posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:37 PM
The problem as it stands with the current budget of the United States of America, is that the debt has grown in ways that no one is sure what all to
do to solve the problems. Many would suggest that they stop giving tax cuts to the rich, and to tax them more, however, that is economic suicide as
it is the rich that is keeping the economy going. They do pay the lions share of the taxes, give more in charitable contributions and heavily invest
in businesses that tend to provide jobs and services that everyone benefit everyone in the long run. So what all to cut from the budget to allow for
a reduction of the federal debt, and still meet the obligations that is required by law and contract.
The federal budget breaks down as follows, these numbers are out there on the net, and provided by the government:
20% of the federal budget is for defense and security, and about 715 billion.
20% goes right to social security, 708 billion paid out.
21% goes to the three health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP: 753 Billion.
14% goes into the safety net programs, that provide aid to individuals facing hardships. These are things like the earned income and child tax
credits. This also includes the SSI and unemployment insurance, various forms of in kind assistance.
6% goes to the interest on the national debt. This is not the principle, but the interest to pay the countries and people who the United States
borrowed money from.
7% goes to benefits for federal retirees and veterans.
2% goes to scientific and Medical Research
3% goes to transportation infrastructure.
3% goes to education.
1% goes to Non-security international.
4% goes to all other federal expenditures.
So there is the budget for 2010 according to the CBO, as they reported it to the congress and is a matter of public record. The question should be,
what and where to trim the fat out of the federal budget, as it is something that has to be weighed. If you cut one area, then another area has to be
increased in spending, unless they are cutting across the board, in areas that they can, and is optional. So look at the different areas that the
spending makes, and before jumping on cut the military budget, ask how many bases, and installations are in the state that you live in? Many of such
provides money and resources into the local communities and brings revenue into the states themselves. Every time there is a round of base closures,
then congress men and women fight like cats and dogs to keep those bases open, as it means that if they close, then that part of their state looses
revenue that it can use. Armed forces personnel, when out on the town, do spend money along with their families. That means that schools in those
areas get a larger number of students, and they get a boost to their budgets to accommodate the increased number of students. It also benefits all
those who live in that city, country and state, during the census, as it means that state gets more representatives in congress. Not to mention the
states that the companies that help provide the military hard ware, benefit from the business.
If there is going to be cuts or changes in where the money goes, it needs to start with all of the bailouts, and man made disasters would be a good
start, and laws to state such. When it comes to the bailouts, let the companies die, and go after those who were running it, making them take on more
of the financial responsibility for the problems of their company, just like a partnership, rather passing the burden to the general population. Cut
back on other federal programs, such as Freddy Mac and Fannie May, as they are still loosing money, even after the federal bailout, and start to get
rid of programs that are mandated to make money and always seem to end up in the red. If a company fails, then let it fail, cause they did something
wrong in the first place, and should not be saved. When it comes to man made disasters, then it should be the companies responsibility to assume the
financial liability for their reckless actions, rather than, here again passing it onto the general public. That too would start to trim the fat off,
to include a congress or a president who is willing to veto or vote against bills with all of the amendments that have nothing to do with such.