-
Earth Day 2013: The Papal Edition
April 22, 2013 | 22 comments
-
Is God a Methodist?
April 15, 2013 | 57 comments
-
A Status Quo Budget at Best
April 11, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Marriage Issue Will Not Go Away
April 2, 2013 | 87 comments
-
Shakespeare’s Henry V Commands the Stage
March 11, 2013 | 10 comments
The Public Policy
Are We Cutting Enough?
Republicans talk amongst themselves.
Last week House Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the GOP leadership announced significant budget cuts for the remaining eight months of the current fiscal year, as reported by Janet Hook and Corey Bowles of the Wall Street Journal. The goal is a 9 percent reduction in nondefense, discretionary spending, a reduction of $43 billion compared to 2010 levels.
Defense spending would increase just 1 percent, an amount of $8 billion, $23 billion below the president’s 2011 request.
“Washington’s spending spree is over,” declared Ryan.
Tracking these numbers gets tricky for the uninitiated, depending on the timing, baseline and categories you use. The Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial yesterday (“The $100 Billion Question”) characterizes Chairman Ryan’s budget plan as “cutting $58 billion from the current spending baseline” which, presumably, be the sum of the nondefense and defense reductions. Basically, the Journal defended the cuts as consistent with past GOP promises given that the current fiscal year is vanishing quickly.
Even Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), describing himself as a “realist,” said, “We’re going to end this year with some spending cuts.”
Some? The conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), made up of nearly two-thirds of GOP members, has called for even more ambitious cuts over the next ten years including almost $100 billion for 2011 alone.
“Many House members want to see at least $100 million in nonsecurity savings this fiscal year and will offer amendments to get there if necessary,” claims Brian Straessle, speaking for the RSC.
While the Democratic Senate will be a hurdle for any ambitious budget-cutting efforts, newly elected Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), has made his opening bid to cut $500 billion-now, i.e., for this fiscal year. This is five times the size of the cuts called for by the RSC. Be still my beating heart!
Returning to the House leadership plan, transportation and housing programs would be cut 17 percent from 2010 appropriated levels for instance. Commerce and Justice programs would be reduced by 16 percent, agriculture programs by 14 percent (no doubt a heavy lift for a lot of farm-state Republicans). More cuts are promised for next year given that this year is or will be nearly half over.
“These cuts will not be easy, they will be broad and deep, they will affect every congressional district,” said Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), formerly one of the band of spending brothers who seems to have found his way back to the true faith.
Whatever level of cuts are enacted, the Democrats have only themselves to blame since they never managed to pass an actual budget, just temporary ones to carry the government through to March. This failure of responsibility, providentially, opened up an opportunity for the Republicans to begin budgetary reform upon taking over Congress this year.
Meanwhile, President Obama, like St. Augustine, pre-conversion, says yes to cuts, O Lord, but not yet. He is proposing a five-year extension of discretionary spending at 2010 levels.
So the Republicans are having a lively talk amongst themselves, which is not all bad. While the House leadership is taking a strong, but measured approach to budget reform, very late in the fiscal year at that, the RSC and Senator Paul should be given their chance to make the case for more cuts where possible. This is a good conversation to have, notwithstanding the real-world constraints of a Democratic Senate and President, veto pen in hand. Enlarging both the universe of potential cuts and, more importantly, the imagination of the political class in terms of other cuts and reforms not yet conceived is all to the good.
While our hearts are with the RSC and Senator Paul, our minds must acknowledge the difficulties the GOP leadership must face in changing the national culture on federal spending. Cold turkey versus gradual withdrawal is the basic choice before the House.
Moreover, as Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner has reported, the cuts proposed by Chairman Ryan are $74 billion less than the President’s original spending request for the fiscal year, no mean thing that. Also, Ferrechio notes that “Last week, House Republicans pushed through a measure instructing Ryan to cut non-defense spending to 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal year, which his plan achieves [emphasis added].”
The Republicans need a good hard debate on the extent of budget cuts for this fiscal year and beyond. Let’s hope that they do not go verklempt in the course of that debate but maintain collegiality and pursue the argument with prudence and good will. After all, the main event is yet to come: reform of sacrosanct entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.8.11 @ 6:26AM
A 32 billion dollar cut in a 3.7 trillion budget is not budgetary reform. Call if anything but reform. It is a token cut which in fact may not exist since a rounding error could make it disappear in an instant.
Although the Democrats didn't pass a budget, it is becoming obvious the public won't see any real cuts. Even a hundred billion is a drop in the bucket of reality and here's why.
Federal revenues has dropped significantly starting in 2004 and exist in a trough floating between 2000 and 2004 revenues.
Pushing an agenda where revenues are cut to 2008 spending levels would still indicate that there will be significant deficit spending which means any cuts are not really cuts because the deficit spending will continue unabated.
Oh sure, there will be dramatized squeals of pain from members of Congress who want to convince the public everything is all right. But it isn't.
These phony spending levels being batted about do not even begin to address the monstrous problem because it's a fly swatter approach.
Also, the cuts will not be broad and deep. A cut of 32 billion in a 3.7 trillion spending spree is meaningless.
In the meantime the debt clock and debt bomb keep ticking and there is no relief in sight.
Expect more unrest in the next election cycle as the Tea Party targets more big spenders including some of the alleged cutters who are not cutters at all.
In the meantime why be depressed?
Join me in song!
(Sung to the tune of 100 bottles of beer on the wall)
"A 3.7 trillion dollar federal budget on the wall
A 3.7 trillion dollar federal budget on the wall
Take it down by 32 billion
you have a 3.668 trillion dollar budget on the wall"
By the time you take 32 billion out 120 times you will get tired of singing that song. But hey, it's being discussed and the Republicans will do the right thing and it's good!
Or maybe not.
PCC| 2.8.11 @ 6:59AM
Right on, O'Stalin!
The GOP could do their 2012 presidential prospects a world of good by going long and deep on the budget cuts, starting with this fiscal year.
Unfortunately, based on the article above, it seems that they're already shuckin' and jivin', except for a few stalwarts. If that's their game, then Chris Christie for President, I guess.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, Obama is going to be difficult to beat in 2012. The GOP must offer up a real, meaty alternative or else he's going to steamroll them again, to all our nation's cost.
The GOP should give Rand Paul in the Senate and Paul Ryan in the House a free hand to try their best to cut as much as they can from the 2011 budget and let them lay out equally ambitious plans for the out- years.
Beer (f.m.h.)| 2.8.11 @ 7:21AM
The so-called untouchable entitlements need to be on the cutting block NOW, not later, not in the "out-years." If not now, then probably never.
Note to the Republican majority in the Congress: Get a back bone and cut the entitlements NOW. It does not get easier later on.
PCC| 2.8.11 @ 8:25AM
Dear Beer (I like the sound of that!),
Agreed.
Face up to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security and Defense, and everything else, right now!
I know it's hard for the Washington time-servers to believe it, but it's a vote-winner and the American people are ready, even thirsting, for someone to say so.
Intelligent Design| 2.8.11 @ 8:29AM
Even $100 billion in cuts is totally inadequate. The national debt is growing by $150 billion per month, rapidly building the pile beyond $14 trillion, or $126,000 for every taxpayer. We need dramatic changes, to include: 1) bring home all the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq now; 2) cut all UN funding; 3) repeal or defund Obamacare, and open up medical care to free market competition by repealing other existing legislation; 4) eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education; 5) cut the budgets of State and Interior in half; 6) fire 500,000 federal workers, using an axe; 7) eliminate the several hundred million $ in aid which Obama has pledged to the so-called "Palestinians", and a long list of other foreign aid; 8) sell Amtrak and the Post Office; and 9) completely privatize the fraudulent Ponzi scheme known as the Social Security system. Close it down to new participants on 7/4/11 and give everyone the freedom to opt out completely by receiving a lump sum payment, adjusted for a nominal annual return on prior contributions (say 3%), less any retirement payments already received. Allow those already retired to stay in the system until death, if they so choose. Federal spending should be cut by $1.5 to $2 trillion.
Also, enact the Fair Tax legislation already introduced in Congress. This replaces the entire federal income tax system with a simple national sales tax (not a VAT and not a flat tax on income). It would eliminate some 60,000 pages of regulations. There would be no tax on salaries, no estate tax, no taxes on capital gains or dividends, no AMT, no corporate income taxes, no Social Security tax, and the end of billions of dollars in compliance costs. The Fair Tax would lead to unprecedented economic growth.
Lois C| 2.8.11 @ 11:57AM
@Intelligent Design, very good start but just a couple of tiny flaws in the plan. Noboby would buy AmTrak or the Post Office because they are too inefficient and owe too much in pension benefit promises. You forgot eliminating the staff of the first lady, welfare and illegal immigration issues. It will be expensive to root out and deport all the illegals but I believe we can recoop the costs in 2 months with the cost savings from healthcare, housing assistance and welfare payments to illegals going away. I also recommend presenting the countries of the illegals with a bill for the amount they stole from the American people.
We also need to bring home ALL troops stationed outside America and close those bases, it's time for us to stop being the defenders of the world and defend ourselves.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.11 @ 10:21PM
Most foreign aid, except to Israel, serves no National defense purposes (yes, Mossad is USEFUL to US defense). Understand that ending aid to Israel takes off ANY restraint the Israelis might have in defending themselves. The aid serves a national defense purpose, like I said.
The Dept. of Education and of Energy serve almost no useful purposes. NEA and PBS serve no useful purposes. NIH is not all that useful, nor is NIMH. Most US construction projects aren't of much use, besides roads.
Space should be turned over to private industry.
Why don't we turn over all our infantry/armour/artillery/tactical air support to the Marines and expand them? That would greatly cut down on our army needs. (I am not a military expert; I simply note the redundancy and note that the Marines have a better record than the Army.)
Let's look at the Cabinet Departments: Homeland Security---not needed; better handled with proper cooperation between existing departments. Veteran's Affairs---not needed--- Pure political pandering. Department of Education---worthless. Department of Energy---it's defense projects should be subsumed under Defense---the rest can be eliminated. HUD---ELIMINATE. Department of Transportation---subsume national needs under the Army Corp of Engineers--otherwise, eliminate. Department of Health and Human Services---eliminate. Department of Labor---eliminate. Department of the Interior and Dept of Agriculture---merge and eliminate one. Department of Commerce---eliminate. Customs should be part of Treasury.
This leaves the Dept of the Interior (taking over agriculture), State, Defence, Justice. We currently have 15 Departments. Under the Razor's Plan, we are left with 4. Medicare and Medicaid do NOT deserve Cabinet Status. The Surgeon General should be separate from HHS. So, HHS can be cut.
Gee, I wonder how much money this will save. Why not cut one Cabinet position every two years? That way each cut can be evaluated for effect.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.11 @ 10:22PM
Sorry. "Its defense projects," not it's. my bad.
Occam's Tool| 2.8.11 @ 10:38PM
Sorry, also preserve Treasury---so cut from 15 Departments to 5. Honestly, can anyone see the harm to the economy from doing these cuts? We did fine without Homeland Security (if the CIA and the FBI could have talked to each other, perhaps no 9/11), Veterans Affairs, etc.
By the way, here are some idiotic Cabinet level officers: ambassador to the UN (WHY????) EPA head, and Office of the Trade Representative---why do we need Commerce and a separate Trade Rep? HHS was created in 1979 from HEW, spinning off the equally worthless Dept. of Education. Agriculture wasn't put in place until 1889! Commerce started in 1903. LBJ thought Commerce and Labor should be merged. Commerce was originally a branch of Interior (and should return to that). We did fine without HUD until 1965, and it's been a disaster. DOT was established in 1966. Energy was established in 1977. Veterans' was established in 1989.
My point is that we don't need the billions of dollars spent on bureaucrats instead of actual people who deliver services out in the field. I defy you to tell me how Veteran's Affairs has helped medical care for Vets that couldn't have been done better by letting the oversight money be spent on actual care for Vets. (I trained in a VA during the reign of Bush I as a Resident MD---there was NO improvement.)
This is where the cuts should start.
jolizoom| 2.8.11 @ 11:25PM
FairTax would also all but eliminate a $12 billion/year department and put a lot of makeworks where they belong--out of a job. Like so many of the rest of us.
Pelligrino| 2.8.11 @ 8:45AM
Maybe they are going about this ALL the WRONG way?
In my simplistic world, this is how you do this -- for the good of the nation:
A. For this budget provide only 75% of the funding that a US government agency had in Fiscal Year 2008.
(very small, ficticious example: If an agency had $100 million in FY 2008's budget, that means only $75 million in FY 2011's budget.)
B. Reduce this by another 10% every year for the next 10 years. Yes, ALL government agencies. (So same agency above will have $7.5 million less in FY2012.)
C. Elminate altogether agencies like the Dept. of Education, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, etc. A minimum of 15 agencies -- sizable ones -- this FY. (That gives the employees there 6 months notice of being fired. Fair enough.)
D. Likewise: Vigorous national debate and discussion but the further elimination of 12 more Federal/national government agencies each year the the next 10 years. (there are a lot of them out there, trust me) This is vigorous debate. Needs approval from Congress. Allow for lively national public debate. Appointees and career civilians at these 'at risk' agencies have every opportunity to make their cases to the American public as to their merits. BUT: 12 more each year. No exceptions.
It is WRONG to just focus on the dollars. One actually has to eliminate the government function/entity/real people presently doing those bureacratic jobs (that none of us know about).
If a government agency, office, department, etc. is allowed to continue -- in some form -- it will just go into deep 'camouflage' for the present culture of popular/vote winning budget cuts ONLY to rise again as a stealth budget buster in another 5 - 10 years.
"It is amazing how much government you DON'T miss when it's not there anymore."
Brian Mc| 2.8.11 @ 9:04AM
Pellergrino...dead on! Cut the budget cut crap. We need to go into survival mode; call it instead, department/agency abolishment. I like the tax idea but, it would never fly...think of all those 'poor' people out there who would find themselves actually having to pay for the gift of living in the greatest country in the world. The banishment of the IRS to the ash-heap of history does have a nice ring to it.
Consertive View| 2.8.11 @ 9:49AM
Good plan:
I think Pelligrino is on to something here. Thinking of dollars is very possibly the wrong aproach. There are other ways to look at the problem as well that might be debated.
Let us first look at those Governmental Programs that most control our lives. If we assume that the more government controls our lives the less individual freedom we have, then by cutting those programs we liberate ourselves. Second let us look at those Government Programs that have nothing to do with governing the country.
Let us look at OSHA, EPA, etc. These governmental programs only serve to control our lives. I would suggest that we could eliminate them entirely. The enviorment could be left to the needs of the states, same with safe work places on the job.
What does the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with governing the country. In a word, nothing. Bye bye the NEA. What does education have to do with governing the country. Nice to have educated voters, but making them educated is not governing. Bye bye Education Department.
Now, by cutting programs that do not govern, and those programs only designed to control us, we can manage to achieve two things, two important things; one) the reduction of power over our daily lives by the government; two) lowering the cost of a Federal government.
Once we have done this we can look more closely at items such as Medicade and Social Security. Do we need them for a stable country, or should some other plan be put in place? I don't know, but I think it is a topic well worth discussion.
If we look at the process of reducing the debt as a process of reducing the power of the Federal Government as well, what to cut becomes an easier choice to make.
Kris Lepine| 2.8.11 @ 9:37AM
I agree we need to take an ax to the budget, not a knife. Why is there never any talk of cutting wasteful programs, only the same old, same old? States do the same thing, cutting police, fireman, prisons, etc.
I have watched "60 Minutes" for years and they are still doing shows (albeit not as often) on billion dollar boondoggles. One is the salmon project in Oregon, another is Yucca mountain. I imagine there are programs going back to FDR that need to be axed but no one ever looks into them. Why is that?
Also, F.A.I.R keeps track of what it costs to keep illegals here and that figure is staggering. You can even see what it costs your state. We need to contact our state reps and demand an end this spending, especially on welfare programs for illegals.
Sam Levi| 2.8.11 @ 12:31PM
Yucca Mountain, also known as the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has already been cut. The problem with that project was that it was internally sabotaged. Had it been managed properly, upon completion (it was 30 years behind schedule) it would have actually shown a profit. Can't have the government earning its own money, so it had to go. Nobama axed it.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.8.11 @ 10:10AM
Mr. Meehan,
an Excellent reasoned column!
A lot of my friends here just want the country to go "cold turkey"; just that simple.
There is a problem with that folks. We would lose the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, in 2012 ..... and we are right back where we started ...on the road to communism, (pardon the shorthand).
Al Adab| 2.8.11 @ 10:42AM
"Are we cutting enough"? Simply put, NO. Nonetheless we must begin somewhere. Every step in the right direction will move us closer to the goal. Begin with what we can achieve then move to more contentious sites. Once the trend is established opportunity will abound. Incrementalism brought us to this pass, and incrementalism will get us out. Long term strategies will deliver the goods.
Derek Leaberry| 2.8.11 @ 10:54AM
No, not enough is being cut from spending and that includes military spending. Ryan's paltry amount of spending cuts are sure to disappoint budget hawks and small government Tea Parties. Look for President Obama to use this split between Republican politicians and conservative voters to his advantage in his re-election in 2012.
Sean| 2.8.11 @ 10:57AM
What is the use of winning an election if it isn't put to good use. One can say thing about the Democrats, but one thing is they advance their agenda. Republicans get in power and then all they think about is keeping power and nothing conservative ever gets accomplished.
The House needs to implement Rand Paul's proposals right now. If Obama and the Senate block it. Then make all spending Bills specific. Defense bill, sign or veto, ect. But never propose spending for Dept. of Education, farm subsidies, ect. that you want cut. Obama can not fund these Departments without the House. If funding for them is not given they will wither up.
Andrew_M_Garland | 2.8.11 @ 11:05AM
If Republicans do not cut enough, the economy will crash on their watch. The Democrats will claim that their actions caused the crash.
If you see reality, however harsh, and fail to actually meet it, then you will be blamed anyway.
The Republicans were clear about opposition to ObamaCare. This gave them the benefit of a simple debate and has kept them out of the blame for what ObamaCare is and will do.
They must be clear about budget cutting. Will it lower taxes, allow the private sector to create productive jobs, and improve life? If so, then cut away. Republicans won't get credit for half-measures.
Do they understand reality, or not? Their actions must show that they understand and are willing to act. The public will follow along as they achieve success.
Tom Osterman| 2.8.11 @ 11:10AM
If you think of most spending as some part of some incumbent's re-election campaign, you begin to understand the reluctance to make any significant cuts: Senator or Congressman Soandso has to explain to some soon-to-be former supporter why the gravy stopped flowing. Add to this the logrolling that further enabled the spending spree. No wonder Rand Paul has proposed the deepest spending cuts so far. It takes a freshman with no deals to hold him back.
Clint| 2.8.11 @ 11:21AM
Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul:
"My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion."
Joe D.| 2.8.11 @ 12:07PM
I agree with Rand Paul. I think $500,000 is a good place to start. Bill Hussein O'Stalin is right this is not budget cuts. If the Republicans cut 2 cents or $500,000 they will get destroyed in the media and by the liberals in congress. So go for the gusto and work your way back only if need be. They screwed up in December. Don't continue. The Tea Party is watching.
skip| 2.8.11 @ 12:44PM
You mean: $500,000,000,000.
The U.S. deficit increases $500,000 every 10 seconds.
Baldy| 2.8.11 @ 12:10PM
Gutting the fed and slashing spending to the likes of most of us is not going to happen over night folks.
Expectations need to be brought into line with reality.
There are not enough stiff backbones in the GOP to get that much done that quickly.
That is just the reality.
Many are going to have to be dragged,kicking and screaming to get to where we need to get to.
We got a great start in Nov. But that is all it is. Just a start.
This mess did not get created overnight and it is not going to be fixed overnight.
That is just reality.
You need to deal with it.
Clint| 2.8.11 @ 12:29PM
That's Why We Tea Party Patriots Are Right Now Dragging The RINO-CINO Ruling Elites Kicking & Screaming To The Deficit Spending Chopping Block.
Grab A RINO-CINO Congresscrat And Start Draggin'.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Rise Up Now.
GavInTucson| 2.9.11 @ 12:03AM
I've got a better idea. Once the gub'ment starts laying down tracks for the new high speed rail boondoggle, we can start tying them down to the tracks.
Granted, they won't live long enough to be hit by the high speed train, which would probably take the government a decade to get moving, but a few days without food and water would do the trick.
Ooooh, soooorrrryy. I'm being "uncivil" again. Dear Leader has warned my about that.
GavInTucson| 2.9.11 @ 12:05AM
Oops, I meant "me" not "my." Arrggh.
Sam Levi| 2.8.11 @ 12:36PM
While we are gutting spending how about getting rid of all the foreign nationals that are currently GS14s and 15s in federal departments? And stop giving federal labor contracts to "minority" companies that are owned by foreign interests as well.
GavInTucson| 2.9.11 @ 12:06AM
Don't forget "Woman Owned" companies, another government bias in awarding contracts.
Let everyone compete on a level playing field.
Oldefarte| 2.8.11 @ 12:49PM
As Alabama's coach Nick Saban proclaimed upon being questioned about the length of time needed to establish Alabama as a national winner, IT'S A PROCESS! Although I'm in the Rand Paul $500 billion camp for sure, the most important point is that these governmental spending cuts be CONTINUAL and PERMANENT!!!!!!
mjfin| 2.8.11 @ 2:46PM
Watch it Oldefarte, before you start quoting that lying, deceptive S.O.B., even in matters trivial . . .
Oldefarte| 2.8.11 @ 4:37PM
BS, four nationally winning seasons subsequent to taking ove the coaching reins of a pathetically disasterous and criminally run football program, and you critisize him? Are you one the MORONS from Louisiana moaning and groaning about his abondoning the crawdad-suckers over there? Or maybe an Auburn fan that blindly looks away as their QB TAKES THE MONEY AND RUNS to the NFL? Saban is probably one of the most brutally honest coaches in football today, and the one and only reason for critisism of him is jealousy from supporters of competing university football programs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 2.8.11 @ 10:03PM
I seem to recall a better coach in Fort Worth than Saban---one who finishes in the top 2 with a recruiting class not even in the top 50...
Sabaqn is not The Bear. And he isn't Patterson, either.
Cato| 2.8.11 @ 1:41PM
I keep repeating this solution on TAS and other sites with blogs -- the only thing the majority in the House of Representatives needs to do is vote NO on raising the debt ceiling.
With that accomplished, spending cuts well north of $1 Trillion will automatically be put in place -- as required by statute.
So easy a caveman can do it...
Dan Jones| 2.8.11 @ 2:10PM
The key is to not think of how much we are cutting, but what programs we are cutting. That puts us on the path to correct thinking about the role of government. It's not that we have spent too much that is the problem, but that we have given government a role it should not have. Once we fix this, the amount will take care of itself.
GavInTucson| 2.8.11 @ 11:47PM
I'll just skip the article and get right to answering the question in the headline.
The answer is no.
tea bee| 2.9.11 @ 3:41AM
---UH, and speaking of 'cuts' ---WHY no mention
of our continuing taxpayer subsidies and underwritings of the monstrous RED Chinese
'economic' and eugenics ----'miracle'?
NOT LOOKING GOOD
norma S. Holmes| 2.9.11 @ 9:25PM
$34 million stead of $100 million will not get us where we have to go! 2011 budget must include buyout options for deep cuts into agencies such as EPA, Energy giving employees 6 months notice..but eliminating positions! Reverse outsourcing is another solution now already happening. This will be a huge boost to the economy. Jobs are out there if people are qualified! That is the issue, really, and the challenge!
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:10AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:39PM
Sorry, also preserve Treasury---so cut from 15 Departments to 5. Honestly, can anyone see the harm to the economy from doing these cuts? We did fine without Homeland Security (if the CIA and the FBI could have talked to each other, perhaps no 9/11), Veterans Affairs, etc.