You do not have an INCOME problem, you have a SPENDING problem. You dont need to constantly raise taxes, you need to cut entitlement programs. That is what kills the budget.

11/10/2010 3:24:39 PM

Attention users with <1000 posts

11/10/2010 3:31:27 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8601767/

Quote :

"State ag commissioner refuses to suggest budget cuts RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina's commissioner of agriculture said Wednesday he will not suggest areas to cut his department's budget despite Gov. Beverly Perdue's request that agencies pinpoint ways to trim spending."

Quote :

""Identifying specific cuts right now is putting the cart before the horse," said Troxler, a Republican in office since 2005. Perdue, a Democrat, has asked all agencies to lay out possible cuts of 5, 10 and 15 percent to help budget writers prepare for a statewide deficit that could reach $3 billion. Perdue spokesman Chrissy Pearson said Troxler was the only state government chief to refuse the effort. Pearson said the officials governor's office will find the cuts themselves if Troxler doesn't provide them and that Perdue's staff believes the agriculture department can be more lean. "Everyone is similarly disturbed by the idea of cutting up to 15 percent from their agencies. Everyone feels like the work they do is essential and important. We respect that," Pearson said. "At the same time, we feel like state government still has areas we can trim." Pearson noted that every agency should be prepared for cuts, including education and commerce, and said the governor will use her discretion in deciding whether entire programs need to be eliminated or whether agencies simply need to make trims. "No agency will be untouched," Perdue said. "It's not realistic. It wouldn't' be fair.""

That sounds like a good idea, let the department heads who know their departments/programs come up with ideas on how to trim their own budget, so that its done in a knowledgeable and targeted way... assuming they play along.

11/10/2010 3:34:39 PM

yeah, budget cuts as well as entitlement cuts are needed. Entitlement spending is what kills the budgets, not earmarks and discretionary spending.

11/10/2010 3:42:26 PM

The only thing we can cut is education!! *ignores massive amounts of entitlements to dead weight boomers*

11/10/2010 3:43:36 PM

aren't republicans always bitching about cutting before taxing? Now a republican is refusing to propose cuts because a democrat asked.

motherfucking awesome fucking two party government we have here.

goddamn these pieces of shit.

11/10/2010 3:44:22 PM

Quote :

"You dont need to constantly raise taxes"

you have a memory problem

11/10/2010 4:04:21 PM

the reason education is usually the target for state level cuts is because, IIRC, it accounts for about 50% of all state expenditures.

11/10/2010 5:57:46 PM

SLASH MILITARY SPENDING...at the, uh, state level.

11/10/2010 6:47:32 PM

I love how all politicians say how they are going to reduce spending but never say where. Don't give me bullshit like "discretionary" and "entitlements". What exactly are they going to cut?

11/10/2010 9:08:29 PM

I'd start with the discretionary entitlements.

11/10/2010 9:28:26 PM

Followed quickly by the pork and waste.

11/10/2010 10:20:37 PM

even if all that shit got eliminated that would be well under 5% of the budget

BTW the government doesn't constantly raise taxes, in fact it's been foolhardily cutting taxes while increasing spending

11/10/2010 10:41:47 PM

Let's start big. How about entire agencies?

DEA? FDA? ATF? USPS? VA? ABC? IRS?

Should any of these or others be privatized or eliminated?

11/10/2010 11:37:54 PM

Quote :

"the reason education is usually the target for state level cuts is because, IIRC, it accounts for about 50% of all state expenditures."

Its closer to 60%. And Medicaid is about 15% I think. So if you didn't cut education to close the budget gap every other department (ag, labor, AG, DOT, prisons etc) would need 50% cuts.

11/10/2010 11:41:36 PM

Why exactly do we cut education spending and then complain about the state of teachers/schools/grades/etc.?

11/11/2010 12:05:25 AM

^ Because the current poor state of education has nothing to do with spending (which is generous) and everything to do with poor management. Education should be privatized, allowing the state to fire the army of bureaucrats earning six figure salaries and spend the money actually educating students.

Quote :

"No agency will be untouched," Perdue said. "It's not realistic. It wouldn't' be fair."

Just how government operates. There are buildings full of bureaucrats tasked with regulating everything from interior designers to barbershops. How about we fire all those people first, eliminate the regulations they were hired to enforce, then see where we are? Why cut every budget by 15% when cutting some departments by 100% would actually make the citizenry better off?

11/11/2010 12:23:28 AM

Quote :

"the reason education is usually the target for state level cuts is because, IIRC, it accounts for about 50% of all state expenditures."

There's another big reason. Notice that total bullshit spending never gets sent to the chopping block first. It's always shit like education and libraries, because people will shit a brick about cutting those things, thereby enabling politicians to say, "Well, we need to balance things...sure you're not OK with raising taxes/not cutting budgets?"

And since everybody supports popular things (obviously), they say, "Fine, raise taxes a little bit/go into more debt by not cutting budgets."

Quote :

"DEA? FDA? ATF? USPS? VA? ABC? IRS?"

I could see eliminating the USPS, ABC, and ATF entirely.

Getting rid of the IRS doesn't nearly compensate for what we'd lose in tax revenue by abolishing the income tax. In fact, replace "the IRS" with "everything you just said" and the statement would still hold true.

I like that we can't be fed but so much rat shit, so I'm not on board with axing the FDA. Reform is certainly needed, but I'm not so sure about abolition.

I know you want to just make all drugs legal for everybody, but most of us aren't, and I think good and cogent reasons can be offered on our side. The DEA stays -- though it needs to be scaled down and told its place.

I don't even know where to start with the VA. Suffice it to say that the national defense is one of the few things that people from virtually all political stripes can agree on as a legitimate function of government. Saying that the war on terror sucks as one thing. Saying that veterans should go fuck themselves is another.

11/11/2010 2:54:06 AM

Quote :

"Why cut every budget by 15% when cutting some departments by 100% would actually make the citizenry better off?"

Because that's easier to sell politically than cutting one thing and pissing off the people who really liked that one thing.

11/11/2010 7:09:31 AM

Quote :

""Why cut every budget by 15% when cutting some departments by 100% would actually make the citizenry better off?""

Same reason why an anti-discrimination law exists. It eliminates favoritism. Even though you might think a program sucks, another person may think it's the savior of the world.

[Edited on November 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2010 11:20:25 AM

A program which sets up a cartel to rip off customers is NOT on the same moral standing as education. I would love a program which allows me to rip off my customers, but the interest of fairness does not mean I should get it.

11/11/2010 12:18:38 PM

Lets just keep watering down the education system then sitting around scratching our heads as our economy keeps drifting down. Meanwhile China and India are growing their economies at a crazy rate and out-competing us in industry.

11/12/2010 11:27:04 AM

Because what we really want is to be more like China and India.

11/12/2010 12:10:52 PM

Quote :

"Suffice it to say that the national defense is one of the few things that people from virtually all political stripes can agree on as a legitimate function of government. "

considering that democrats tend to hate the military and it tends to be the very first thing they want to cut...

^I would love for the growth of our economy to be like theirs...

[Edited on November 12, 2010 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2010 12:49:55 PM

Democratic administrations have happily used the military on a number of occasions. And you're going to have to explain to me how wanting to reduce what is, admittedly, an enormous defense budget equates to hatred for the military or the concept of national defense.

Quote :

"I would love for the growth of our economy to be like theirs..."

In order to accomplish this we'd have to have vast numbers of extremely poor people.

11/12/2010 1:51:57 PM

Quote :

"I would love for the growth of our economy to be like theirs..."

I would not. Levels of statistical growth as seen in China are a product of being dirt poor. They can keep it. Maths:
China PPP: $6,778 * 10% growth = $677.80 more dollars per person per year
USA PPP: $45,934 * 2% growth = $918.68 more dollars per person per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

11/12/2010 3:58:47 PM