Jump to content

Govt Waste. Whats Essential, What Is Not. What Should Be Cut?


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Deisel

This can and should be a good topic. There is soo much waste and redundancy in Govt that this topic could go on forever. So, what is essential to America and what is Not? What programs should be cut, permenantly seeing as we have a spending Crisis, a budget crisis and a Failure for Govt to work effectively?

I'll start this out. Deisels TOP 10 MOST INEFFECTIVE and WASTEFUL GOVT boondogle.....

#1. The EPA - Just 6.6% of EPA employees deemed 'essential'... This dept is long overdue for the axe. The environment doesn't need its Own dept within our Govt. Legislation and regulation is strangling commerce, where as Most business entities have Cleaned up their Acts since the 70's, and the EPA is shutting down capable, qualitys entities because of Faux science, liberalism and a Green agenda thats Full of BS. They get the axe in Deisels New World order 1st.

Whose next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe the U.S. has spent around $1 trillion and arrested millions since its inception yet illegal substances are easier to get and stronger than ever. I can get most any drug on the "market" driving across town and I live in a very small town. I believe TWOD's only plus is the amount of prisons being built and the number of prison guards employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military has to be next. I would change it back to National Defense. keyword defense. I think japan had the right idea keeping a small military. We can have a large National Guard to help with internal problems. We also need to get out of other countries business. If we do not like what they do, then stop doing business with them, but no need to meddle. RIP Military Industrial Complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Military has to be next. I would change it back to National Defense. keyword defense. I think japan had the right idea keeping a small military. We can have a large National Guard to help with internal problems. We also need to get out of other countries business. If we do not like what they do, then stop doing business with them, but no need to meddle. RIP Military Industrial Complex.

The military needs downsizing but Never to National Guard status. Japan was down sized because We insisted on it. It works now for Japan because we will back them in case of attack. Japan was front and center of WW1 and WW2. They were incapable of NOT attacking their neighbors and then us. To rebuild Japan, we gave them strict orders. But, our military is way out of line in regards to size and expense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When thinking about the amount of money being spent on the military, It's obviously the easiest place to make cuts, but in comparison to other countries, the US spends the average amount based on GDP. The reason we spend more is because we make more money.

The cut almost every single american wants to make is to Congressional salaries. It won't make a dent in the budget, but it'll make us feel better. Plus, the idea that tax payers have to pay a salary to rich people who spend most of the year in recess is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When thinking about the amount of money being spent on the military, It's obviously the easiest place to make cuts, but in comparison to other countries, the US spends the average amount based on GDP. The reason we spend more is because we make more money.

We're ninth in the world when it comes to military spending as a percent of the GDP, and spend more than the next 15 countries combined... there's nothing average about our military spending. There's 29 active aircraft carriers in the world, we own 19 of them, no one else has more than 2, and all of them belong to our allies except the two between Russia and China. Oh yeah, and we're building 10 more that are bigger.

I love watching the mindless discuss national defense issues. It's a hoot.

What are your qualifications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Department of Homeland Security - The TSA is more than enough to make the argument of why the entire department is a waste.

War on Drugs - It hasn't put a dent in the drug trade or drug use in any way despite about $1 trillion being spent since the start. We'd be better off simply regulating the products, though with an effective regulatory system in place instead of simple blanket legalization, instead of conducting prohibition.

Military - It's bloated, cost ineffecient, and designed for offense. Better to slim it down and gear it for defense.

I would go on but I don't have the time right now. I'd definitely keep the EPA though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is urgent need for greater effectiveness in our programs, both public and private, offering safeguards against the privations that too often come with unemployment, old age, illness, and accident. The provisions of the old-age and survivors insurance law should promptly be extended to cover millions of citizens who have been left out of the social security system.

It is a proper function of government to help build a sturdy floor over the pit of personal disaster, and to this objective we are all committed.

A strict application, let us say, of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.

To help individuals provide for that security – to reduce both the fear and the incidence of destitution to the minimum – to promote the confidence of every individual in the future – these are proper aims of all levels of government, including the federal government.

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, State of the Union, February 2, 1953

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a letter to his brother Edgar on Nov. 8, 1954

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Would a Fighter Jet Buy 60 Years After Eisenhower’s Speech?

By JOHN ISMAY

atwar_f86-blog480.jpg

DOD/Associated Press

“We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat,” President Eisenhower said in 1953. The F-86 Sabre cost $211,111 at the time.

Shortly after the death of Joseph Stalin, President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed a rare opportunity existed to reset United States-Soviet relations, and he announced it to the world 60 years ago Tuesday in his 1953 Chance for Peace speech.

With a new Soviet premier taking office, and newly inaugurated himself, President Dwight D.

Eisenhower believed that Stalin’s demise presented an opening to end the rapidly accelerating arms race between the two countries. Eisenhower directed his speechwriters to develop an address that clearly conveyed that desire to his Russian counterpart.

Eschewing the tired condemnations of the Soviet Union that had dominated recent presidential speeches, Eisenhower challenged his staff to present a new Pax Americana focusing on the idea of a future peace that unified Germany, removed occupying forces in Austria and talked in human terms of what both sides lost when spending so much of their wealth on armaments.

For this address, the president gave clear direction to the speechwriter Emmet Hughes.

“Here is what I would like it to say:

That jet plane over your head costs three-quarters of a million dollars. That is more than a man earning $10,000 every year is going to make in a lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long?”

At that time, Korean War spending had reached its height. United States defense spending accounted for 14.2 percent of gross domestic product.

Eisenhower deliberately avoided giving this address to the United Nations because he did not want other delegates to immediately chop his words apart. Instead, he decided to deliver his message to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr. Hughes and Paul Nitze collaborated on a new draft that included

, perhaps the most remembered part of the address:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Unfortunately, there is no solid evidence as to how Mr. Hughes and Mr. Nitze came up with those figures. Historians at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kan., could not determine how the numbers were assessed. But a quick spot check of one commodity does give some confidence that the quantities were not completely pulled out of a hat.

atwar_thunderstreak-blog480.jpg

National Museum of the U.S. Air Force

The higher figure in the final draft of Eisenhower’s speech might have referred to the F-84F Thunderstreak, which cost $769,330.

A look at an earlier draft of the speech shows that the “fighter jet” cited would buy 170,000 bushels of wheat, versus a half-million as stated in the final version. With wheat running about $2 a bushel then, a quick search of United States Air Force aircraft of the time shows that the earlier draft might have referred to the F-86 Sabre, which cost $211,111 at the time. However, the higher figure in the final draft might have referred to the new F-84F Thunderstreak, which cost $769,330.

With some idea that the speechwriters might have been using reliable data, it is worth seeing what a modern heavy bomber, a fighter jet and a destroyer would buy 60 years later.

Modern Bomber

atwar_b2-blog480.jpg

DPD/Associated Press

A single B-2 bomber would buy 99 schools according to some calculations.

Introduced in 1951, the B-47 Stratojet is probably the aircraft the president referred to as “a modern bomber.” It cost $2,440,000 then. The most expensive bomber in use today is the B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber. Its price, adjusted for inflation, comes to $1,461,500,000.

The first item Eisenhower listed was a “modern brick school.” The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities places the national average for a 600-student elementary school at $14,800,000. A single B-2 would buy 99 of these schools.

Next on the list was electric power plants. Figures from the United StatesEnergy Information Agency show that one megawatt of electricity will power 749 homes. That means about 80 megawatts are needed to meet Eisenhower’s goal of delivering current to 60,000 homes. Constructing an 85-megawatt conventional combustion turbine power plant today costs$78,800,000. The B-2 would today buy 19 of these power plants after considering inflation.

Determining the cost of a hospital is difficult because of a wide array of variables, but Eisenhower left a clue in his early drafts by referring to a 400-bed facility. Given that, we can determine a national average for constructing, not equipping, a hospital of that size today would easily cost $231,000,000, according to the American Hospital Association. We could buy six of these hospitals with a B-2.

Building roadways is similarly subject to varied factors in cost. One thing that officials at the Federal Highway Administration ruled out right away was the president’s choice of material. According to them, no one builds roads out of concrete anymore. With so many variables, I chose to price out two lanes rural interstate over flat terrain. Were the father of the Interstate Highway System to buy 50 miles of that roadway today, it would cost $222,400,000. The Air Force’s current premier bomber would buy 328 miles of that kind of road.

Fighter Jet

atwar_raptor-blog480.jpg

Steve Parsons/PA Wire, via Associated Press

An F22 Raptor fighter plane could buy approximately 29,500,000 bushels of wheat today.

A half-million bushels of wheat might have been enough to buy a fighter jet in Eisenhower’s day, but that is not quite the case at present. Trading at roughly $7 a bushel today on the commodities markets, that half-million bushels costs $3,500,000 in 2013. Looking at the data on today’s fighters, that much money would buy only spare parts at best.

On the high end of today’s fighters, the F-22 Raptor has a range of pricesdepending if you choose unit cost or lifecycle cost. Officials at the Air Force’s public affairs office put the price at $214,000,000 per plane. That would buy more than 29,500,000 bushels of wheat today.

Destroyer

atwar_arleigh-blog480.jpg

Robert McRill/U.S. Navy, via DOD, via Associated Press

The money spent on a single DDG Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, roughly $1.5 billion, would put durable roofs over the heads of more than 34,000 Americans.

According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median price for a single family home (each houses four people) is $173,600, as of February 2013. Building enough of them to house 8,000 people would cost $347,200,000. Or put a different way, about a quarter of the cost of the Navy’s current Flight IIA DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The money spent on a single DDG, roughly $1.5 billion, would put durable roofs over the heads of more than 34,000 Americans. The proposed “Flight III” Burkes have an estimated delivery cost of $3 billion to $4 billion apiece. Or another way, it is enough to rebuild all the homes in New Jersey damaged by Hurricane Sandy.

Conclusion

Are there any parallels to present day? Osama bin Laden has been dispatched, but was he the same kind of existential threat that Stalin embodied? Are any politicians looking at the terrorist leader’s demise as an opportunity for the United States to take a different path? Is it time for an American president to give a new speech?

In this comparison of the past 60 years, one important data point not yet discussed is the current total defense spending. For all the debate over the size of the defense budget, it represents 4.3 percent of G.D.P.Compared with spending in 1953, that is three times smaller — relative to the gross domestic product — than what Eisenhower dealt with.

But while defense spending as a percentage of the G.D.P. has shrunk, the cost of each military item Eisenhower cited has grown enormously even after accounting for inflation.

As a former five-star general, Eisenhower had a keen appreciation for military thinking and strategy, and he often pushed back on requests made by his admirals and generals. This included proposals for new weapons systems.

In light of the continuing sequestration fight, the minutes of one National Security Council meeting in 1960, the last year of Eisenhower’s administration, give an idea of what he might have thought of the current morass:

“He believed it was the duty of military officers to get along with less if at all possible. He realized it was also the duty of military officers to ensure the military safety of the U.S., but he believed that no absolute assurance on this point could ever be given.”

What Eisenhower shows us today is that while we cannot completely assure safety given any amount of spending, we can definitively show what that spending could otherwise accomplish. And that is valuable.

John Ismay is a former United States Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal officer and a member of Columbia Journalism School’s Class of 2014. Follow him on Twitter (@johnismay) and on his blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

DEISELS #2 MOST WASTEFUL GOVT PROGRAM AND EXPENDITURE..........

#2. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- What a moronic program title. It should at the very least be titled, THE DEPT OF LIBERALIZATION. Look at the product this dept has put out. Look at our scores compared to other country's. Look at how many of our young people who know nothing abt the constitution, the current President(oh he be cool) and the incarceration rate of those Minds full of Mush that the Union run public education system put out. If this dept were to be actually graded on Production and what it puts out. It would be an F. The idea as well that we need to spend more to get more from our students is Laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest terryowens81

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, State of the Union, February 2, 1953

A strict application, let us say, of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.

And of course now the country has approached a threshold as a result of increased corporatisim, where the active part of the population can no longer save for itself and take care of all the population at the same time simultaneously; where overpaying for corrupt industrial grade collusion known as "affordable social insurance" has been levied through the guise of yet another tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 Nuclear Warheads - Reduce inventory down to 1,000 from 7,500. Sell some of them to our allies so that they can pay to maintain them. It keeps the arsenal with friendlies and still poses the same threat to our enemies.

#2 Unemployment - There is no reason this should run as long as it does. People are taking advantage of it by not even looking for jobs.

#3 Lobbying - Change the laws around it where donations go to the government, not the individuals running it.

#4 Campaigns - Contributions need to be public information. The public needs to know if their elected leaders have the public's best interest in mind vs corporate interests.

#5 War on Drugs - This needs to change to the War on Drug Distribution. It's a War on Drug Addicts right now. It costs way too much and helps far too little prosecuting possession charges. We also cannot open up flood gates for drug lords. Allocating a fifth of the funds battling real criminals is a much better use of taxpayer money that will have far better results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

DISABILITY - Thanks for adding that one. What a farce this one is. Hey, Moses can you ring up the Governor and ask him to snoop more on these Bumbs? SENATOR: Half of disability claims fraudulent, undeserved... No Chit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

#1 Nuclear Warheads - Reduce inventory down to 1,000 from 7,500. Sell some of them to our allies so that they can pay to maintain them. It keeps the arsenal with friendlies and still poses the same threat to our enemies.

#2 Unemployment - There is no reason this should run as long as it does. People are taking advantage of it by not even looking for jobs.

#3 Lobbying - Change the laws around it where donations go to the government, not the individuals running it.

#4 Campaigns - Contributions need to be public information. The public needs to know if their elected leaders have the public's best interest in mind vs corporate interests.

#5 War on Drugs - This needs to change to the War on Drug Distribution. It's a War on Drug Addicts right now. It costs way too much and helps far too little prosecuting possession charges. We also cannot open up flood gates for drug lords. Allocating a fifth of the funds battling real criminals is a much better use of taxpayer money that will have far better results.

I absolutely agree with all these although, I would dismantle the nuclear weapons, and freeze or send into space the plutonium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with all these although, I would dismantle the nuclear weapons, and freeze or send into space the plutonium.

It costs a lot of money to dismantle and send into space. Selling at least some of them would add money to our budget to dismantle others. I see it as two birds with one stone every time we sell one. Ideally, we could see immediate returns on the budget along with longterm operational savings. It actually costs less to maintain than to dismantle. I would rather us avoid borrowing more if we could raise money while empowering our allies and still reduce our inventory and our costs of maintaining our stockpile. It could also strengthen international relations. That's a lot of wins and makes too much sense for our government to ever do it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...