No one ever cuts spending

[Vermouth]

The standard whine about politicians who don't explain how they will pay for their campaign promises ...

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have now offered detailed proposals on many of the budget and tax priorities they would embrace on Day One in the Oval Office. But universally absent from the programs are estimates of budget deficits that would result from implementing their proposals. It is not enough to promise a balanced budget, as Mr. McCain does, or to commit oneself to restoring fiscal responsibility, as Mrs. Clinton has done. Voters deserve to know what budget-deficit levels the candidates would consider to be so egregious that they would delay implementing some of their spending and tax-cutting promises.
...
Democrats pledge to finance their programs in part by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 per year. Mr. McCain promises to veto all pork-barrel earmarks, and, far less credibly, to eliminate many corporate tax loopholes and waste in government. This isn't nearly enough. With budget deficits projected to exceed $400 billion in fiscal 2008 and 2009, the presidential candidates need to be far more forthcoming on the deficit levels they find acceptable and the date they would begin curtailing their promises in order to reverse the disastrous fiscal situation the next president will inherit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080425/EDITORIAL/165029524/1013

[SDML]

Cutting spending is easy. Almost as easy is ridding ourselves of at least 1/2 of the $9+ trillion in national (primarily consumption) debt.

1) Don't cut spending. Just privatize. Phase out all gov monopolies (like postal service) & non-constitutional extras (medicare, medicaid, education, etc.) by starting gov-run companies that sell out to private sector (via stock) over 18-24 months. Take the money and pay off debt.

2) Start spending cuts. Phase out all entitlements (retirement & health packages) of presidents, senators, representatives, etc. (anyone making over 6 figures annually can pay for their own health insurance, life insurance, retirement programs, etc.) first. Then phase out corporate subsidies/welfare. Then phase out individual welfare programs (food stamps, free housing, etc.) immediately AFTER we abolish ALL personal income taxes.

There's more, but we all know that I'm already flying around OZ on a magic carpet. These measures will likely never be taken...which is why we're becoming just another Euro-socialist country. Unless, of course, Singapore and Hong Kong start kicking ass and India adopts their free market approach, and China loosens the reigns oven more. In which case, anyone who currently thinks the above suggestions are crazy will suddenly say they believed this all along.

[Vermouth]

That reminds me of Bush's program to make government agencies bid against private companies for federal contracts. What did you make of that? I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately it was stalled by politics.

...The program's critics say it has had disappointing results and shaken morale among the federal government's 1.8 million civil servants.

Private contractors have grown increasingly reluctant to participate in the competitions, which federal employees have won 83 percent of the time.

The program fell short of the president's goals in scope and in cost savings. Between 2003 and 2006, agencies completed competitions for fewer than 50,000 jobs, a fraction of what Bush envisioned.

Moreover, the Government Accountability Office found that the administration has overstated the savings from some competitions by undercounting the costs of running them. Collectively, they cost $225 million, or about $4,800 per job, according to White House figures.
...
Bush officials acknowledge that they had hoped to put many more jobs up for competition -- as varied as janitorial services and computer management. Even so, they say, the competitions completed thus far have generated realized and projected savings of more than $7 billion.

"We've delivered real savings -- over $1 billion a year," said Clay Johnson III, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget. "I thought we would have generated by now even larger savings than that. But anything that generates savings of that magnitude has to be deemed a big success..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403457.html

[SDML]

I think it's a half-way step at best (like school vouchers). Better to abolish those agencies entirely in most cases.

[Peter1469]

These public - private competitions caused the problems at Walter Reed.  The Department of Public Works (fix-it people on post) was put up for a public competition.  A private contractor won, but the award decision was protested (before the Government Accountability Office).  While the protest was handled the private companies employees got other jobs.  Once the protest was resolved, in favor of the government- meaning the private company that originally won could begin performing, the private company had to come up with employees and dredged the bottom of the barrel.  Stuff didn’t get fixed.  The place went the hell, and the rest was in the news….  

[Vermouth]

What a disaster. Maybe the only good thing you can say is that it put the idea of privatization out there...

I thought military support was already extensively outsourced though.

[progressive_fry]

Here’s something to think about –

If we withdraw our troops from Iraq and cut the military budget by ten to fifteen percent, we can redirect those funds to help pay for health care, Social Security and education. A bloated military does not necessarily equal a smart military. When it comes to the military, we need to focus on defense and not on monitoring the rest of the world with guns fully loaded.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

bloated govt/social programming does not promote the general welfare either.