Here. Take this ax. This is your dream job. Slice away at the federal budget until you are happy. Where do you end up at?
I divided things into $100 billion slices for convenience.
After you decided where you can take at least $100B in the poll above, you can decide if you would take more slices than that out of any one category in an effort to balance the budget. In fiscal year 2012 (which ended Sept 30, 2012) we had a $1300 billion deficit. If you want to balance the budget you need to find thirteen $100 B slices. You could, for instance, ask for 2 slices out of defense, and 5.5 out of social security, and add 5.5 slices to revenue to balance the budget.
Here are the projected totals for last year. Obviously you cannot take more out of any category than what was spent last year.
Defense $716,300 7.2 slices
Health/ Medicaid $361,625 3.6 slices
Medicare $484,486 4.8 slices
Income Security (foodstamps, welfare, etc) $451,937 4.5 slices
Social Security $778,574 7.8 slices
Veterans benefits $129,605 1.3 slices
Interest on debt $224,784 2.2 slices
Everything else $648,236 6.5 slices
Me? I would take about 2 slices out of defense and add about 5 slices to revenue this year. That isn't near to a balanced budget, but we need to approach this gradually. What would you do? Eventually I would like to see the budget balanced, mainly by cutting defense and adding revenue.
The source data is here:
Historical Tables | The White House .
I think it'd make a BIG difference if spending was taken away substantially from the privatization of prison systems (the prison industrial complex ) since BILLIONS of dollars are placed there alongside many others - often unjustly - since prison is a business and many BIG Businesses cash in on it. And as long as much in the way of financial support is going toward that, there'll be less funding for other necessary things ...with others trying to "fix" that by taking away from programs that need to be funded for the benefit of those in need/destitute (i.e. widows, orphans, disabled, veterans, elderly, etc.) when it comes to social welfare programs - predominately the ones focused on Welfare Reform and doing well. The Prison-Industrial complex is
doing much damage to the nation on so many levels and it needs to end...as
Michelle Alexander noted wisely.
Other scholars, such as
Dr. Boyce Watkins, have said that President OBama is Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex.
However, the proposed increase spending by the Obama Administration will be mostly used for much-needed ex-felon
reëntry programs per the
Second Chance Act signed into law on April 9, 2008. Moreover, the increased spending will also target the mentally ill caught-up in the judicial system, by introducing more diversion programs. And of the 2 million or so people incarcerated in America, a significant number of them are
mentally ill - with it seeming to be the case that President Obama'S administration is attempting to reduce the number of individuals who would ordinarily be incarcerated by the 40-year-long failed drug war.
According to the
White House:
The Budget provides $153 million in prisoner reëntry and jail diversion programs, including $80 million for the Second Chance Act programs and $52 million for problem-solving grants supporting drug courts, mentally ill offender assistance, and other problem-solving approaches. With 2.3 million people in U.S. prisons and 1 in 32 American adults under some kind of correctional supervision, these programs aim to divert individuals from incarceration, reduce recidivism, and achieve public safety in a more sensible way.
It isn't a negative thing seeking to help men and women transition back into society upon release from prison, nor is it negative to attempt filling prisons/jails with others providing services for the mentally ill. But to address the issues from the root as it concerns the ways prison is being a privatized industry and many are denied education and punished as a result with prison ...those things must be faced head -on. And although President Obama has sought to address the issue in various ways, from Responsible Fatherhood Programs (more
shared here,
here,
here and
here)
to reforming the Educational System, much more work is needed.
For other articles on the issue:
That said, on a side note, I think some things need to be kept in place like certain regulations. I agree with others who've noted that the record , as evidenced by this
report, is that
Obama has benefitted U.S. citizens with regulation, primarily through environmental regulations. President Obama has recognized that the inadequacy of demand is the principal barrier to growth and has sought to bolster both public- and private-sector demand since becoming president. And recent work by the IMF has confirmed the premise of his policies: namely, that at a time when short-term interest rates are at zero,
fiscal policies are especially potent. The president has also respected the independence of the Federal Reserve as it has sought to respond creatively to the challenge of increasing demand even with short-term interest rates zeroed out. And he has put the economy on track to nearly doubling exports over five years through a series of measures, such as increasing government support for exporters. He has made clear his commitment to taking advantage of current low interest rates to finance public investment and protect public-sector jobs, and to continue to promote US exports.
Additionally, President Obama has embraced the principles, though not all the details, of the famous Simpson-Bowles commission report on budget deficits.
Like the large group of CEOs who made a major statement on deficit reduction awhile ago, he insists that achieving sustainable finance means both containing spending (especially on entitlements) and raising revenue. The budget that he has put forward has been thoroughly audited by the Congressional Budget Office, and puts the U.S. debt-GDP ratio on a declining path within this decade. And he has made clear that in negotiations with willing partners, he is prepared to go beyond his current budget proposals to assure that debt is contained.
People may be surprised by the economic growth that is steadily occurring and the things the president has sought to make possible despite the numerous challenges set forth.
As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):
Ronald Reagan is often credited with sparking an economic renaissance by defeating inflation and deregulating the economy. But it was Jimmy Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve that spelled the death knell for inflation (not to mention Carter’s reelection bid), and the deregulation of airlines, trucking and railroads all began under Carter’s watch.
Similarly, the economic boom during Bill Clinton’s presidency was kick-started by an extended decline in long-term interest rates, which began with the budget deal George H.W. Bush signed in 1990 at great personal cost. And if you want to go really big-picture, the technology bubble that gilded Clinton’s second term can be traced to investments in computer-network technology that began under President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
Of course, not everything presidents bequeath to their successors turns out well. Obama’s term has been cursed by the effects of a financial crisis that bears the fingerprints of every president going back to Lyndon Johnson, who turned mortgage giant Fannie Mae over to private shareholders, as well as Carter, who ushered in the era of deregulated finance by loosening interest-rate controls. And for all the problems George W. Bush left for Obama, he also did him one big favor by creating the bailout fund that helped end the crisis.
Paradoxically, the same forces that made for such a weak recovery during Obama’s first term suggest that the next four years will be better, regardless of who holds the White House.
