Medicare fraud was over $60Billion in 2007, so I doubt it was much less in 2008. Half of that alone in prevention and recovery is significant.

A 1-2% reduction in defense spending is realistic. This should be realistic, and as one example of that happening, the quadrennial Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) recommendations show approximately $35Billion in savings over 20 years by the latest round of consolidations.

A single read-through of the Plum Book makes one wonder why many federally-funded organizations and agencies exist. Examples of some that could be eliminated (and their costs removed from the budget) include: Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation; Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation; Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation; James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation; Japan-United States Friendship Commission; Millennium Challenge Corporation; Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation; President's Commission on White House Fellowships; Presidio Trust; and United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

That's some of the places where "efficiency in government" is obvious and necessary.

When you give the Congress more money, they spend it on pet projects before they will ever look at it as targeted solely for debt reduction. Just the vernacular they use when a tax reduction is proposed - How will we [the Congress] pay for a tax reduction? - indicates they have it backwards. So, a tax increase is actually counter-productive to the reality of government spending and budgeting.

Before another dime is sought from the taxpayers - regardless of which tax bracket is the target - the Congress and the Executive Branch need to take the paring knife to the federal monstrosity and get rid of what is no longer needed, really go after fraud and poor management, and
run it like the business it is.

Throwing more money at a problem by itself does not cure it. All that happens is that the problem just adds more gilt to its edges.