Here, I go into further detail into the rationale behind the specific cuts outlined in my previous post: https://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducing-the-federal-budget-deficit/
Cut 50% Medicaid entitlements – Over ten years, this saves 1.34 trillion dollars from the deficit. Savings need to come somewhere, and Medicaid is a big part of that. To be fair, it is likely that a big part of the hole will be covered by state spending…which is perfectly reasonable. That way, communities can fully realize the actual cost of Medicaid, instead of getting it subsidized by federal money. I also plan to include a public health option, tax cuts and tax breaks to help pay for health insurance, and other measures to reduce healthcare costs, which hopefully should make it easier for people to get healthcare. Will not cut any funds allocated to SCHIP.
Stop 50% of Medicaid fraud and waste –This saves 255 billion over ten years. Once again, it isn’t easy to simply stop fraud and waste, but we need to demand more efficient government.
Cut some 20% of total “entitlements” – This saves 243 billion over ten years. This cut would target AFDC, SSI, EITC and HITC, current child tax credits, child care entitlements to states, adoption assistance, etc. Other tax cuts and tax breaks elsewhere should hopefully help ease the burden to those receiving the entitlements.
Cut 40% of Human Services and Housing overpayments – Saves 125 billion over ten years. All of the overpayments attributed to public housing and rental assistance.
Reduce federal aid for highways – 108 billion. This is perhaps not the best cut to make. We need to save the money; however, I could imagine this cut having very bad effects on society and the economy. Article I clearly gives the Feds the right to deal with highways…this is less than half their budget, however, and we have to make do with less.
Cut 40% of Labor overpayments – This will save 54 billion over ten years. Almost all of the overpayments come from unemployment benefits.
Cut CPD Grant –Gets 42 billion over ten years. An ineffective program.
Cut 40% of Social Security overpayments – Nets 35 billion over ten years; 1.2% of social security payments quality for this. While this money should be apportioned for social security, it will be added back to the budget.
Cut SAPTB Grant – Saves 19 billion over ten years. A program that has failed assessment test after assessment test
Cut federal housing – Nets savings of 22 billion over ten years. Not my favorite program, this cut still leaves plenty of money for them to use.
Expand Medicaid drug discounts -. Saves 20 billion over ten years. A no-brainer move that allows the feds to negotiate more with big pharma. A very conservative estimate.
Decrease funding for mass transit – Saves 16 billion over ten years. While I understand Congress’s interference when it comes to interstate mass transit, do we really need readily available PT? Let the states deal with it!
Cut 40% of Transportation overpayments – Saves 6.6 billion over ten years; overpayments equal to 3% of total transportation spending. Much of it was in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.
Cut SCSEP – Gets 5.7 billion over ten years. A very ineffective program.
Help people refinance mortgages – Costs 2 billion over ten years. Small price to pay to help make sure people aren’t being cheated by the bankers. Would basically provide free or subsidized legal counsel to help people make the best decisions.
Tax breaks for first-time homeowners – Costs 4 billion. Some might say that this is encouraging a bubble. In my view, this will help stimulate a lagging housing market.
More for workers affected by trade (Trade Adjustment Assistance) – Costs 4 billion over ten years. Moderate cost to help out “victims” of NAFTA and illegal immigration; job placement/training and what not. Not a big fan of NAFTA, in general.
Fund Congestion experiments – Costs 5 billion over ten years. While this may seem like a useless project, they’ve done projects like this in California and New Jersey with good results. It would seem something that would be prudent to do on a national level.
Help low-income mothers with health care – As a concession to cutting Medicaid, I add 8 billion over ten years to the budget to make sure that no low-income mother receiving Medicaid will have her benefits cut.
Add money for kids’ health insurance (SCHIP) – While some may consider it intrusive, I add 30 billion to the budget over ten years to insure that all kids have health insurance. If anyone “deserves” healthcare, it would be kids…cost is paltry compared to the savings in Medicaid.
In total, about 2.2 trillion is saved over ten years with these modifications to the budget. That is about 65% of total Housing and Living spending (total housing and living spending includes many things, like department of housing and urban development, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, etc. Because of the complexity and large umbrella that the term “housing and living” can be, the % cut is a very rough number.) I would like to note that I don’t touch food stamps, drug-rehab programs, community welfare, etc.
Here, I go into further detail into the rationale behind the specific cuts outlined in my previous post: https://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducing-the-federal-budget-deficit/
Cut DOD spending to 2001-levels: Over ten years, this saves about $1.6 trillion. We had the intel to stop September 11th; we just did not act on it. Throwing more money at the problem isn’t going to do anything. This country isn’t any less or any more safe than it was back in 2001… To get this figure, I used the 534 billion in DOD spending we have this year, and compared to the inflation-adjusted 384 billion we spent in 2001. This does not count spending on Afghanistan and Iraq (overseas contingency operations).
Close down 3/4ths of 865 non-Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany foreign-based military bases: Already cut 20% in the baseline military cuts, closing down 75% of these bases saves us another $900 billion. Are we seriously worried about Germany, Japan, or Uganda causing us problems in the future? How about any European, South Asian, or African nation? Honestly, all the bases should be closed… Cost calculated from 250 billion/year used for all foreign bases; took 180 Iraq and Afghanistan bases and gave them a 2.0x weighting. Subtracted that number from 250 billion, assumed a 1% increase/year (on top of inflation) to get final cost over ten years…Number assumes that DOD spending has already been cut to 2001 levels and then cut another 15% (see below).
Cut DOD domestic spending an extra 15%: This saves about 487 billion over ten years. Our military is one of the more bloated sections of government…Could cut this another 10-30% and the defense of this country would still be overdone.
Cut “overseas contingency operations” (i.e. overseas spending) 50%: This nets about 572 billion in savings over ten years. Basically cut down operations in bases that are not closed down, as well as cut activity in Iraq and Afghanistan…I am of the opinion that this should be closer to 90%….This number assumes that the troops will be brought home soon.
Bring troops home soon: 280 billion over ten years is saved doing this. Current projection would have our spending in Afghanistan (mostly) and Iraq much higher than this over ten years; this is a very conservative estimate of how much would be saved. Assumes war in Iraq is ended and troops are redeployed in Afghanistan.
Cut foreign aid: This saves about 218 billion over ten years. Why should we stick our hands in the affairs of others? It is one thing when it is a tsunami, an earthquake, etc….then, the US can join in with so many other nations and give financial aid. But the over 25 billion/year spent on foreign aid isn’t going towards fixing major disasters! Also, if we make other countries dependent on our aid, we are effectively preventing them from finding “in-house” solutions to their problems. This number includes aid to Israel and Palestine.
Redeploy troops in Iraq in Afghanistan: This saves 206 billion over ten years. Obama has proposed this; close down Iraq and move troops to Afghanistan. Not much is saved on solider costs, but a lot is saved on maintenance costs. Obama has called for an increase in troop numbers if Afghanistan, which will cost some 270 billion over ten years. However, if the war in Iraq is ended, and those troops are moved to Afghanistan, much of that cost evaporates (probably will wipe out all of that 270 billion, but we are being conservative here). This is a very sensible proposal if the war in Iraq is ended…why round up more troops when there are some waiting in the wings? Of course, a continued offense in Iraq negates this option. If Obama and Congress then go forward with the troop increase in Afghanistan, the cost will be 270 billion over ten years.
Close other 43 bases in Germany: These are not closed by the earlier closing of 75% of foreign bases. No reason to fear Germany any longer. This totals about 102 billion in savings over ten years.
Monetize 3/4ths of foreign-based military bases: If assets from the closed bases (valued at 127 billion are sold off), 92 billion can potentially be earned from them. This is, of course, a very rough estimate and assumes that the value of the assets is equally divided between bases. This of course does not included “fungible” assets (tanks, planes, etc.).
End Army’s Modernization Program: While the program is useful, it is not so efficient. They continually fail to meet their goals; seems like a way for defense contractors to milk money from the government. Doing this saves about 50 billion over ten years. Cuts specifically money allocated to “future combat systems”…
Cancel stealth fighters: Come on, we have enough stealth fighters. Is having more necessary to keep our country safe? This saves about 38 billion over ten years. Cuts specifically money allocated to the “joint strike fighter” program.
End Spending on Missile Defense: This is how much we spend on dumping our nuclear weapons….and then buying new ones (from defense contractors, of course). This saves about 10 billion over ten years. This includes all spending on disposing nuclear weapons. However, sometimes disposal may actually be necessary (although with the “lifespan” of a nuke, it must be a rare event); this number does not factor that into account.
Close Ramstein Air Base: This is the most expensive domestic airbase. Definitely worth doing, since it saves about 10 billion over ten years. This cut is in addition to any cuts made in DOD spending.
Replace some military with civilians: This is a vague cut. I read in a Fox News article that doing this, just domestically, can save some money, figuring to about 9 billion over ten years.
Cut 40% of Veteran Affairs overpayments: Saves about 5.3 billion over ten years; this includes overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.
Cut 40% of Defense overpayments and saves 3.7 billion over ten years: Admittedly, cutting overpayments is much easier said than done; however, we must demand higher efficiency from our government.
Monetize assets from Ramstein Air Base: Nets about 3.3 billion; the rationale behind this is similar to the rationale behind the monetization of the other foreign bases.
End war in Iraq: This saves nothing, as Obama has already called for this and it is already factored into the budget (as well other foreign spending). Otherwise, this war would cost 760 billion/ten years (and, I believe that is a very generous estimate), plus the cost of the new troops now needed in Afghanistan. Even though this is already part of the current budget, I wanted to bring this up to show how costly war is in financial terms.
Increase military research in universities: This costs 11 billion over ten years. Probably an optimistic number, but university-research much more efficient then research conducted by departments of the military.
Increase military funding: Once again, to be conservative in how much will be saved, I give 200 billion over ten years to the military to make up for any cuts made to “necessary” expenditures.
In total, about 4.43 trillion is saved over ten years with these modifications to the budget. That is about 47% of total defense spending (total defense spending in these calculations omits spending by the department of homeland security, defense-related spending by NSF/NASA, defense-related spending by the department of energy, foreign arms sales, and various other miscellaneous costs).
A Review of The Young Turks
I’ve been an on-and-off listener to the youngturks (www.theyoungturks.com, www.youtube.com/youngturks, Sirius Radio) for several months now
A classically progressive talk show, they discuss a whole host of issues, ranging from politics to celebrities to sports. Structured similarly to a radio show, the “first” online news show is complete with wacky sound effects and interviews. While for-profit, the group prides itself on being free of the cronyism that plagues the mainstream media.
Paying members get access to a daily three-hour show (one of hour of which is freely available on their YouTube channel) plus a post-game show. With so much air time, the group definitely has enough time to cover many issues.
The head of the show is Cenk Uygur, a former Republican and former Federalist who studied at Columbia Law School. Along with the behind-the-scenes crew, Cenk covers political news stories, often alone but sometime with costars like co-founder Ben Mankiewicz. The show also covers “pop culture” (headed by Anna Kasparian, an “expert” on social issues), and has dedicated sports and movie channels which often have experts as co-hosts.
Are they for real? With over a quarter billion views on youtube, the show’s popularity is undeniable. With many paying members, a few sponsors, several major awards (including consecutive yearly wins of “Best Online Podcast”), high praise from critics, and mentions in the mainstream media (with Cenk having appeared on CNN and hosted MSNBC), it seems like TYT is “for real”. As Mr. Uygur likes to say, “the TYT army is…..too strong!”
So what does yours truly, a conservative, think of them?
Quite possibly, they are the best news group out there. Better than anything on television or the internet. And it isn’t because I agree with their viewpoints…quite often, we’re on two separate sides. But they almost always talk about every side to the story. They aren’t like a New York Times editorial or a show on Fox or MSNBC: they don’t just bash one side. They explain both sides of the argument; giving the viewer a proper perspective.
Another unique thing about the show which I love is that when they present a news story, they always have a video clip of the incident-in-question. If not that, they at least have audio or a plethora of quotes to give the viewer proper context, an anachronism in modern journalism. Opinion-based news shows rarely do this, allowing them to obfuscate and double-talk around the point: they tell the viewer what happened, and then analyze it. Cenk and his team allow the viewer to see what happened before analysis, so that there is no room for them to lie or trick the viewer. In addition to this, the TYT group does a great job presenting facts: they use polls, figures, and statistics abundantly, always sourcing them. They make sure to never pull facts out of thin air. The only TV personality who does this is Rachel Maddow, and even she slips up with an unacceptable frequency.
Having interviewed personalities from Pat Buchanan to Harry Reid, the only person I think TYT has left to interview is Mr. Obama himself. And since they don’t pull their punches with anyone, he better watch out if he ever comes on their show. Not caring about getting “access” but about doing their job, TYT does a very good job of getting answers from those that they interview.
While there is little doubt that the team itself is progressively-centered, there is a semblance of balance. Cenk, who jokingly calls himself “the most reasonable man in America”, may be just that. A “center-left” guy who regularly takes on Democrats like Barack Obama, he calls it just like he sees it and plays no party line. A logical and rational person, Cenk has the unique talent of being able to boil issues down to their core, presenting them in a way that it is impossible to argue with him. A generally funny guy, Mr. Uygur is very passionate and expressive, making the show informative and entertaining. Anna Kasparian is perhaps the most liberal member of the group. Having excellent chemistry with Cenk and being an expert on social issues like gay marriage, education, etc., Anna provides analysis on issues that aren’t Cenk’s forte and very often brings a unique perspective to the discussion. In a way the moral compass and brains of the group, Anna gets just as riled up and impassioned as Cenk. Her constant challenging of Cenk only makes the show better. The third most common chip-inner on the show is Jayar Jackson. Normally a behind-the-scenes guy, he will chip in with an exceptionally observant comment here and there. Not as political as Cenk or Anna, JR often acts as the moderator, taking a “common sense” stance that more often than not is very illuminating.
Of course, the show is not perfect. In particular, it is clear that Cenk and Anna are rare breeds: other co-hosts like Ben Mankiewicz and Michael Shure are more….annoying, to say the least. In fairness to them, both are consistent leftists, which may be why I do not like them. What annoys me is that while they are just as ready to criticize the Democrats, unlike Cenk, they are less willing to criticize other progressives as well as progressive theories. Similar to people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, both have the bad tendency to boil things down too simply: “the Tea Party is racist” or “religion is bad” etc. etc. In addition, both tend to perseverate liberal ideologies that aren’t relevent to the current American climate. Listening to them for just a minute is enough for one to discern their lack the passion compared to Cenk or Anna. They are more similar to many of the commentators on the left: weak, elitist, and unable to forcibly make their point.
Not as importantly, the sports-news tends to be very football heavy, with some basketball and college sports, basically eschewing baseball and hockey (can’t believe they didn’t talk about the Olympic gold-medal game!).
In addition, I would recommend that the show gets a conservative to provide more balance. While I understand the show is progressive, if they want to appeal to a broader base and spread their message more, getting a conservative guest host like Jack Hunter or Dan Phillips on the show could definitely help. The key is to get a conservative who is as level-headed as Cenk is.
All-in-all, I would recommend the show to anyone. At least try the one-hour shows out, and see how you like it. Keeping you up-to-date on what is going on in the USA and around the world, there is no chicanery with the TYT. I only hope that once Cenk Uygur moves on to bigger and brighter things, he still will be able to do the show.
My plan for reducing the federal budget deficit
My plan to reduce the federal deficit: 2010 to 2100 – Excel 2007 and 2010
My plan to reduce the federal deficit: 2010 to 2100 – Excel 97 and 2003
The attached files are MSExcel documents. Presented in a table format, the numbers represent how much would be added or removed from the federal budget deficit over the next ten years due to each specific change I make to the budget . Next to most changes, I have included a rationalization/reason. Beneath that table, I have also included my estimate for the yearly and total budget deficits before my modifications (as it is now) and after my modifications.
Calculations, raw data, and some more interesting numbers are in the full excel file, which I will email to anyone who is interested. In that file, you can modify certain values like interest rates, growth rates, etc. to fit whatever scenario you see for America’s future.
My numbers come mostly from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office); some are from internet articles from credible websites. Generally, I feel like my estimates are conservative in that they assume America’s future will be worse than predicted. Although it can’t be seen here (once again, anyone who wants to see the raw numbers is free to email me for the full excel file), using figures already available, per-year growth in federal income was estimated between 3 and 4 percent. After the year 2029, a date after which I could find no reliable numbers for, I tied federal income to predicted growth in GDP, which, oddly enough, fit in the same range. For general increases in federal spending, one could assume that it would also be tied to GDP and therefore would rise as fast as federal income. However, being a pessimist, I assumed growth in federal expenditure of between 5.5 and 6.5 percent, disregarding every “expert” estimate that had this at a lower figure. By doing this, I am basically adding 2-4 percent of “negative pressure” on the budget, just because I know how the folks in Washington like to spend uncontrollably.
In the end, this reduces government spending as a % of GDP to a low of 9% and to a close of 13% in 2050 (from a projected 35% in 2050). Predictions are very accurate until 2030. After around 2050, a lot of variations come into play; at that point, of course, a lot of assumptions come into play.
Ultimately, I want to get people talking about we can fix our budget problem in this country. If you believe the polls, Americans strongly concur that our deficit must be reduced. But the same polls show that Americans also want no programs to be cut and also want no tax increases. You may think some of the proposals and cuts I have made are bad for America. Please; tell me why they won’t work and start a discussion! I am sick of the mindset in Washington where, IMO, because they don’t have the will to get these things done, they make up excuses for not reducing the budget….
Just in case:
Because people might say I am not an economist: I am not, at least not by profession. But like I said, I use pessimistic estimates when it comes to growth, and otherwise, my numbers come straight from reliable sources, not my own calculations. Any calculations I have made should be described in the posted table.
Because people might say I am coming down too hard on the rich: my family generally falls into the higher (95+) tax brackets. I myself have taken advantage of the capital gains tax several times, and by my estimate, have saved about 250,000 in taxes thanks to the capital gains tax.
Because people might say I come down too hard on wall street: I don’t work for any financial companies or anyone on wall street, but I do have an investment portfolio, a portion of which is invested in companies like Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.
Because people might say I come down too hard on the military: I have never served in the armed forces, but I am an American who supports our troops, and thinks the best way we can do that is by taking them out of needless wars, by having programs that keep troops happy and healthy, by ignoring the military-industrial complex, and by supporting foreign policy that does not induce hatred of America abroad.
Let’s start the discussion!
Rolexian's Blog 