Cut the Federal Budget

I was having a conversation with a liberal friend of mine, and she challenged me on my call for smaller government. "How small is small? What would you cut?" And then proceeded to tell me that I'd cut everything that 'helped the poor.'

I take a dim view of corruption, waste, and ridiculous outlays, but I take a dimmer one of people telling me that I want the poor to die in the street.

Compiling an answer for what I'd cut was fun, actually, and I came up with two plans.

One plan for what I believe liberals would be comfortable with, and one for ol' libertarian light me.

Liberal version first:

Defense, we agree on. How about we cut that down to 2002 levels? The Afghanistan campaign had just begun, so we’re accounting for a war effort, if a somewhat smallish one. So just there? $329 billion. Sounds fair, right? 2012’s set to be over a trillion; maybe even a trillion and a half. Let’s split the difference, and call it $1.25 trillion - a savings of $900(ish) billion.

Farm subsidies take off another $20 billion, so we know we’re getting rid of those.

Energy subsidies (foreign tax credit, credit for production of non-conventional fuels, oil and gas exploration credit, alcohol credit for fuel excise tax, renewable electricity production credit, corn-based ethanol credit, research & development for nuclear power and fossil fuels, energy efficiency credit) equal $475 billion, so let’s get rid of that bullshit.

So far we’ve saved $1.395 trillion, and that’s KEEPING the Bush tax cuts, Social Security as it is, Medicare and Medicaid, as they are – ALL the social services programs, exactly as they are. We’re ALREADY living within our means… cutting that much means there’s NO DEFICIT, AT ALL.

But say we want to SAVE? Say we want to pay down the debt! Sounds fun, right?

Medicare and Medicaid made an estimated $47 billion in improper payments in 2009. Let’s fix that, okay? A little bit of reform – but nothing that would cut the core of the program that I know you care so much about. So $47 billion…. Actually, let’s pretend we can’t even get rid of all the improper payments.  Let’s call it a savings of $25 billion. And Social Security was falling behind in 2008 as far as checking to see that Americans on disability were still disabled – with improper payments coming in at $11 billion. Let’s pretend it takes a billion to get them caught up, and they can only catch half. So $5 billion in savings?

$1.425 trillion so far.

We spend $500 million a year on business subsidies through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, so let’s dump those. We could save $70 million just requiring federal employees to fly coach on domestic flights when they have to do government business. We could save $215 million eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, but it’s only that volume every four years, so let’s call it a yearly savings of $54 million.

Oh, I remember what else I wanted to throw on the pile! $2.7 billion for state homeland security grants (this lets small town police departments buy unnecessary armored vehicles for their operations in the name of ‘fighting homegrown terrorism’ – like there’s a lot of that in a town of 2000).

$1.429 trillion.

Suspend federal land purchases – that’s $200 million a year, right away. All of foreign aid – that’s another $42.1 billion… that’s not counting the aid we give to Iraq/Afghanistan for humanitarian assistance (which would be another $11.2 billion if you wanted, but I imagine you don’t).

So… $1.44 trillion cut.

Amtrak’s been a black hole for money… if we privatize it, then we could save $1.9 billion. Earmarks are estimated to cost AT LEAST $14 billion a year. Let’s get rid of those, too. If we reduced our stockpile of nuclear weapons from 1,968 to 1,050, then, according to the New York Times, we could save $19 billion.

Let’s stop there for cuts I think you and I could agree on.

We’ve saved $1.474 trillion. The 2012 budget deficit is $1.327 trillion.

That means we’re lookin’ pretty with a surplus of $147 billion used JUST to pay down the debt AND keep all social welfare programs at their current levels AND not raise taxes by one penny.

Libertarian Light additions:

Obviously, I want all of the above cuts.

What else?

Before I get to it, I should say that if you're going to be like Rick Perry and say that you'd cut out the Department of Energy and Education (and that third one), you probably aren't looking very closely at what those departments DO, or you'd likely make a host of exceptions.

Me, I haven't looked at every piece of the budget, but there are some glaring problems I see that could be taken out right now.

The Small Business Administration? They government-back 90% of small business loans. Distortion of the marketplace and... gone. $985 million budget, now, in the pot.

I think the Department of Agriculture has but one redeeming feature: the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The department's total budget is normally $132 billion, with $1.01 billion of that belonging to the FSIS. So we've saved another $131 billion.

The Department of the Interior just needs four quick cuts (for now). The Bureau of Indian Affairs ($240 million), the Bureau of Land Management ($1 billion) [if you want to set land aside, buy it, and do it yourself], the National Park Service ($3.14 billion), and the Fish & Wildlife Service ($2.7 billion) [if you want to protect them, do it privately. Don't take my money to do your charity work for you].


The Department of Energy research activities need to stop being funded. Private industry is more than capable of doing it on their own. Savings: $2.29 billion.

Technology Loan Guarantees? OUT. Savings: $823 million.

Head Start? In January, 2010, HHS released a report called "Head Start Impact Study: Final Report," concluding that the program created few if any long-term effects for children and adults. Gone. Savings: $7.2 billion.

The Administration on Aging? Please. Savings: $1.6 billion.

The libertarian in me would like to see the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration ended completely. Either re-direct gasoline taxes to the states, or abolish that particular regressive tax and leave taxation for road and highways to the states' discretion. Getting rid of the FTA would spur states to come up with their own solutions there, too, and likely wouldn't be biased toward rail systems as the FTA is now.

Air Traffic Control can be privatized, and we know this by example - our neighbor to the north, Canada, established a nonprofit private ATC corporation, and it runs extremely well.

I abolished Amtrak in my liberal plan, but I forgot to include the $339 million in rail grants. Those can go, too.

Total savings from getting rid of those, plus federal ATC, plus the FHA and FTA: $77.9 billion.

That wraps up what I'd like to cut, for now. I suppose, on further reflection (and time spent poring over the details), I'd like to cut more, but for now, my cuts stand as listed.

Total Savings from the LL addition: $229 billion.

Our surplus from the liberal edition was $147 billion.

Total surplus: $376 billion.

That's without taxes being raised a penny.

It's not much, really. But the debt wouldn't grow, and we'd finally be able to pay down some of it, though not nearly as much or as fast as either party would like you to believe their plans would do. Trust me, most of my cuts are FAR more egregious than the Democrats' or Republicans' plan.

At that rate, it'll only take 43 years to pay off the debt. 

Obligatory Memorial Day Post About "Thanking the Heroes"

"Freedom isn't free."    

"He died for your freedom, son."

"They're fighting them over there, so they don't have to fight them here."


How often we hear these things... how often we take them for granted.

Don't. 

I have a couple of questions for you, dear reader.

What prevents the terrorists from coming over here, while the military's fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Yemen/etc?

How has your freedom improved since the Global War on Terror began?

The answers? Nothing, and it hasn't.

Our freedom in this country has declined dramatically since the GWOT began. The PATRIOT ACT, the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, civilian drones, armored vehicles in use by police departments, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions... I'm waiting for this mythical freedom the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are over there fighting for me to keep.

I've lost friends to OEF/OIF (Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom). Still other friends are going there or are there now. I appreciate their position, and am saddened when I lose a brother or sister in arms.

That said, are they 'fighting for my freedom'? No. They're fighting for the country's interests - and that may be enough to justify it morally. Maybe.

When was the last time the military fought for this country to preserve its freedom and way of life?

Let's think about the wars in recent memory...

Hitler was gunning to take over the world. That was an actual threat to the freedom and way of life to the citizens of the United States (especially the Jewish and gay citizens).

So at least WWII, right?

...I could make a decent argument that the threat of Communism was very real, and that would've ended in disastrous human rights abuses and a destruction of our freedom here in the States... but most of that work was carried out through selective arms transfers, and covert intelligence operations (that didn't always work). So operatives from that era - not just military - sure, I'll thank them.

After that (and some operations during that same time period that didn't address Communism)? Yeah, I got nothing. 

So how about this Memorial Day, we don't thank people just because they chose the military as a profession. How about we acknowledge that they are, by a matter of course, no more or less worthy of respect than the police officers patrolling your neighborhood or the firemen responding to emergency calls?

Let's thank the people that actually protect us and our way of life.

Thank a cop. Thank a fireman. Thank a constitutional lawyer.

But if you're going to thank a member of the military, make sure you thank everyone that works as a cog in the machine we call America.

Thank a postal worker. Thank a construction worker. Thank a garbageman.

Heck, thank every citizen that's working together to make this country great.

Thank you.

Personal rights versus group rights

I had a long day at work today, but I didn't die of boredom because an Army friend of mine kept texting me (don't worry, today was basically about compiling a list of... Eh, no one cares... point is, I still earned my paycheck despite being distracted by him).

W, we'll call him, wanted to chat with me about politics. A little about him - he's a Mormon, but a self-described liberal. He was very keen on Obama, but is voting for Romney this go'round.

He confuses me, but I? I perpetually mystify him. As a gay, atheist, libertarian Republican, I befuddle his 'common sense.' This is not a new experience for me, so I have fun with the conversations that follow.

He made clear to me, during the course of our conversations, that he is 'more libertarian than most people [he] knows,' but he has some objections.

W's stated beliefs:

"If you are going to take money from me, I insist in 5 things. And only 5.

-Civil upkeep (plumbing, roads, electricity etc)
-foreign relations/protections (whether it be DoS or DoD)
-public education
-public health
-I forget the word (cops, firemen, ambulances etc)

And outside of that. Defend the constitution an ensure the freedoms this country was founded on."

This, naturally, both aroused my curiosity and made me crazy.

Naturally, I argued with him over the 'necessity' of infrastructure spending, and more naturally, he went to every libertarian's favorite hyperbolic straw man, "I guess no one will build the roads!"

It's not very liberal of him to say that he only wants government for those five things.... But it's more than that.

How can you say you want to "Defend the constitution an ensure the freedoms this country was founded on," while advocating for extreme government control?

Healthcare - and he means stronger than Obamacare. Public schools, and just those, which are turning out failing students for a record amount of money (teachers' unions, cough cough). And when he says 'protections,' he's not talking about the military protecting our shores. He wants to keep his job.

Now, I get that, but even when I did my short time in the Army, if they had told me they had to fire me because of Defense cuts, I would've walked away happy. It's the best idea for the country.

I'm getting way off track, and that's wholly because I'm making this post on my phone.

I remember what this was supposed to be about!

Prop 8.

I was talking about how you vote with your dollar, and how I don't shop at businesses that supported Prop 8, and he said, "Oh, but I supported Prop 8."

I firmly believe that (a) a company SHOULD accept business from anyone and everyone, but shouldn't be FORCED TO by law, and (b) your right to vote for the right to self-determine until doing so violates someone else's rights to do the same.

This came up. He said, "Oh, people were sued because they didn't want to have gay customers. Doctors lost their licenses. Charities lost their charters."

Ah, well, those people are MORONS. I equate not serving gay people with not serving black people or Jewish people. That said, they should be allowed to be morons - but that's got NOTHING to do with Prop 8, which simply defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

"But it does. Calling it 'marriage' for straight people but not gays protects us from lawsuits like that."

I'm somewhat sympathetic. You shouldn't be sued over not wanting to host gay couples - you should be boycotted until your business forecloses and you have to live on the street, but not sued.

At the same time, you're promoting inequality in the name of personal freedom, which is totally messed up.

I want you to have the host of individual freedoms. I want you to have the freedom to self-determine... Until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same.

That's what the support of Prop 8 does. It says "My right to discriminate is more righteous than your right to marriage equality."

*sigh* I wish we weren't still talking about this. I wish it was common sense.

I was having a discussion recently about the 2nd Amendment with a liberal friend of mine. She and I have a very different opinion on the issue, naturally. I believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute, for all weapons (short version: if the military can own it, I, as a private citizen, should be able to own it). I may not be able to afford an M60 machine gun, but if the Army can use it, so, too, should I be able to use it. Even if I'm just using it to shoot up bottles, or keeping it on my mantle as a decorative (if functional) piece.

A lot hay is made about the text of the 2nd ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") referring to a 'militia.' Opponents of gun rights often say the 2nd was only meant to protect a militia's rights to keep and bear arms.

How is one supposed to form a militia without the ability to acquire firearms? Add to that, too, how did the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights define 'militia'?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason, Constitution Convention delegate from Virginia

We are asked, in this modern civilized age, what we're so afraid of, that we need to keep our rights to these weapons.

In the end, arms in the hands of the citizenry are the last resort against an oppressive government. Why did the British confiscate rifles from the American Colonists?

It all comes down to who holds the power. The people? Or the government?

We don't get our rights from the government. We get our rights from our nature as free men. If the government, even an elected government, takes those rights away, they are violating my rights as a human being and a citizen of this country.

This issue is important to me, but it's not the most important. If a Republican's for most of my other issues, but they're a moderate or liberal on gun rights, that's not good, but it doesn't mean I won't vote for them in the face of a Democrat who loves government control of most areas, but is willing to leave gun rights alone.

That liberal friend of mine I wrote about before? She wrote about having the very same stance. She is very much for gun control, but still isn't willing to vote entirely on that issue. Her post? To All NRA Voters.

I would imagine all of us have seen the 'moderates' of whom she speaks. They're for all conservative causes, save the fact that they're pro-gay marriage. Suddenly, they're voting for Democrats, because that's their most important issue.

If you're a one-issue voter, you're doing this whole 'representative government' thing wrong.

Now, don't take that to mean your issues aren't important. They are.

But you have to think of the whole picture. Think of getting half the sandwich instead of all-or-nothing. Think about compromise.

I feel strongly about gun rights. But that just means it gets more weight in my equation when I decide the man or woman for whom I will vote.

If the candidate that's against my gun rights is also against using public money to bail out private corporations, and against raising taxes, they're even in my book.

It's only up from there.

Nine times out of ten, the Republican candidate wins, but that doesn't mean he or she always will. I've seen some Blue Dogs that have tickled my fancy enough to get me to vote for them. Heck, I worked on senior staff of the campaign of a Democrat running for State Superintendent a couple of years ago because he was everything I wanted in that office (if the position was going to exist, I might as well have someone I like in the seat).

The point is, being a one-issue voter means you're not thinking ahead to all the issues that are going to affect you in the coming years. What congressmen, senators, and especially presidents do, directly and indirectly, changes the world we all live in... make sure you've picked the best candidate on all the issues.

I had a political blog once before, more than a year ago. I made it on Wordpress, as I recall, but I don't remember what email I used for it, so it's lost in the vast world that is the internet.

So this is Max's political blog 2.0.

I'll do some kind of mild introduction as to my political leaning, since it is not black and white, and tends to irritate some people because they can't quite figure out where I stand on any number of issues based on what I call myself.

First, we have to distinguish "libertarian" from "Libertarian," or, as folks in those circles distinguish it, "Little-L" and "Big-L" libertarianism. A "libertarian" is someone who believes in individual liberty, voluntary association, and the non-aggression principle (i.e., any unsolicited action or actions that affects an individual's property or person, no matter whether those actions are damaging, beneficial, or neutral, are considered violent when they're against the free will of the individual and interfere with his right of self-ownership); a "Libertarian" is one who believes all those things, but knows the realities of the Party System in which we lives, and so is willing to make compromises to work within that system.

Second, I have to determine what I mean by "Libertarian Light." I understand the Party System is the one we've got, and that if I want any sort of progress (progress: repeal of laws that the government has passed to give us our freedoms back, and the pursuit of laws that set in stone rights that future administrations won't be able to change), then I have to work within that system. I may have to compromise within that system to get what I want, but I'd rather have half a sandwich than no sandwich at all.

Compromise is anathema to the modern Libertarian Party. It's pretty obnoxious. So what did I do to get away from that?

I became a Republican.

This is not an unheard of development, of course. Think of a hardcore libertarian...

Chances are, you didn't think of Nick Gillespie.

More likely, you thought of Ron Paul, the Republican representative from Texas.

I'm no Ron Paul. I don't want to be Ron Paul. He thinks states should be able to ban interracial marriage. That's crazy. I am not in favor of people democratically taking others' rights away.

But still, a Republican.

As you can probably gather, you can't decide what my position on a given issue is going to be based solely on my political identification.

The specifics are too numerous to mention. You might just have to pay attention. Or ask, specifically, in the comments. I am more than willing to engage on any issue for any length of time, unless the debate devolves into fallacies and ad hominem.

Anyway, welcome to the blog. I will endeavor to post on many subjects as they come up in local or national debate, and I welcome any discourse from anyone else in that regard.