C–17 aircraft. In a floor

statement on September 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

voiced his opposition to the C-17 funding: “That’s why the

Administration ‘strongly objects’ to the addition of $2.5 billion in

funding for these ten unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department

of Defense’s (DoD) own analyses shows that the 205 C-17s that

the Air Force has or which are on order, together with the existing

fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department’s future

airlift needs – even under the most stressing situations. So, I am

absolutely convinced that we should not be having taxpayers put

up $2.5 billion for these aircraft. Doing so not only misallocates

procurement funds this year to buy expensive airplanes that are

not needed, but it also imposes a continuing sustainment cost of

$100 million dollars per year for every year thereafter for their

operation.†This earmark was anonymous.

 

 

$465,000,000 for continued development and initial procurement

of the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The project

has received $1.2 billion in pork since 2004. The Senate did not

include any funds for the alternate engine in its version of the

appropriations bill, but the House version prevailed in conference.

On February 1, 2010 at his briefing on the fiscal year 2011 DOD

budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, “I’m fully aware

of the political pressure to continue building the C-17 and to

proceed with an alternate engine for the F-35, so let me be clear.

I will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation

that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs.â€

On February 25, 2010, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell

reiterated DOD’s position on the alternate engine, stating, “this

money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our

warfighters do need. This is a luxury we cannot afford.†No

wonder that all 435 representatives and 100 senators refused to be

 

 

identified with this massive waste of tax dollars.

[phathui5]

I would cut most of our overseas military installations down to a skeleton crew and drop most of the military to "inactive," or off the payroll. While I appreciate that we have a military if we need it, most of our military spending right now could probably stop.

 

I would cut any non-emergency foreign aid until our own government's budget was balanced. I think it's important to help people, just not at the expense of our economy.

[pqr]

I would cut most of our overseas military installations down to a skeleton crew and drop most of the military to "inactive," or off the payroll. While I appreciate that we have a military if we need it, most of our military spending right now could probably stop.

 

.

 

We tried stuff like that.....just before WWI, just before WWII, just before Korea.

 

The track record for that is really really bad.

 

I for one am perfectly happy to pay for having the world's best military. The world is a dangerous place and going unarmed into it is simply asking for trouble.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I would vote for higher city and local taxes because that money would be used by local bureaucrats who have to face me at the grocery store, at the township hall meeting, at the courthouse when I register my deed, etc. Citizens know what they need locally and they are FAR better able to prioritize their spending than a federal government so far removed from my community.

 

We've recently had an audit of our county government. Guess what? Despite the trying times, they've done an absolutely fantastic job of managing the money and prioritizing the spending....no bloat, no fraud, no stealing the public money. Since we citizens of this county can and many do attend county commissioner's meetings, we are able to hold them accountable....they have to face us and many of us they know by name and we attend each other's churches, see each other at the high school football game, end up standing in the same grocery lines, etc. It makes it a lot tougher to abuse the tax payers. It makes it a lot easier for you to lose your political job come next term.

 

I would absolutely, positively vote for higher local taxes and even state income tax if federal taxes were minimal.

 

Faith

 

 

In our neck of the woods and in multiple places around the country I have read of multiple investigations, indictments, instances of bribery, nepotism, shenanigans, etc. at the city, county, and state levels. IMHO I think abuses are as likely to occur anywhere such as private industry, local and state governments and the federal government due to human nature. I honestly do not think people in one of these realms are less likely to be abusive or incompetent due to human nature. OTOH I know plenty of hard working, honest, and competent people in all levels of government and private industry.

Edited October 6, 2010 by priscilla
clarify

[Kate CA]

I wouldn't cut the department of education, it is a real privilege to be able to choose to homeschool. Not everyone can do that.

 

 

But people can have public education without the DoE. It was created in 1979! There is absolutely no reason for it to exist.

[MBM]

Well, before anyone can or should really do something, I think there needs to be an actual outside audit...

 

Federal agencies are audited by outside firms.

[Punchie]

Going back to the fed employees - they need to come up w/some that allows them to be fired. It takes an act of God for you be fired from a fed job. Getting rid of dead weight and allowing others to promote up would increase efficiency.

[Garga]

Going back to the fed employees - they need to come up w/some that allows them to be fired. It takes an act of God for you be fired from a fed job. Getting rid of dead weight and allowing others to promote up would increase efficiency.

 

Bingo! I know this from my experience and from others' experiences. Many government offices/agencies are grossly overstaffed. A few people do the work, and the others sit around and chat.

 

Ashamed to admit, that when I was 18 and it was my first job, I was one of the ones who sat around and chatted. They totally could have (should have!) fired me and not replaced me and the work would have still been easily done. I've since learned how to have an awesome work ethic.

[MBM]

Bingo! I know this from my experience and from others' experiences. Many government offices/agencies are grossly overstaffed. A few people do the work, and the others sit around and chat.

 

Ashamed to admit, that when I was 18 and it was my first job, I was one of the ones who sat around and chatted. They totally could have (should have!) fired me and not replaced me and the work would have still been easily done. I've since learned how to have an awesome work ethic.

 

Yes, it's difficult to fire them. The way to get around it is to *eliminate the position,* but then the position has to be written up a different way in order to refill it. Convoluted. Eliminating positions opens up a can of worms that I don't have the time to discuss here if I want to get a run in!

 

Federal agencies could cut out unnecessary personnel; however, some departments are small and efficient, so an across-the-board cut in all departments wouldn't be a prudent solution (it's been done, though). It could leave bloated departments with still too many unproductive personnel and lean departments with too few.

Edited October 7, 2010 by MBM
Changed a g to a b.