As you can see, discretionary spending only accounts for about 18% of the federal spending budget. We could certainly streamline the military budget by getting out of every God-forsaken country's business we don't belong in and generally reducing the overall size, but still that won't make much of a dent in the debt going forward.
Clearly, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be revamped, the recipients need to expect less, and the eligibility guidelines need to be extended especially for SS.
We need to raise the retirement age to 72, immediately. Social Security recipients who are already retired will be grandfathered in, but anybody who's further than 5 years from retiring should be told that their politicians have been flat-out lying to them for decades, making a promise that they cannot keep. They should be told that their benefits will be reduced and they should start planning for alternate supplements to their retirement income. For those of us still a decade or two from retirement, tough s#%t!
As for Medicaid, if we remove the barriers and allow insurance companies to sell policies anywhere in the US, the price for tailer-made policies would come down fast and dramatically. With affordable policies available, far fewer people would then be relying on other Americans for their medical upkeep.
Politically, no politician wants to reduce or eliminate a government benefit on which Americans have come to rely, but that's exactly what's got to happen. Term limits on teat-sucking politicians would go a long way toward helping them make hard, unpopular decisions. If they aren't seeking re-election, why not make the right vote instead of the expedient vote?
6 comments:
Regarding Defense, seeing as how almost all our "stuff" (technical term) is older than the people operating it, we've given ourselves a couple more 'peace dividends' than we could afford - even when we're not at peace.
Let's start by cutting things the Constitution doesn't mention before we go after one of the core purposes.
I guess the defense budget question is really one of defined mission rather than of hardware, materiel, and manning. If our mission is more limited, then we can get away with a leaner military. If we agree that the mission is to police every country we think needs policing and to maintain a pointless presence in the ones who don't, then the status quo is probably what's needed.
I would overhaul SS, Medicaid, the tax code, and unencumber the insurance industry before I slashed the defense budget but, still, everything has fat than can be trimmed.
Remember that included in the "defense" of our country are such things as the "Edward M. Kennedy Center for the Study of Congress" and flying Nancy Pelosi all over the world (until recently). Also, equal oportunity (diversity)officers out the yin-yang and every manner of foolishness. Guess what will be last cut in a budget freeze?
We are in big trouble.
Did anyone see Obama's budget guy yesterday saying this monstrous budget proves "we can live within our means?"
If my family lived year after year on 150% of our income, I don't think I could call that "within our means."
These guys are such liars. They know that the feckless media will dutifully repeat and defend whatever they say, regardless of how absurd and illogical it is, so they say what sounds good even if it's the polar opposite of the truth. Then the media will label as obstructionists, racists, and haters anybody who dares point out this absurdity.
Post a Comment