erynthered Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Nice list!! http://www.usnews.co...n-spending-cuts Here is the full list of cuts: Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings. International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings. Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings. Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings. Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings. Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings. Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings. Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings. Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings. Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings. Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings. Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings. Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings. Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings. Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings. New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings. Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings. Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings. Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings. Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings. Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings. Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings. Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings. FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings. Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings. Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually. U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings. General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings. Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings. Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years. No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings. End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually. IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years. Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years. Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings. Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings. USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings. Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings. Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings. Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings. HUD Ph.D. Program. Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Nice list!! http://www.usnews.co...n-spending-cuts Good start. Lets vote on it. Get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I really don't know which stunned me more: that the federal travel budget is $15B, or that there's actually a government subsidy for MOHAIR!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. So Alaska gets the 100 million acres stolen from it back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) What a bunch of f__king p--ies. No defense cuts. No Social Security cuts. Can we just try...for once...to put the country's welfare ahead of party BS? I like that list a LOT. But let's gore the right's sacred cows too. BTW, one these, AMTRAK, will affect me a lot. But oh well. Edited January 20, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 What a bunch of f__king p--ies. No defense cuts. No Social Security cuts. Can we just try...for once...to put the country's welfare ahead of party BS? I like that list a LOT. But let's gore the right's sacred cows too. BTW, one these, AMTRAK, will affect me a lot. But oh well. I'm not sure in what capacity you use AMTRAK, but if was run like a business they could run all the high traffic routes, like Richmond to DC, and make a profit. Since it's run like a government entity, underused routes that lose vast sums of money are kept alive and subsidized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 What a bunch of f__king p--ies. No defense cuts. No Social Security cuts. Can we just try...for once...to put the country's welfare ahead of party BS? I like that list a LOT. But let's gore the right's sacred cows too. BTW, one these, AMTRAK, will affect me a lot. But oh well. They cut the spending for WMATA, too. The metro here is already backed into a corner fiscally, to the point where there's significant safety concerns with their inability to maintain the system. That's not going to help much. Though I can't say I disagree with it, either...metropolitan DC as a whole is an unbelievable pit of mismanagement and confusion that makes Buffalo look well-run, and WMATA doesn't get the state funding it deserves from VA or MD, either. Much as WMATA needs the money, I can't say I'm sad to see fewer federal dollars dumped down that hole. And if Amtrak can't stand on its own by now...!@#$ 'em. That subsidy's long overdue to be taken out and shot in the head. And I missed this the first time through: Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings. Huh? Does the House honestly think they can tell the UN "You're getting $12.5M less from us, so don't give any American money to the IPCC"? Really...that's not a spending cut, that's a craven political stance all dressed up as a pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 What a bunch of f__king p--ies. No defense cuts. No Social Security cuts. Can we just try...for once...to put the country's welfare ahead of party BS? I like that list a LOT. But let's gore the right's sacred cows too. BTW, one these, AMTRAK, will affect me a lot. But oh well. No cuts but how about some savings? Paper checks retired. Retirees who apply for Social Security benefits on or after May 1, 2011, will no longer have the option of receiving a paper check in the mail. Seniors can have their entitlement payments directly deposited into a bank or credit union account or loaded onto a prepaid Direct Express Debit MasterCard. "This important change will provide significant savings to American taxpayers who will no longer incur the annual $120 million price tag associated with paper checks and will save Social Security $1 billion over the next 10 years," says Richard Gregg, Treasury Fiscal Assistant Secretary. Retirees already receiving paper checks will need to switch to direct deposit or the prepaid debit card by March 1, 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 If those are the cuts that add up to 2.5 trillion dollars after ten years then someone is pretty piss poor at math. I think someone missed a decimal point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 If those are the cuts that add up to 2.5 trillion dollars after ten years then someone is pretty piss poor at math. I think someone missed a decimal point. Did you read the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I really don't know which stunned me more: that the federal travel budget is $15B, or that there's actually a government subsidy for MOHAIR!!!! Now I like to consider myself a fiscal conservative, but this, THIS, THIS is going too far. They simply can't cut the mohair subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I really don't know which stunned me more: that the federal travel budget is $15B, or that there's actually a government subsidy for MOHAIR!!!! You got a problem with bald guys? I WANT MOHAIR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 As soon as they cut the spending for these programs some other program will come up to waste it on, I myself fancy a monorail between Ohio's mainland and Kelley's Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Did you read the article? He didn't have to, the Repuublicans are bad guys, so it has to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No cuts but how about some savings? Great. Sensible savings. Now how about cuts to SS and especially, how about cuts to defense for FFS. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the DoD can't be cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Great. Sensible savings. Now how about cuts to SS and especially, how about cuts to defense for FFS. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the DoD can't be cut. How would you like to SS cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Great. Sensible savings. Now how about cuts to SS and especially, how about cuts to defense for FFS. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the DoD can't be cut. It can be, and it will be. I read the other day that they're cutting 10% which will save 75 billion over 5 years. Is that enough? Probably not but its a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You cannot tell me with a straight face that the DoD can't be cut. DoD can't be cut...because they mismanage money so badly that they can't even track waste, so any cuts directly impact their operational capability through the simple fact that that's the only money they can account for. But you're right...I couldn't tell you that with a straight face. Only because it's so damned sad. If you rationalized Defense, you could easily save more than $100B a year with no impact on capability...of course, the way DoD works, it would cost a shitload of money to rationalize DoD to save $100B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) This is just the kind of story that pisses people off. This is the stupidity that makes the current administration look like a bunch of incompetent dolts. And that's BEFORE you factor in the Immelt connection. Despite vocal cries for austerity and belt-tightening on Capitol Hill, Congress and White House budget officials have quietly continued to pay for the development of a multi-billion-dollar military jet engine the Pentagon says it doesn't need and the defense secretary himself called a wasteful boondoggle. The green light to continue spending on the engine's development came from the Office of Management and Budget last month at the urging of congressional leaders. The decision arrived on the heels of a $9 million lobbying push and an equally aggressive advertising campaign by General Electric, the corporate giant that has argued that the nation benefits by having two different versions of the engine that will power the Joint Strike Fighter. And it comes as President Obama named General Electric's CEO chairman of his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Nine months ago, the Pentagon and the White House publicly lashed out at the engine program, identifying it as one of the nation's most wasteful defense projects. Defense Secretary Robert Gates decried the notion of paying two giant defense contractors billions to build two different engines for the same plane. One engine, he said, would be plenty. "The Bush administration opposed this engine. The Obama administration opposes it. We have recommended for several years now against funding this engine, considering it a waste of money," Gates told reporters back in May. "To argue that we should add another $3 billion in what we regard as waste ... frankly, I don't track the logic." Edited January 21, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is just the kind of story that pisses people off. This is the stupidity that makes the current administration look like a bunch of incompetent dolts. And that's BEFORE you factor in the Immelt connection. GE and its partner on the engine, Rolls Royce That's the real key. JSF is a multi-national program, not just a US one. One big issue with the whole program has been the demands by foreign buyers for a piece of the development of the plane...and as the RAF and Fleet Air Arm are the biggest potential foreign buyers (something like a quarter of the program, I think), there is a HUGE incentive to give Rolls a piece of the engine development (in that, if the Brits don't get a Rolls engine, they don't buy, and the entire JSF program collapses as unaffordable as per-unit prices go through the roof). At THOSE stakes, $3B is cheap at the cost. Really, the "engine boondoggle" has nothing to do with the engines themselves, and distracts from the real issue. That's just arguing about what color lipstick the pig should wear. The entire JSF program has been mired in unholy stupidity right from the first PowerPoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts