Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Comments on the Obama-Trump Transition

Written on January 8th, 11th through 13th, and 17th and 18th, 2017
 
 
 
            On the evening of January 10th, 2017 - the same night that Obama gave his farewell address from McCormick Place in Chicago - I attended a Steve Earle concert elsewhere in the same city.
Guitarist and vocalist Earle told the audience that he was sad to see Obama go. Earle dedicated a song to Obama, said "I don't mind the drones", and added that he thinks Hillary Clinton is smart.
I've never seen so many people pat themselves on the back for helping to elect "the first black president" as I did last night. Do they do that all the time? Have they ever stopped to consider that to call a mixed-race person "black" - when he does have white heritage - could be perceived as labeling Obama a non-white "other"?
 
            On the way out of Earle's show, I heard someone who attended the concert tell his friend that Obama dropped 26,000 bombs within some time frame or another. Remember, Barack Obama renewed the same kind of steadily increasing Israeli aid package that George W. Bush signed, expanded troop presence in 40 countries in Africa, and failed to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
            As confident as I am that Trump will destroy the lives of Palestinians (and undocumented immigrants) more than President Obama has, I'm still not sad to see Obama go. Obama's true legacy will be remembered as electing Trump, and making him look good by comparison; just as Hillary Clinton's legacy is making Nixon look good by comparison.
Obama was able to replace U.S. soldiers in Iraq with mercenaries (also called private security contractors), as well as with U.S. soldiers working for private security contracting firms. This allowed liberal media to skew the numbers about U.S. troop levels in Iraq, because the number of U.S. soldiers had technically drastically declined, while the level of total Western security agents remained more numerous than the public was aware several years into the Obama Administration.
Additionally, failed to close Guantanamo like he pledged, failed to reverse the growth of executive power and reverse the damage done to due process in the wake of 9/11. Obama didn't reverse the attack on civil liberties as he promised; he continued to detain alleged enemy combatants who were found not guilty, and his orders resulted in the deaths of American citizens abroad - adult and of minor age alike - without charges and without due process.
Barack Obama's drone strike orders have resulted in the deaths of children; in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. During the Obama Administration, military experts complained about the high number of civilian casualties the military was prepared to risk in order to take out medium-value targets.
 
Trump says he likes Obama, although they have some disagreements. On the health policy front, Trump has said that he wants universal health care. But he has also stated that he wants to get rid of the lines around the states, that make it impossible for people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines, even when those policies comply with the regulations of the state of the policy buyer's residence. Trump has also said that he wants to keep the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurance companies from denying people based on pre-existing conditions.
To recap, Trump has stated a desire for universal health care, said Big Pharma is "getting away with murder", and wants to keep the Pre-Existing Conditions provision. This is not a right-wing position on health insurance; it is a welfare-warfare-statist one. So, people with pre-existing conditions, despite my objections to Trump's and Obama's shared position on this, have no fear about being denied coverage.
But to those of you who support Obama more than Trump on health: are you going to attribute every treatment you receive over the next four years to Donald Trump, the same way you did with Obama? You've heard that Trump might just keep most of Obamacare but change it slightly and call it Trumpcare, right? Obama isn't Imhotep (the Egyptian god of medicine), and Trump isn't either. Appreciate the doctors who help you; not the politicians who say they want to help you but can do nothing but get in the way.
Obamacare did as much to hurt health insurance companies and young insurance subscribers as it did to help them. It bound all citizens together into territorially determined health insurance pools, and makes a mockery of what the federal role ought to be in ensuring that free enterprise in the medical industries survives.
I don't drink alcohol, and yet I have to be in the same health insurance pool as people who drink alcohol. I have to pay for retirees and seniors who drink, to stay alive on Medicare and Social Security, while I probably won't get mine. I have to work to pay for them to live forever, when I can't even manage to convince them that living forever will soon be medically possible. So as a result, they're demanding to live forever, while insisting on living as if they're dying.
They consume diet sodas and artificial sweeteners, and sulfites in cheap subsidized pork and in wines. They drive drunk on the nice, smooth roads we have - that the alcohol sales taxes probably pay for - putting myself, themselves, and their loved ones and neighbors in danger in the process. They get to live irresponsibly, while my generation gets stuck with the bill, deprived of our entitlements, payment still forced on those who don't even want those benefits, while the Baby Boomers deride Millennials as lazy and entitled.
I did not give Baby Boomers heart disease and cancer; their ignorance and naïveté about F.D.A. standards is their own fault. They ignore what our generation has to say about food safety, they rub elbows with well-paid yes-men who tell managers who poison our foods, and they have difficulty conceiving of the way future technologies will affect the economy and regulations. I already have to listen to them give me unsolicited advice that only made sense in 1979; I shouldn't have to help take care of them.
But that's not to say I don't want to be in the same insurance pool as people with pre-existing conditions; I do, I just want to be in the same pool as sick people whom I know and trust, not people who live thousands of miles away from me, whom I will never meet.
 
I won't miss Obama, and you shouldn't either. When politicians can sweep future expenses under the rug, and delay payments to our creditors, the deficit will look smaller. All the statistics about Obama improving the budget deficit and the employment rate are deliberately distorted, and the importance of the strength of the Dow Jones to the needs of average Americans is overblown. If you don't know what Major Fiscal Exposure is – or don't know the difference between unemployment and non-employment, and how they're measured - then you've been deceived.
Labor force participation and home ownership are down since 2009, and although the deficit is the lowest it's been under Obama, it's higher than it was under Bush in 2008, and the national debt is higher than ever (having almost doubled since Obama entered office).
The dichotomy used to characterize the Obama-Trump transition has been overblown. Trump is not far-right; and Obama is not far-left. Neither of them offer a perfect world, nor anything close to it; they each only offer trade-offs. The best that either of them can do is move their food around their plate; shuffle our nation's problems around, so that the set of problems becomes 50% different every four years.
I gave Obama a chance, he failed to live up to his promises, so I won't miss him. I'll give Trump a chance, most of his promises are ridiculous so I don't care whether he lives up to his promises, he'll solve a few problems but start a whole bunch of new ones, and I won't miss him when he goes either. So I say good riddance to Barack Obama, and "don't let Mrs. o'Leary's cow set you on fire on your way out of the city".
 
It's the new year, and we have a new president. That's not to say that we're obligated to give Trump a chance, nor are we obligated to obey his orders; I will never stop believing in the rights of non-violent resistance and conscientious objection.
What we do have an obligation to do, is to be intellectually honest and responsible with the information we take in and put out. Regardless of our political affiliation, each of us has a responsibility to one another to say what we think, and to use science and research to back it up. We should also make it clear when we're only speculating about something, versus whether our conclusions are based on said research. We must also remember that we're not responsible for what other people do, based on what we state might be true (unless we intend to incite a riot with our speech).
It's time to stop mincing words. It's time to stop blowing racist dog-whistles, and stop virtue-signaling. You can't emote your way out of a rational political discussion; nor use fear about racism and xenophobia to manipulate people, without offering substantial evidence thereof.
Trump's interactions with the media, and comments on political correctness - in addition to the rising tide of throngs of students pulling fire alarms and blocking entrances to ensure that other students can't attend conferences by persons criticizing immigration or the transgender community - mean that we simply can't do that anymore. It's dishonest, it only shows that you've stooped to the level of your political rivals, and it only opens you up to criticism, which will enhance the feeling of victimization which you would not have if you bothered to do some research.
 
It is no better to be ashamed of your race (or ethnicity) for bad things that other people did, than it is to be proud of your race for the good things that other people belonging to your race did. To say otherwise is to hold millions (or billions) of people collectively guilty, or collectively responsible.
We must remember that not every action called "a terrorist attack" by media are terrorist attacks. Nor is burning down a Holocaust museum "an act of free speech". We should look at recent terror attacks, but also some historical atrocities, as crimes; committed by particular individual persons, against particular individual persons, sometimes with hatred or racism as a motivator, sometimes not.
 
We must be intellectually honest with one another. We must not shy away from using certain words that we feel are appropriate, simply because some people out there would like to intimidate us into not using them, or into using different words.
Being privileged is not bad; everybody should have privilege. It's being spoiled - and having unequal privilege (especially when the privilege is institutional, and not meritocratic) that's the problem. We must stop calling for privileged white kids to be punished more, simply because non-white, non-privileged kids are punished so harshly. Especially if it's a victimless crime, like non-violent possession and trade of illicit drugs.
As a way to diminish the disparity in sentencing across race, Barack Obama pledged to make powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses equally punishable. He did so, not by decreasing punishments for crack cocaine, but by increasing penalties for powder cocaine. This accomplishes nothing, aside from teaching non-violent offenders how to become violent people in order to survive in prison.
Additionally, please stop saying "mansplaining" when you mean to say "condescension". There is no need to bring someone's sex into it, when you intend to call them out for being disrespectful, because they're explaining something as if the person they're talking to is stupid. Men do that, women do that. Using the word "mansplaining" is sexist. Sorry if I'm mansplaining.
Lastly, as I explained above, don't let anyone tell you which words to use, and which words not to use; including myself. Say "mansplaining" and "privileged" all you want, just don't expect me to take you as seriously as I would someone whose diction makes sense.

I guess this has just been my little way of saying "Happy New Year".
Lastly: please quit wearing shit on your lapels. I don't need to send a visible virtue-signal to prove that I'm easy to talk to. Every time I hear people bickering about whether Obama is wearing his American flag pin, or see people wearing safety pins, all I can think about is Nazi armbands and yellow stars of David. Remember, the Jews in Germany wore those stars willingly, because they chose to see being compelled to wear them as honorific. Check out a little movie from 1981 called The Wave.
I close with the immortal words of Huey Freeman (a character on Aaron McGruder's animated show The Boondocks), who said, "Act like you've got some goddamn sense, people!"

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Tax Increases

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed all federal legislation which provides for tax increases.
     For government to control 40% of the spending in the nation – and for the federal government to control over 25% of the GDP (as was the case just several years ago) – is unsustainable. I believe that 15% is a more appropriate goal in the short term, and that 12.5% (one-eighth of G.D.P.; in today's terms $2.1 trillion out of a $16.8 trillion G.D.P.) is an appropriate long-term goal.
     I will introduce legislation that views this 12.5%-15% range as a base rate for taxation of any and all behaviors which are taxed by the federal government (in a manner which is constitutional), and the closing of loopholes based on this notion, as well as the notion that taxes should exempt anyone but people living below the poverty line.
     Reduction of taxes below the 12.5% rate should only follow additional reductions of federal spending to below that rate. Additionally, such cuts should follow the reduction of the deficit to zero (for which such spending reductions would provide), and the payment of all foreign and public debts.





For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Debt and the Federal Budget

     The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

     Yes, I will vote against any and all proposed budgets that would increase the nation's debt, and in times when no annual budget is passed, I will also vote against large omnibus spending bills.
     The people of the United States do not need a federal government spending a quarter of the wealth produced in the nation annually. The 21% of GDP spent under the 2013 budget is an improvement over this, but more work has yet to be done. The costs of having a federal government would be cut immediately upon the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which two-thirds of the states now want for themselves.
     I will support efforts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I will urge all states to do the same as soon as possible. I will seriously consider supporting any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance type legislation, although I will not support any such legislation which does not go far enough towards achieving balanced budgets.
     The federal government should close all remaining tax loopholes, and reduce spending. Proposed budgets in the near future will likely need to have $600 to $700 billion trimmed from them, and $1 trillion will likely need to be cut from the White House's requested spending total. Any surpluses resulting after such cuts should go first towards paying off foreign and public debt, and then towards tax decreases.
     The attitudes that we should or can increase government spending during a recession, or set spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, reflect a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and compound the risk that a lack of fiscal restraint will lead to unfunded liabilities, deficits, and debt.
     All of this is possible as long as the Department of Commerce, national defense (the single largest discretionary spending item), the Departments of Homeland Security and State and the intelligence programs; the medical entitlements; the Departments of Education, H.U.D., Justice, Energy, and Interior; the E.P.A., and the Departments of Transportation and Labor are considered the primary targets for spending cuts (in that order).
     This could be done without cutting Social Security, and even without completely abolishing any federal department besides the Department of Commerce. However, I believe that no progress on taxation can be made unless and until the federal government cedes all of its land back to the states and the people therein, so that states may fully tax the unimproved value of that land, instead of taxing (and effectively discouraging) productivity occurring on the land, such as sales and income earnings.




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

Federal Spending

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #6.





6. B
   (From the current level, federal government spending should decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases rather than increase or be set at some undetermined level)
   Federal government spending should (B) decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases. I would not favor (A and C) increasing spending because I believe that we can and should reduce spending and eventually reduce taxes without ceasing federal involvement in any programs which cannot be administered without the assistance of the federal government.
   I would not favor (D) setting spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, because I feel that this attitude reflects a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and that it is a slippery slope to lack of fiscal restraint, deficits, and unfunded liabilities.
   As such, I would support efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment, and I would enthusiastically consider – but be cautious to approve – any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance-type legislation.




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

Sunday, April 20, 2014

12 Ways to Bail Out the States

Written on February 20th, 2011
according to statistics from the New York Times Budget Puzzle



   44 states and the District of Columbia need $125 billion. If we implemented any single one of the following options, we could bail them out.

   1. Pull out of Afghanistan immediately

   2. Pull out of Iraq immediately, reduce the size of the military, and eliminate other defense spending such as weapons programs, nuclear, space, Navy, Air Force, waste, fraud, abuse, etc.

   3. Cut most Energy Department funding and all Department of Education funding besides Pell grants

   4. Cut all foreign aid, sell federal buildings, eliminate earmarks, NASA, FCC, Office of Personnel Management, National Science Foundation, EPA, CPB, and National Endowment for the Arts, and reduce government travel budget, etc.

   5. Abolish the Department of Housing and Urban Development, make $27 billion in cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, make $24 billion in cuts to the Department of Homeland Security, cut all discretionary Social Security spending, reduce Social Security benefits for high-income individuals, and make small cuts to the judicial branch

   6. Abolish four Department of Agriculture services, eliminate farm subsidies, cut $11 billion from the Department of the Interior, make drastic cuts to federal public-sector employment and pay, make small cuts to the Department of Labor, and find $20 billion in additional cuts

   7. Reduce spending on items 1 through 6 by 16.7% each

   8. De-fund Amtrak and make other cuts to the Department of Transportation, and impose a millionaire’s tax and a 5% national sales tax

   9. Eliminate many corporate and individual tax loopholes, make small cuts to the Departments of Justice and Commerce, and eliminate the Government Printing Office

   10. Jack up the estate tax and investment taxes to Clinton-era levels and raise payroll taxes on some incomes above $106,000 (although I wouldn't propose we do this)

   11. Let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone (although I wouldn't propose we do this)

   12. Make 3.25% across-the-board cuts to all federal spending items




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

2011 New York Times Budget Puzzle Recommendations


   This document contains a list of my policies as per the issues which most directly affect the federal budget. This set of policies is fiscally sound, at least according to the New York Times Budget Puzzle.

   Ideally, the further-than-necessary cuts to military, U.N.-related spending, intelligence-gathering, and education which I am proposing will cause the prospect of repealing laws which will have temporarily reduced Social Security benefits and mortgage deductions for those Americans with high income levels to become more realistic and immediate.
   Additionally, my hope is that there would be some funds left over from this which would help the abolition of the Federal Reserve System and the I.R.S. pay for the end of the federal income tax.

General Military:
   End interventionist foreign policy without sacrificing our national sovereignty. End our unconstitutional membership in the United Nations. Employ a non-aggressive nuclear deterrence strategy, but continue to negotiate bilateral nuclear arsenal reduction with Russia. Reduce the Federal Bureau of Investigators’s and the Central Intelligence Agency’s influence on the Executive Branch, and return them to being strictly intelligence-gathering agencies.

Middle East Military:
   Withdraw all troops and infrastructure immediately, or at least reduce the total number of troops in both countries combined to 30,000 by the year 2013, leaving behind no military bases, permanent nor temporary. Dramatically reduce the level of U.S. troops in - and military spending on - Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Djibouti.

Worldwide Military:
   Begin to reduce the quantity of our 900 overseas military bases, and end our policy of stationing at least one troop in 4 out of every 5 countries. Dramatically reduce the level of U.S. troops in - and military spending on - the Bahamas, Cuba, Honduras, Great Britain, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Serbia / Montenegro / Kosovo, South Korea, and Japan.

Military Budget:
   Reduce our military to the size it was before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, especially the Navy and Air Force fleets. Reduce space-based military spending and cancel or delay some weapons programs. Keep non-combat military spending and overhead pay level.

Foreign Aid:
   Cut at least a billion dollars annually from our foreign aid budget, and restructure the foreign aid budget so as to not so preponderantly favor Israel, which has only 0.1% of the non-U.S. world population, yet receives 22% of our total foreign aid and 44% of total military foreign aid.

Domestic Spending:
   Reduce the federal work force by 10%, cut 250,000 government contractors, eliminate agricultural subsidies, and ban all earmarks, pork, and district pet projects. Do not cut assistance to states or regional subsidies; the pay of civilian federal workers; or funding for fossil fuel, the Smithsonian Institute, or the National Park Service.

Health:
   Do not raise the eligibility age of Medicare, but cap the growth of Medicare beginning in 2013. Do not enact medical malpractice reform or tighten the eligibility requirement for disability claims. Temporarily reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance. Allow states and regional district courts to amend and nullify the individual health insurance mandate.

Social Security:
   Do not raise the retirement age for Social Security. Temporarily reduce the Social Security benefits for workers above the 60th percentile of the lifetime earnings distribution.

General Budget:
   End Pay-As-You-Go and rally Congress and the states to ratify a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Impose a national sales tax, work towards eventually abolishing the federal income tax, and repeal the 16th Amendment, abolishing the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service.

Taxes:
   Keep corporate and individual tax loopholes open, extend the Bush tax cuts on a permanent basis, and do not impose investment or bank taxes. Impose a millionaire’s tax, but do not impose a payroll tax for incomes above $106,000. Return the estate / death tax to zero and do not impose a carbon tax. Temporarily reduce the mortgage deduction for high-income households. Do not begin to use an alternate measure for inflation.


For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/debt-and-federal-budget.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html



Written on February 11th, 2011
Edited in April 2014

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Proposed U.S. Federal Government Budget for Fiscal Year 2015

written in December 2013



OVERVIEW

Total federal budget: $2,546.754 billion
Total proposed new revenues: $446.754 billion
Total proposed savings: $1,253.246 billion

Doesn't move any funds from mandatory into discretionary budget, except for block-grants to states
Doesn't wholly shut down any departments besides the U.S. Department of Commerce



MILITARY / DEFENSE / SECURITY / VETERANS
Total proposed savings: $438.5 billion

1. Bring troops and military infrastructure home from overseas, dismantle military bases, and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, reduce the military to its pre-Iraq-War size, draw down size of Navy and Air Force fleets, reduce nuclear arsenal, reduce military space spending, cancel or delay some weapons programs, eliminate all foreign aid, and cut 1/2 out of the total defense and military budget (saves $331 billion).

2. Abolish the National Intelligence Program, and cut 99% of the budget of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (saves $107.5 billion).

3. Make no cuts to Veterans' Affairs programs, services to noncombat officers, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Corporation for National and Community Service.



STATE / JUSTICE / FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Total proposed savings: $80.096 billion

1. Cut 94% of the budget of the Department of State (saves $56.1 billion).

2. Cut 65% of the budget of the Department of Justice (saves $23.9 billion).

3. Reduce the number of federal contractors by between 220,000 and 250,000, reduce the size of the federal workforce by at least 30%, and cut pay of civilian workers by at least 5%.

4. Cut total aid to states by 34.64%.

5. Cut federal representatives' salaries by 80%, to about $40,000 per year (saves $96 million).

6. Make no cuts to the Smithsonian Institute, White House tours, and national monuments.



TREASURY / BUDGET / TAXATION
Total proposed savings: $14.1 billion
Total proposed new revenues: $355.754 billion

1. Cut 13% of the budget of the Department of the Treasury (saves $14.1 billion).

2. Increase federal revenue by $255.754 billion, by:
  • allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those above $250,000 (saves $54 billion)
  • not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those below $250,000
  • imposing a 30.657096% surtax on income above one million dollars annually (generates $283.862 billion in new revenue)
  • imposing a 23% national tax on sales/consumption (generates $118.6 billion in new revenue)
  • using an alternate measure for inflation (saves $21 billion)
  • reducing the mortgage deduction for high-income individuals (saves $25 billion)

3. Oppose the Lincoln-Kyl, Clinton, and Obama proposals on expansions to the estate/death tax and the investment taxes; also oppose a bank tax.



ENTITLEMENTS (HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY)
Total proposed savings: $428.8 billion
Total proposed new revenues: $91 billion

1. Keep the Medicaid eligibility age and the Social Security retirement age steady at 65 years old, and don't tighten eligibility standards for Social Security disability.

2. Cap the growth of Medicare beginning in 2013 (saves $29 billion).

3. Generate new revenue to fund Social Security and Medicare by subjecting some incomes above $106,000 to payroll taxes (generates $50 billion).

4. Cut 9% of the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services (saves $80.6 billion)

5. Clear mandatory spending obligations from the budget by block-granting family support programs and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to control by the states (saves $330.5 billion).

6. Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance (generates $41 billion in new revenue).

7. Enact medical malpractice / tort reform (saves $8 billion).

8. Cut the Food and Drug Administration by 40% (saves $1.744 billion).

9. Cut 2% of the budget of the Social Security Administration (saves $17.7 billion; includes economic means-testing for recipients, saving $6 billion).
ENERGY / ENVIRONMENT / INTERIOR / AGRICULTURE
Total proposed savings: $136.25 billion

1. Cut the budget of the Department of Energy by 50% (saves $17.8 billion)

2. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 30% (saves $3 billion)

3. Oppose the implementation of a tax on carbon emissions.

4. Cut the budget of the Department of the Interior by 50% (saves $6.75 billion), making no cuts to the National Park Service.

5. Cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture by 18% (saves $27.1 billion), making no cuts to farm subsidies.

6. Clear mandatory spending obligations from the budget by block-granting Food Stamps (SNAP) and the Child Nutrition Program to the states (saves $81.6 billion)



COMMERCE / BUSINESS / LABOR
Total proposed savings: $22.7 billion

1. Abolish the Department of Commerce (saves $9.5 billion).

2. Continue funding the Small Business Administration at current levels.

3. Cut 13% of the budget of the Department of Labor (saves $13.2 billion).



HOUSING / EDUCATION / SCIENCE / TRANSPORTATION
Total proposed savings: $132.8 billion

1. Cut 89% of the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (saves $41.1 billion).

2. Cut 94% of the budget of the Department of Education (saves $67.7 billion), making no cuts to the Office of Drug Free Schools.

3. Keep funding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation at current levels.


4. Cut 24% of the budget of the Department of Transportation (saves $24 billion).








For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/debt-and-federal-budget.html

For more entries on Oregon politics, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...