Balance the U.S. budget? I did it in under a minute

Reuters ^ | 11/15/2010 | James Pethokoukis

[WebFocus]

debt | taxes | US Politics

So I took a crack at the budget simulator cooked up over at the NYTimes Web site. It starts out with a projected 2015 deficit of $418 billion and a projected 2030 deficit of $1.355 trillion. My goal was to do it through 100 percent spending cuts.

Here is what I did:

1. Eliminated earmarks ($14 billion)

2. Cut the pay of civilian workers by 5 percent ($17 billion)

3. Reduced the federal workforce by 10 percent ($15 billion)

4. Reduced nuclear arsenal and space spending ($38 billion)

5. Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe ($49 billion)

6. Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets ($24 billion)

7. Cancel or delay some weapons programs ($18 billion)

8. Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 ($149 billion)

9. Enact medical malpractice reform ($13 billion)

10. Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 68 ($56 billion)

11. Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance ($157 billion)

12. Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 ($562 billion)

13. Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 ($247 billion)

14. Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes ($54 billion)

15. Tighten eligibility for disability ($17 billion)

16. Use an alternate measure for inflation ($82 billion)

In the end, my budget would have a minuscule 2015 deficit of $80 billion and a 2030 surplus of $187 billion. Now I would have preferred an option for deeper domestic spending cuts.

[pnh102]

There is no option to reduce or eliminate social welfare benefits. Fail.

[Jewels1091]

now is not the time to cut the military

[calex59]

Reduced nuclear arsenal and space spending ($38 billion) 5. Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe ($49 billion) 6. Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets ($24 billion) 7. Cancel or delay some weapons programs ($18 billion) 8. Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 ($149 billion)

You're worse than Bozo when it comes to our defense. We don't need to cut spending on the military, we need to pump more into R&D in order to develop weapons that stay ahead of others.

[cripplecreek]

I’d need to cut a whole truckload of agencies that aren’t there.

[The_Reader_David]

Notice number 11 was listed by the NYSlimes as a “spending cut”, but it’s really a tax increase.

I played with the budget simulator and came to a similar method of balancing the budget, but didn’t use number 11 and preferred one of the honestly labeled tax-increases instead.

Of course the simulator was rigged to make it impossible to balance the budget without a tax increase (if you tried, you ended up with the disingenuously classified number 11): one didn’t have the choice of abolishing the Dept. of Education or HUD and didn’t have sliding scales to trim back a lot of departments that have functions, but have gotten bloated.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Same crap, different moron. He wants to gut the military, raise taxes, and make us work longer to get what we were promised.

[Cicero]

As the article explains, the “rules” do not allow for the kind of cuts we would like.

How about eliminating the Department of Education?

Defunding PBS/NPR?

Cutting foreign aid to zero over the course of a few years?

For instance, why on earth are we giving billions in foreign aid to Muslim countries, when they are floating in oil money? Let them deal with their own problems.

[MulberryDraw]

How do we get to a 2015 deficit of only $418 billion from where we’re at now?

[Ben Reyes]

Go bac to the drawing board. See if you can make adjustment WITHOUT cutting the military budget.

[randog]

There is no option to reduce or eliminate social welfare benefits. Fail.

I noticed that, too. Eliminate the dept. of education, epa, grants to ngo's, etc. and you'd have that surplus in five minutes as opposed to 2030.

[ThomasThomas]

And most important of all, don’t forget the pixie dust!

[KoRn]

What you were “promised” may not matter if the money isn’t there....

[traditional1]

How about the two obvious omissions:

STOP all Welfare to those who fail a Means Test, fail a Drug Screen, or are convicted felons.

Eliminate Anchor Baby recognition of Automatic Citizenship

And a third thing to save BILLIONS: deport ALL Illegal immigrants and sponsored relatives that are NOT U.S. Citizens.

[Blood of Tyrants]

True. Then why not just eliminate the program altogether?

[PGalt]

I’d need to cut a whole truckload of agencies that aren’t there.

Exactly.

Defund all collectives/countries. Let them stand/fail on their own.

[cripplecreek]

There is no option to reduce or eliminate social welfare benefits. Fail.

Unfortunately there's no faster way of putting democrats right back in charge. Gotta eliminate job killing regulatory agencies first, then start hacking away at welfare.

[ully2]

A billion here a billion there pretty soon its real money.

[OldMissileer]

Wow! Slash the DoD to nothing, including reducing our aging nuclear stockpile, and not touching the gargantuan, unconstitutional welfare programs and their agencies. Plus enacting a very large tax increase.

Another leftist EPIC FAIL!

[ncpatriot]

social welfare is up to the states, isn’t it?