What entitlement programs would you cut, and how much would it save?

[kallend 1,619]

If you're not sure of the definition, here's a good primer:

www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[grimmie 173]

Disband "TSA" and the "Dept. of Jokeland Security."

Cut out Bush's "No Billionaire Left Behind" package.

[grimmie 173]

Or Agriculture subsidies.

[quade 3]

I'd cut subsidies to;

Tobacco farming
Fossil fuel

I can think of a few others, but those are the big two that come to mind.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Well, I'd start with Social Security by means testing it to ensure that nobody receives more than will put them at poverty level. . But I'd look at those statements and ensure that they receive no more than 100% per year of what they paid into it. I'd grandfather in everyone on SS, but I'd make sure that it slowly gets cut by informing the populace, "This ain't gonna be here. Yes, you were promised way back when, but the don't have to deliver it. I'd suggest you all save money, because SS won't be here to cover your ass."

Then I'd take over Medicare. I'd make sure that all Medicare money is paid through the VA and that the VA handle all Medicare treatments. I'd cancel all contracts with private health care providers and let the public know, "You'll be kept alive with this. But if you want any of the frills, go pay a private doctor." And people will scrape together the dough for nicer treatment.

Instant cut of a large amount of money. Then I'd cut Medic-Aid and Welfare and move the money toward adoption and foster care programs. Can't afford your kids? Well, we'll put them with loving parents - gay or straight - who CAN. And people would find how much they can do on their own when there is something to lose.

The lack of welfare will result in less people trying for it. And then immigrants won't be a problem anymore because they are not a drain on the resources and they will be welcomed. (Not by xenophobes but they will have lost their big argument over the last 40 years).

Right there is probably $500 billion in yearly savings within a couple years. I'd take the money saved and make early ayments on the national debt.

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

Oh, yeah. One more thing. I can extend that monthly by performing public service for 30 hours per week. (not 40 hours per week since I should be looking for a job, too). FDR did it. I'll reinstitute it.

SO there will be a cut there but some benefit, too.

I reckon that with these I can manage to save another 100 billion or so.

And then I'll be roundly villified for the next 20 years, and in hindsight it'll be said that I did the right thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,379]

>Then I'd take over Medicare. I'd make sure that all Medicare money is paid
>through the VA and that the VA handle all Medicare treatments. I'd cancel
>all contracts with private health care providers and let the public know,
>"You'll be kept alive with this. But if you want any of the frills, go pay a
>private doctor." And people will scrape together the dough for nicer
>treatment.

That's essentially what I would do. Go to an 'official' two tier system. The lower end is basically (horrors!) 100% socialized medicine, and it's free. It is basic care only, along the the preventative measures that are super cheap and save hundreds of thousands later (like prenatal vitamins.)

Have a bad heart? The government system will give you generics to ease your pain and reduce your LDL ratio. Want a bypass or a new heart? Get private insurance.

[lawrocket 3]

THose aren't entitlements...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

If you say they're not entitlements, I guess it's a matter of whose opinion you're talking about. I'm pretty sure the tobacco farmers and oil companies think they're entitled to the money at this point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. And with finite funding, the more people go to it the worse the care will be. It will then be self-limiting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. There is a difference of opinion. There's lots of other spending I'd cut, too, but that isn't "entitlement."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, I'd start with Social Security by means testing it to ensure that nobody receives more than will put them at poverty level. . But I'd look at those statements and ensure that they receive no more than 100% per year of what they paid into it. I'd grandfather in everyone on SS, but I'd make sure that it slowly gets cut by informing the populace, "This ain't gonna be here. Yes, you were promised way back when, but the don't have to deliver it. I'd suggest you all save money, because SS won't be here to cover your ass."

If you grandfather, you're not saving any money upfront. And means testing seems like a disincentive to save, no? And if the government renegs on this financial promise, what message does that send to other creditors?

Quote

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

This would be a massive increase in CA, which I believe maxes out at 450/wk for 26 weeks. It's based on past income, but the top is pretty low.

Me, I'd start with cutting the entitlement program known as the war on drugs. Would save us a fortune, both in personnel that could fight real crime, and in the unnecessary imprisonment of users.

(Eliminating the war in Iraq is a given)

[Snowwhite 0]

Instant cut of a large amount of money. Then I'd cut Medic-Aid and Welfare and move the money toward adoption and foster care programs. Can't afford your kids? Well, we'll put them with loving parents - gay or straight - who CAN. And people would find how much they can do on their own when there is something to lose.

A woman stood in our city council chambers and told one of our aldermen that it was "her business and nobody elses" who the fathers of her 9 welfare babies were. She was 25 years old. The aldermen said "madam, I think the tax payers who are paying for the housing, medical care, education and feeding of your brood beg to differ with you"

I think everyone is entitled to one mistake. Welfare for that first kid, you're on your own on the rest. But I would make birthcontrol free.

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

I don't know what state your are in, but here in Illinois those numbers are HIGH, way high. Unemployment is based on number of dependents, where you worked, etc. Most of the unemployment comes from the fund that is funded by employers, so the savings to the general goverment would not be enormously significant. It only covers about 26


Oh, yeah. One more thing. I can extend that monthly by performing public service for 30 hours per week. (not 40 hours per week since I should be weeks, and a family of two gets about 1550 a month.
looking for a job, too). FDR did it. I'll reinstitute it.

I'm big on public service, something I forced my kids to do starting at age 6. Really. I agree with you big time on this.
You have some really good ideas. You should run for an office. I spent 10 years on our city council. Very educational.

skydiveTaylorville.org
[email protected]

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

I thought we were talking about spending cuts.

The one time I collected unemployment in Colorado (2003) it was capped at $400 a week regardless of how much you made or $1600 a month and $10K on total benefits.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, in that case I won't cut unemployment. Since I never used it I had no knowledge. But it sounds good where it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[azdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

I thought we were talking about spending cuts.

The one time I collected unemployment in Colorado (2003) it was capped at $400 a week regardless of how much you made or $1600 a month and $10K on total benefits.

dont ever plan on getting that from unemp in az top out here is 214 a week max 6k year.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[AWL71 0]

I would make participation in Social Security optional. If I had been able to receive the social security money from my paycheck and invest it as I see fit I would have a nice amount at retirement. Now I know this won't happen since the money I am paying in today is being used tomorrow to pay other's SS benefits.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Well, in that case I won't cut unemployment. Since I never used it I had no knowledge. But it sounds good where it is.

Unemployment isn't an entitlement program, it's an insurance program. You have to have worked and thus paid (indirectly - via payroll taxes paid by your employer) into the system to then collect benefits when you're unemployed.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[lawrocket 3]

It fits the definition that kallend provided. It even specifically stated "unemployment compensation" as an entitlement. Factors? "Are you unemployed? Have you paid into the program? If yes to both, you are eligible."

It's the "paying for the benefit" that provides the vesting to me, and rights that have vested and into which people have paid I have trouble with taking away.

Now - reducing or limiting those benefits? Yep. I'll do that. That's why I prefer to grandather in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Defense spending. Isn't it by far the biggest drain, and the one that includes maintaining the most oudated and unneeded programs?

According to the Ben Cohen video posted a while back (the one with the stacks of Oreos), we could cut just the most frivolous, wasteful, and unnecessary programs and solve all of our problems.

Not an expert, so taking it in good faith; and would be interested to know if it could be refuted.

(IMO, defense spending, like most allocations, have become entitlements. Anybody who has worked in a large bureacracy knows how difficult it is to bring a program to an end, even after it is no longer productive or needed).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[TheAnvil 0]

My dear Kallend! You clearly misunderstood my previous query. Vice tell me what entitlement programs you would be willing to place on the table for reduction, you've queried others! I'll assume you've no answer to my question and therefore no credibility when speaking of the deficit issue. Though I suppose asking others for help IS a good thing to do when you haven't a clue as to how to proceed.

Not to worry. The SEXYAnvil is here to give you a few suggestions. The things below are just a starting point. There are so many things that could and should be done to get us on the path to solvency it would take a massive amount of time to detail it - far more than a jet lagged Vinny is willing to spend.

Without further adieu, a few things that should be examined:

First and foremost - cuts in entitlement programs alone will not solve the root issue, which is the fact that we're broke and expending more funds than we take in every year. It is a multi-faceted problem and therefore a multi-faceted approach is required. The following would serve as a basis for a plan, that would undoubtedly be refined a bit.

FACET 1: Discretionary Spending. This must be capped and reduced. In addition, its focus should be shifted from DoD to DoT/DoI/DoE and a parity of sorts between departments should be reached. This should be reduced in magnitude by ten percent (minimum).

FACET 2: Entitlement Spending. I'll spend a bit more time here, as this is by far the greatest driver in the budget deficit.

a) Repeal GWB's prescription drug program. Too expensive.
b) The new GI Bill. Officers should be excluded from this completely. Housing subsidy should be eliminated.
c) SS is untenable as a system. Treating everyone equally is goat-fuck stupid, as the poverty level differs massively. This would take a thesis to describe. Suffice it to say that reform is needed, and those who buy their votes by promising more government benefits have no credibility when it comes to reforming this system.
d) Medicare. Same as SS. MASSIVE reform needed. A few things that should be done immediately:
-Smokers should have an immediate $50 premium in FY09 $ added to every lung-related visit. This premium should be indexed to inflation and increased appropriately.
- Smokers should pay for smoking related illness treatment. Payment plan should include a premium.
- Alcoholism related illnesses should be aid for as well. Just like smokers. Your choice to smoke/drink; your choice should NOT screw others over.
e) Farm subsidies. Phased out to zero over a five-ten year period. Tax breaks for soybean oil production ISO biodiesel should be concurrent with this.

FACET 3: Government Accounting. Time to face reality. Debt held by the anyone is debt. Bonds issued to yourself are NOT assets...they are debits and should be treated as such.

FACET 4: Taxes.

Ooooh. Tough issue. See, my dear Kallend. I SUPPORT some tax increases. I really support a national retail sales tax in conjunction with a flat income tax, but that wouldn't happen anytime soon. The following should be simple to implement quickly until the more preferred system could be put in place.

a) Excise taxes.
- Increase tax on cigarettes in $1/pack increments every year over a ten year period.
- Federal alcohol tax of 0.1%-1.0% on top of other taxes. Yes, it will hurt me. I don't like it, but I would go for it.
b) Income tax.
- Reduce the captial gains tax rate. Encourage investment
- DO NOT PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT
c) Corporate taxes.
- Eliminate taxes on profits earned abroad. Absolutely fucking stupid.
- Reduce the corporate tax rate. Encouraging corporations to locate outside of the US in a flat-world environment via a draconian tax code is goat-fuck stupid.

FACET 5: REGULATION

- Repeal the law allowing bucket shops (credit default swaps) that was passed in FY2000.
- Re-examine SOX. Its draconian accounting requirements have increased the cost of accounting for American corporations. Guess who's absorbing those costs - consumers and employees.

Many other facets. This would be a good starting point, though.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

a) Excise taxes.
- Increase tax on cigarettes in $1/pack increments every year over a ten year period.
- Federal alcohol tax of 0.1%-1.0% on top of other taxes. Yes, it will hurt me. I don't like it, but I would go for it.

1% increase on booze, but a 20% increase on smokes? How would you support that as fair, when both are responsible for a significant cost in lives and health care?

Quote

- Re-examine SOX. Its draconian accounting requirements have increased the cost of accounting for American corporations. Guess who's absorbing those costs - consumers and employees.

I'm rather afraid of Son-of-SOX, whatever we're going to get as a result of leveraging idiots.

[TheAnvil 0]

Cost of alcohol to the health care system/industry as compared to that of smoking is not even close. Not by a long shot.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Cost of alcohol to the health care system/industry as compared to that of smoking is not even close. Not by a long shot.

20,000 dead in motor accidents, many more injured. Date rape, unintended pregnancies, fights, and of course later in life, the chronic issues.

You're saying that's only 1/20th as bad? Sounds more like you're willing to make only a 1% sacrifice, while volunteering other sinners to suffer more substantially.

[billvon 2,379]

> I SUPPORT some tax increases. . . .

>- Increase tax on cigarettes in $1/pack increments every year over a ten year period.
>- Federal alcohol tax of 0.1%-1.0% on top of other taxes. Yes, it will hurt me. I don't like it, but I would go for it.

Vinnie supports raising taxes on hardworking middleclass families! O the horror! O the humanity!

Kidding. That's not a bad way to go, as long as it's coupled with a way to make expenses meet income.

[kallend 1,619]

Fact is, Vinny, that most of the cuts in social programs that are possible are just fiddling around the edges. The biggies of Social Security and Medicare have the boomer generation (lots of active VOTERS) as stakeholders who have been paying their dues for longer than some posters here have been alive. Grandfathering them in means that any savings will take decades to kick in significantly.

Defense, OTOH...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.