How to Cut Government Spending

[Saydrah]

Seshat, I think that would be a good idea, though it wouldn't result in a cost savings, since housing in DC is EXPENSIVE. I actually think we should RAISE the salaries of elected representatives significantly. Why? Because more money attracts more applicants, and if you didn't practically have to already be independently wealthy to be a Senator, what with travel, housing, and campaign expenses, we might see more people from the middle class and below trying to run and make a difference. Paying housing and living expenses as you suggested would be another good way to attract a better quality of candidates.

Amethyst, it's the moralizers in government who perpetuate the misconception that women (or men) in the sex industry "have to sell their bodies." Yes, rape, drug abuse, assault, and murder happen frequently in sex work, as they do in all work that is illegal. You can't protect someone who you've illegitimized by making their entire existence illegal. If it were decriminalized, sex workers could report crime quickly and without fear. They could also work indoors in buildings with security, rather than walking the streets to attract clients. They could advertise in the phone book and use google to pre-screen clients, rather than taking whoever drives up. It would be a safer industry and an industry that would keep to itself, in its own "red light district," rather than prowling residential areas and business districts for johns.

For a good example of someone who works (legally) in the sex work industry, http://mistressmatisse.blogspot.com is an excellent blog. The author is a pro-domme and a former escort who often writes about the thornier issues surrounding sex work. Nobody ever forced her to be an escort- she had a happy childhood, had money to go to college, she could be anything she wanted, but she decided what she enjoyed was using her sexual skills and her body to make money, so that's what she did.

[DarthRetard]

GreenDay, I'm not sure you understand why the rich get so much more in the way of tax cuts than the lower or middle class. They make more, so they already pay more in taxes. My father makes anywhere from 135K-175K a year, and no matter what he gets in tax cuts, he'll still pay more than someone in a lower tax bracket. Giving them more money allows for a larger investment back into the economy on their part. Tax cuts increase confidence in government, and increases purchases of bonds and stocks. Tax cuts also stimulate the economy by encouraging spending. Encouraged spending leads to companies making more money, and theoretically, more jobs. The United States unemployment rate is actually anywhere from fairly standard-excellent for a nation of our size and economic standing.

[Seshat]

Seshat, I think that would be a good idea, though it wouldn't result in a cost savings, since housing in DC is EXPENSIVE.

Not in the first few years, no. But once the houses had been bought and the salaries reduced by an appropriate amount to represent DC housing expenses, that cut would eat into the purchase cost of the house. After a decade or two, the house would be completely paid for by the salary reduction.

The savings would then be salary reduction - maintenance (since house/land doesn't depreciate if properly maintained). House maintenance costs don't increase based on location, except in that labour costs vary (and in remote locations, parts costs have shipping as well - which doesn't apply to DC).

Therefore, if DC housing is quite expensive, that would be a hefty salary reduction and a normal (for snobby-rich housing) maintenance cost. Quite a significant sum, it seems.

[Sylvia727]

Cut the war on drugs. Legalize marijuana if you want, but the street price of all drugs will go down once the heavy restrictions are lifted. Teach kids to make educated decisions about what they put into their own bodies.

Cut the crap about abstinance, nobody's buying it. Put more money into birth control, safer sex education, and destigmatize the issue so kids can come to authority figures for help. Once women figure out how to protect themselves, we should see less unwanted babies in the foster system and less teenage mothers on welfare.

Withdraw from Iraq. We're just pissing everybody else off at this point, and regardless of how you feel about the initial thrust, it's turned into another Vietnam. We can't win by staying there. Divert some of the war budget into nonviolent military pursuits, like counter-terrorism and national guard, but most of it should go back into the pool.

Streamline government spending by reducing unnecessary expenses and combining redundant agencies. In my county, one department gives driver's tests and an entirely different department prints the card off. How does that work?

Stop giving money to people who don't need it. Kicking back money to the oil company--that isn't used to benefit the citizens--is not the best use of tax money. Same for tobacco, or any other lobbyist group.

[crazylegs]

Stopping war on drugs = bad!

Most drugs are addicictive, ie Nicotine, Heroin, Meth/Amphetamine, Cocaine et cetera.

Legalising these drugs would not prevent them from being addicitve, by then increasing the cost by taxation we will have the situation where more people are taking more expensive drugs. This will lead to more crime as people will have to examine other avenues to purchase their (hypothetical) legal drug.

Before people start saying this doesn't happen with cigarettes let me say this.

On the high street where I live on a saturday you can see homeless people pick up other people butt ends and remove any tobacco they can from them so they have enough to have a smoke.

Let me also say this.

A heroin addict is not the same as a nicotine addict

A heroin addict will (when he requires his fix) develop flu like symptoms, they will sweat, they will have terrible stomach cramps, they will have aching joints, their every waking moment will be transfixed with obtaining their next hit, it is all they can think of, they will do whatever it takes to get their heroin.

I've seen cases of addicts stealing cheques from the back of cheque books of their frail 80+yo mothers and stealing £1500 ($3000) so they can have a good supply for a few weeks.


On the topic of cannabis, can we think of anything else we smoke that for a long time we thought had no health problems, that has hundred of chemicals in it that cause cancer, birth defects and other helath problems AKA tobacco.

Now tell me that legalising drugs will stop this.

[Seshat]

The 'war on drugs', treating addicts as criminals, is not working. Decriminalising the addicts is not the same as decriminalising pushers.

My solution to drugs is tightly tied in with my thoughts on mental health. Ensuring that mentally ill people are identified and treated to the best of current human ability to do so will reduce the number of people who turn to 'self-prescribing': drinking or smoking or getting themselves high on heroin or cocaine or whatever to try to silence the voices or find oblivion in the bottom of a bottle.

Those people are sick, and need to be treated as sick. Send them to the medical system, not the criminal system. Now, the rest of the people who take drugs - them, I don't know what to do with.

As for the pushers and the drug lords - people who prey on sick people are scum. Toss them into prison, and you won't hear any objection from me.

[crazylegs]

Seshat,

I fully agree with expanding the provision for mental health, and the thought of screening all for problems would, as you suggest, probably pay for itself with regards to stopping those who self prescribe from turning to crime.

I also agree with you with regards to going after those who deal and having stiff prison sentences to deal with them. However, decriminalising addicts would result in the same situation as prohibition in the 20s where it was an offense to Transport/Sell/Produce alcohol but not to drink. This lead to speakeasys (sp?) and higher echelons of society flouting the ban. By not making possesion/purchase illegal we would have the bizarre situation of having lawful addicts who have no way of generating their next fix.

I do belive there should be far more in the way of treatment programmes and I believe that those who are not compliant should be detained for their treatment. There are plenty of examples of addicts walking out half way though treatment and falling straight back into addiction. If however the programmes looked at health provision as well as threatment of the symptoms (the addiction) they would probably be more succesful.

[Hellbound Alleee]

Well, we could dismantle the government entirely and have a voluntary community system based on natural markets with Insurance/Moderation boards, with people voluntarily spending their earned money on the things they value, like education, infrastructure, medicine, and charity.

That would cut government spending.

[Girly]

So provide them with homes in DC suitable to their jobs, owned by the government, maintained by the government. While you're at it, give them offices and a budget for staff, materials, and helping people who've fallen through the cracks in the system.

Just as an FYI, condo's in the DC area are going for around a STARTING price of 300k. There are 435 members of congress. That would be a total of $130,500,000 for condo's alone.

When you start to get to houses, of course, the prices go way up

Now, provide them with their offices, staff, materials, and an additional budget to help people that fall through the cracks (I'm not quite sure how that relates to everything else, but ok), and you are talking about expanding your savings by slashing their salaries to less than nothing.

[Seshat]

However, decriminalising addicts would result in the same situation as prohibition in the 20s where it was an offense to Transport/Sell/Produce alcohol but not to drink. This lead to speakeasys (sp?) and higher echelons of society flouting the ban. By not making possesion/purchase illegal we would have the bizarre situation of having lawful addicts who have no way of generating their next fix.

I hadn't thought that through far enough, obviously. Thank you.

Now, provide them with their offices, staff, materials, <snip> and you are talking about expanding your savings by slashing their salaries to less than nothing.

But you're already paying for all of that plus living expenses. Admittedly, you're paying for a mortgage on a house rather than the house itself - but that just means the government is paying interest to a bank, via the member of parliament.

And the MP (or congressman, or whatever term) is just going to turn around and sell the house - probably to another MP - when his term is over. Who will start a new mortgage, and spend a sizeable chunk of his salary paying interest to a bank. And at the end of his term, sell the house to another MP, who will start a new mortgage, and spend a fair chunk of his salary paying interest to a bank.

Sure, not all the MPs houses get sold to MPs - but I'd be willing to wager that at the end of multiple MPs terms, the number of upper class DC homes sold by outgoing MPs roughly matches the number of upper class DC homes bought by incoming MPs.

You can get off that treadmill for good by reducing MP salaries by the average cost of a DC mortgage for a DC upper class home, buying homes for them, and paying them off for somewhere between 30 and 50 years: or the average term of a DC mortgage, if it's not that.

Also, your MPs (congresscritters, whatever) are presumably paying for staff and offices out of their own salaries. Which means you're already paying for staff and offices. Offices are another thing which can be bought once and are then owned forever; or which can be paid for indefinitely through letting the MPs keep buying them off each other (directly or indirectly). Why not make them a permanent asset too?

Staff and materials, on the other hand, are always going to be a repeating cost. It makes little total difference whether they're factored into the salary of the MP or handed out as a budget item. For that one, doing whichever better suits the local culture has little total effect on the national budget.


As for the bit I snipped - helping people who've fallen through cracks in the system - that may be a cultural thing. I believe it to be part of the purpose of representatives. Representing those for whom the current system doesn't work right.

[powerboy]

First off, get the troops out of Iraq. That would save a lot of money right there. Second, lower how much the government officials make. They are not proving that they should make almost 1/2 million a year. Third, tax the shit out of drugs.

[MadMike]

I've seen quite a few suggestions I agree with -- ending the war on drugs, stop trying to legislate morality, and stop letting the churches get out of paying taxes especially if they want to be involved in politics.

I think another way to cut government spending is to simply cut the government. First of all, the size of it. Do we really need this many congresspeople and legislators? And do they really need to make such ridiculously high salaries, which they can increase anytime they want to? I saw we cut out the dead wood, and the few that are remaining, the ones that are actually interested in what's good for the people, rather than themselves and their friends, can have a reasonable, slightly above-average salary.

[Boozy]

Let's see...you have 100 Senators making $188,000 per year. 435 congressmen making $167,000. Total payroll for these legislators is approximately $91 million.

Sound like a lot?

Total expected expenditures for fiscal 2008: $2.9 trillion

I don't think cutting salaries is the silver bullet you're looking for. It represents such a tiny portion of the US budget that I don't think its even worth talking about, especially for a country hemorrhaging money the way yours is.

[claidhmore]

I'd say legalize marijuana (sp?), but treat it like alcohol - if you do something stupid (like vehicular manslaughter or something like that) and you're high, it should be classified as a felony and have your license yanked as well as spend some quality time in prison.

I just get this feeling that some people believe that once pot is legalized there will be one huge cloud of smoke over the US as everyone tries it at once, then everyone get lung cancer and die. I just can't see that happening - sure, some people will get stupid with it and those people should get nailed, but otherwise tax the hell out of it and use that revenue for any number of things that could use a cash influx.

[crazylegs]

I'd say legalize marijuana (sp?), but treat it like alcohol - if you do something stupid (like vehicular manslaughter or something like that) and you're high, it should be classified as a felony and have your license yanked as well as spend some quality time in prison.

.

If there was apparatus that could detect TNC (I think thats the active compound) in breath levels like you can with alcohol then I would say yes, as it stands there is not, so unless you take blood which is an invasive procedure then at the moment I would say not.

However, how long have we as a species been smoking tobacco? How long have we realised that there are *serious* side effects? What side effects will there be when people get addicted (as I'm sure there will be), what about people who smoke a couple of joints every day for 30 years, what effect will it have on their mental state?

Until we can answer the question of side effects maybe its a moot point anyway.