Reducing the Deficit

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**IAmTheWalrus**

Stars and Stripes wrote:

A presidential commission on reducing the deficit has recommended freezing basic military pay and housing allowances for three years starting in 2011, according to a draft report of the commission’s recommendations posted online Wednesday.

“A three-year freeze at 2011 levels for these compensation categories would save the federal government $7.6 billion in compensation and tax expenditures, as well as another $1.6 billion in less retirement accrual, or $9.2 billion total discretionary savings in 2015,” it said.

The move would not affect combat pay, the report said.

A White House spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The recommendation is likely to get a cool reception in Congress.

“I’m not sure there will be much of an appetite to freeze military pay while our troops are fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Josh Holly, a spokesman for Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, in an e-mail.

As it now stands, the House of Representatives has passed a defense spending bill that would give troops a 1.9 percent pay raise next year. The Senate is calling for a 1.4 percent pay raise, but it has not yet voted on the matter. Congress needs to come to an agreement on defense spending by the end of the year or pay will remain flat in January.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has looked for other ways to trim defense spending, such as closing Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., but that proposal has been roundly criticized by Virginia lawmakers, including Democratic U.S. Sen. Jim Webb.

So what does Dakka think about cutting the annual raises of service members?

**Kilkrazy**

Harder to do when you are relying on them to fight a war.

Being realistic, though, with the unemployment rate as it is, currently serving people are less likely to decide to resign in disgust, while recruitment and re-enlistment will be kept up by the pressure of the dole queue. So it is probably do-able in a pragmatic sense, and would help reduce the deficit.

As for the moral angle, I don't know how well US service-people have done financially in the past 10 years. If they have had years of good pay increases, there is more justification for a short freeze.

**IAmTheWalrus**

I honestly don't know about the pay raises before I joined, but when I was in the annual pay raise was about 1.5% or so. When you take into account the 3% inflation that has been pretty constant over the last 10 years soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are making less and less every year.

Like you said, it isn't the smartest thing to do when you're in the middle of a war with no end in sight. Personally I think this is despicable and if Congress is so dedicated to cutting the deficit they should stop voting themselves raises, or do one better and take a pay cut.

**sexiest_hero**

Nobody likes the debt, Nobody wants to be the ones who have to cut back. It'll end up sitting on the backs of the poor. Because everything is poor people's fault.

**sebster**

This would be political suicide, and would save $11 billion out of a $13 trillion economy... you'd get more effect by raising taxes by 0.1%.

Thing is, US debt is a pretty easily solveable problem, if you ignore all the self-imposed restrictions the US places on itself. It's much like a starving vegan at an all the bacon you can eat party, basically.

I stumbled across a really cool website a while back, where you are given a whole host of options for US government spending, and you're tasked with bringing the deficit under 60% of GDP. It's interesting to see how different people do it, and how easy it is if you ignore political realities.

**Guitardian**

Charge the U.N. member states for our military expenses.

**sebster**

Guitardian wrote:Charge the U.N. member states for our military expenses.

Peacekeeping operations undertaken under a UN mandate are compensated. This is why so many developing nations are keen to deploy troops in UN operations - it's a nice money earner.

**djones520**

I'm not to pleased with the idea, but I know I'll be able to get by. It'll cost me roughly $1200 a year by the third year, since my pay grade is usually getting a $25-$35 monthly raise with those yearly pay bumps.

But as a conservative and a federal employee, if I'm asking for cuts then I have to be ready when those fall. As long as they take more then just my pay away.

There are agencies within the Federal Government that actually waste untold amounts of money. They need to go after them as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:This would be political suicide, and would save $11 billion out of a $13 trillion economy... you'd get more effect by raising taxes by 0.1%.

Thing is, US debt is a pretty easily solveable problem, if you ignore all the self-imposed restrictions the US places on itself. It's much like a starving vegan at an all the bacon you can eat party, basically.

I stumbled across a really cool website a while back, where you are given a whole host of options for US government spending, and you're tasked with bringing the deficit under 60% of GDP. It's interesting to see how different people do it, and how easy it is if you ignore political realities.

It's not just military pay that they are recommending. All the cuts could see up to 4 trillion saved over the next decade.

It's a start, but it's not nearly enough. Thats roughly 1/3rd of our yearly deficit right now.

**sexiest_hero**

But as a conservative and a federal employee. So do you want to fire yourself?

Joking of course, but how do you feel about the right talking about their hatred of federal employees?

I'm all for a tax increase if it's to save the country from debt. That's one less Mc chicken a month. American is worth that to me. We live in a utopia compare to many places in the world.

**djones520**

sexiest_hero wrote:But as a conservative and a federal employee. So do you want to fire yourself?

Joking of course, but how do you feel about the right talking about their hatred of federal employees?

There isn't a hatred of Federal Employee's. There is a hatred of Federal Employees who are getting paid ridiculous sums of money. The government managed to function before the total number of Employees making $150,000 more then doubled in the span of a few years.

I make about a third of that with all of my benefits, and I can tell you I do a hell of a lot more for that money then they do.

The Federal Government is bloated, and cuts need to be made. While the DoD shouldn't be safe from the cuts, it certainly shouldn't be the first target.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:It's not just military pay that they are recommending.

Well, obviously. The point is this is a single cut, of a largely trivial total, and it's likely to have a significant political backlash. The total cuts and tax increases needed will be in the hundreds of billions, if an $11 billion cut to future planned increases is problematic enough to generate news reports then good luck with the rest of it.

**djones520**

sebster wrote:
djones520 wrote:It's not just military pay that they are recommending.

Well, obviously. The point is this is a single cut, of a largely trivial total, and it's likely to have a significant political backlash. The total cuts and tax increases needed will be in the hundreds of billions, if an $11 billion cut to future planned increases is problematic enough to generate news reports then good luck with the rest of it.

This is going to be the least of the politicians political problems if they do what they need to. There will be plenty of unpopular cuts made across the board that we need to get the deficit under control. And their all going to be news worthy.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:There isn't a hatred of Federal Employee's. There is a hatred of Federal Employees who are getting paid ridiculous sums of money. The government managed to function before the total number of Employees making $150,000 more then doubled in the span of a few years.

I make about a third of that with all of my benefits, and I can tell you I do a hell of a lot more for that money then they do.

The Federal Government is bloated, and cuts need to be made. While the DoD shouldn't be safe from the cuts, it certainly shouldn't be the first target.

When I made the analogy about the starving vegan at the all the bacon you can eat party, I was more or less thinking about your line of thinking above. The reality is that sacking bureaucrats won't see a return to surplus, there just isn't this vast sea of waste that you can hack into to save money without effecting services. Politicians love the idea of saving money without impacting services, who doesn't want free money?

The reality is that the deficit will be solved by raising taxes and cutting programs. This needs to be accepted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:This is going to be the least of the politicians political problems if they do what they need to. There will be plenty of unpopular cuts made across the board that we need to get the deficit under control. And their all going to be news worthy.

Yes. Now you have to ask yourself if you have the political culture in which politicians will act for what is right for the country, regardless of how it impacts their chances for election. Then you have to ask yourself if people will really be that committed to deficit reduction when it's their programs getting cut.

Starving vegan at an all you can eat bacon party. The solutions are easy if you can get past the self-imposed restrictions.

**Melissia**

It's kinda like watching every single big company give bonuses to middle/upper management as they cut the workers who actually contribute to the company and lower the pay of everyone who isn't cut while heaping more work on them.

**djones520**

@ Sebster

I think our culture is getting there. This recent reelection is proof that America wants the spending to stop. Now no one can say that Republicans are pure as driven snow when it comes to spending, but they're a damn site better then Democrats especially with what has happened in the last couple of years.

You could say I'm an optimist, and I believe that the Republicans finally see the writing on the wall with this last election. American's are sick of our government spending money like it doesn't matter. Sure, there are hold outs who think that money does grow on trees, but they are the minority.

**sexiest_hero**

hink our culture is getting there. This recent reelection is proof that America wants the spending to stop. Now no one can say that Republicans are pure as driven snow when it comes to spending, but they're a damn site better then Democrats especially with what has happened in the last couple of years.

Did you see the bush era spending?

The spending can't stop, Republicans can't and don't want the spending to stop. they rely n the baby boomers, who in turn rely on medicare, and social security.

When have they ever cut on spending. At lest the Dems say that spending helps the economy. Republicans say cut spending, but not a word on where. Cut food stamps and get more crime. Cut anything else and lose votes.

The USA has 3 goals all at odds. Get out of the recession win two wars and for some reason debt. I say First you get America back to work. Then out of the wars. Then with the money saved from not fighting and the extra taxes from more working people, you can look at debt.

Everybody is worried about leaving our kids in debt, I'm worried about getting their parents jobs.

**djones520**

And have you seen Obama's spending? Two years he's added as much to the debt as Bush did.

I'll take Republicans spending 4 times slower any day of the week.

But that is not the debate here. The debate is whether the current congress is going to try to get spending under control. Not the last one, or the ones before that.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:@ Sebster

I think our culture is getting there. This recent reelection is proof that America wants the spending to stop.

I really don't think it was. It's the same rhetoric we always see, just with a lot more intensity and showboating. And it was tied to the same old easy targets like 'waste', with seemingly no appetite for the ugly realities of what you actually have to do to bring a government out of deficit.

Now no one can say that Republicans are pure as driven snow when it comes to spending, but they're a damn site better then Democrats especially with what has happened in the last couple of years.

Come on mate, seriously, you know that's silly. The spending over the last few years has been the direct result of measures taken to alleviate the GFC. You know this. You're not running for office, you have no need to play cheap politics.

You could say I'm an optimist, and I believe that the Republicans finally see the writing on the wall with this last election. American's are sick of our government spending money like it doesn't matter. Sure, there are hold outs who think that money does grow on trees, but they are the minority.

There's never been a shortage of rhetoric about bringing the budget under control. What matters is actually doing it, and until we see Republicans willing to give up their sacred cows and consider defence and tax cuts, we haven't seen any actual change.

Again, the starving vegan can spend all day talking about how he needs to start eating, but until he starts to consider the bacon that's all around him...

djones520 wrote:And have you seen Obama's spending? Two years he's added as much to the debt as Bush did.

Please don't repeat obviously silly political rhetoric. You know it's silly, you know we know it's silly, and if it isn't true and it isn't scoring you any points why bother? You know the increase in the deficit is the direct result of the stimulus package, which is a temporary measure in response to the GFC.

I can see you want to have a real conversation about the issue and that's great, so please leave the politicking at the door.

**sexiest_hero**

I say we need the tax cuts rolled back. And heavy taxes on the companies that ship jobs over seas. It should be illegal to have an american company be based slightly off coast or in a small po box for a tax break. the first step in getting on budget is to make sure everybody does their fair share.

I'm really tired of this "We want to get out of debt, but we don't want it to affect anything we like, or us at all."

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
I think our culture is getting there. This recent reelection is proof that America wants the spending to stop. Now no one can say that Republicans are pure as driven snow when it comes to spending, but they're a damn site better then Democrats especially with what has happened in the last couple of years.

See, here's the problem though, you're still only talking about spending despite also indicating that we can't really cut enough to eliminate the deficit.

We also need to raise taxes, and you won't find a single legitimate analyst that concludes otherwise.

**ShumaGorath**

Melissia wrote:It's kinda like watching every single big company give bonuses to middle/upper management as they cut the workers who actually contribute to the company and lower the pay of everyone who isn't cut while heaping more work on them.

Not really.

**djones520**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's kinda like watching every single big company give bonuses to middle/upper management as they cut the workers who actually contribute to the company and lower the pay of everyone who isn't cut while heaping more work on them.

Not really.

Actually, yes really. The Air Force has been doing more with less for the last five years. I'm a Weather Forecaster who is now expected to be a Finance, Personnel, and Comm guy as well.

**SilverMK2**

sebster wrote:I stumbled across a really cool website a while back, where you are given a whole host of options for US government spending, and you're tasked with bringing the deficit under 60% of GDP. It's interesting to see how different people do it, and how easy it is if you ignore political realities.

Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting, especially if it has quite a few out-field ideas (I believe that is the American term?

)

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:Actually, yes really. The Air Force has been doing more with less for the last five years. I'm a Weather Forecaster who is now expected to be a Finance, Personnel, and Comm guy as well.

Efficiency has been served then.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:Actually, yes really. The Air Force has been doing more with less for the last five years. I'm a Weather Forecaster who is now expected to be a Finance, Personnel, and Comm guy as well.

Efficiency has been served then.

It's easier to stand outside and comment on it.

But in the end, my work load has increased drastically, and my pay has not reflected it at all.

**sebster**

SilverMK2 wrote:Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting, especially if it has quite a few out-field ideas (I believe that is the American term? )

I put it in a new thread, rather than threajack this one. It should take you about 5 or 10 minutes, depending on how closely you read the different options.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:It's easier to stand outside and comment on it.

So you don't agree with the cuts to your own area?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
It's easier to stand outside and comment on it.

But in the end, my work load has increased drastically, and my pay has not reflected it at all.

Perhaps your pay was artificially low.

Its easy to blame elites, but they have power and probably understand its use. That isn't to say that they shouldn't be questioned, but it is to say that they shouldn't be strung up either.

Rich people will attempt to stay rich, we should expect nothing else.

**djones520**

@ Sebtser

I don't. I understand why it was done, and somehow find ways to handle all of the aditional things I have to handle, but I feel that it negatively affects national defense when all is said and done.

**Melissia**

sebster wrote:So you don't agree with the cuts to your own area?

The cuts only serve to justify bonuses given to the upper management. CEOs are often getting paid more than 200 times what the common worker makes, despite the fact that quite frequently all they do is go around running companies into the ground. And then they're fired and get a severance package that could pay for years of wages for the workers. CEOs aren't actually chosen from the most capable, quite frequently a CEO who fails at one company will find refuge in another, and fail at that one too, then go to another, etc. Like musical chairs except instead of chairs it's company, and instead of music it's economic incompetence.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:@ Sebtser

I don't. I understand why it was done, and somehow find ways to handle all of the aditional things I have to handle, but I feel that it negatively affects national defense when all is said and done.

Sure, and you may or may not be right for all I know. My point is that even though you and most everyone else agrees that cuts are needed, you all disagree on exactly where those cuts need to be made. Different priorities, different points of view...

Melissia wrote:The cuts only serve to justify bonuses given to the upper management. CEOs are often getting paid more than 200 times what the common worker makes, despite the fact that quite frequently all they do is go around running companies into the ground. And then they're fired and get a severance package that could pay for years of wages for the workers. CEOs aren't actually chosen from the most capable, quite frequently a CEO who fails at one company will find refuge in another, and fail at that one too, then go to another, etc. Like musical chairs except instead of chairs it's company, and instead of music it's economic incompetence.

I'm not really sure what corporate management has to do with what we're talking about in this thread.