[Tomptomp]

Do you receive entitlements?

[jim@jedward.com]

1. Not all departments have the same priority.
2. Not all projects within a department have the same priority.
3. Not all departments are currently bloated to the same percentage.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Yes, but first,
for social Security, raise FICA taxes by increasing the cap to unlimited, and if not enough, increase the percentage above $500K, to make the program solvent.

For healthcare, needs a non lobbyist review and revamping, not minor bandaids, and incur income limits
sorry @MAT, i don't have sympathy for very successful people paying extra, like a graduated system.
Increase the graduated income tax on the higher earners. . MA has a budget surplus due to taxes on millionaires!

and cry me a river about taxes on very high earners, they don't miss it, and look at the population and makeup of the income sources, and the tax can be higher without impacting them at all. .

govt spending is an easy scapegoat for unhappiness and assumed theft, but the recirculation of dollars back into the economy provides alot of invisible benefits. . .. if its alot about you, then govt spending isn't visible,

[gorillarick]

Mandatory vs Discretionary ?
Maybe we need to look at all spending !

Have you looked at any of the DOGE findings? Probably not.
Like Dept of Education party at Caesar's Palace? Big party.
DofEd Renting out a stadium? For what?

[Nordhagen]

Let me guess, you’re not one of the high earners.

[Nordhagen]

Originally Posted by jbartle1

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

How about not spending more than you take in. Called a balanced budget(amendment?)

[merrymini]

If Florida can have a balanced budget why can’t every state? Why can’t the government? There is certainly lots of waste in medicare and medicaid. I am all for trimming the fat. If the numbers are correct, and 50 percent of the population is on the receiving end, then something is WRONG. Social security was a pyramid scheme and should have been adjusted for life expectancy. Why do you think they picked 65 as retirement? Most people did not live long enough to see it!

[lpkruege1]

Originally Posted by jbartle1

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

Why not go back to pre-pandemic spending?
Time to go back to zero based budgeting. There are too many sunset budgets that are still being funded and increased.

[MikePgh]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Would you do this with your personal budget? If you needed to save money would you cut your grocery, water, and electricity spending by the same percentage as you might cut your cruise, airline, hotel, or restaurant spending? Or, would you determine what is essential (food, water, A/C) and what is not-so-essential (cruise, hotel, restaurant) and cut the non-essential items more?

Great analogy. Kudos.

[opinionist]

We would not have a spending problem if the Constitution's explicit restrictions on government power were respected. Judges have ruled that anything deemed to be "necessary and proper" can ignore those explicit restrictions without a Constitutional amendment. There was a reason the explicit restrictions existed, and the violations were never "necessary and proper."

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by opinionist

We would not have a spending problem if the Constitution's explicit restrictions on government power were respected. Judges have ruled that anything deemed to be "necessary and proper" can ignore those explicit restrictions without a Constitutional amendment. There was a reason the explicit restrictions existed, and the violations were never "necessary and proper."

Out of curiosity, what are the explicit restrictions and what is an example of a current Govt. program/spending which violates those explicit restrictions and is therefore unconstitutional?

[joshgun]

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by joshgun

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.

Well, if you believe Post No. 10, you can't cut Medicaid because it is "mandatory spending".

[LucyP]

All dept not same in spending. According to what going out , what is needed. Not a perfect world. Take out fraud going on with some. You thought just general easy way out but we need clean house.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Well, if you believe Post No. 10, you can't cut Medicaid because it is "mandatory spending".

That's a misrepresentation of post #10.

What do you mean by "cut Medicaid?"
- If you means eliminate it entirely then no, that would take a new law to repeal the old law. (actually, I've not looked up the law establishing Medicaid but I believe it exists)
- If you mean take a scalpel to the program to eliminate/reduce wasteful practices and fraudulent claims then that is absolutely something that can be done.

"Let's just kick everyone off the program and point to survivors as proof that there was fraud" may be popular but is a rather ham-handed approach.

A lot of govt programs are wasteful right up until the day you need to use them.