A Real Budget Proposal for 2012

Cut all spending by 10% this year. In real numbers using Obama's 2012 proposed budget that means cutting the budget by $400 Billion this year alone. Yes, we would still run a deficit, but we will not correct the insane spending of late with one deep cut. Cut the budget by 12% in 2013; by 15% in 2014 and shoot for a balanced budget in 2015. We can do it but it will require discipline.

Do away with the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has 16,000 regular employees and 93,000 contract employees. Yes, 100K people would lose their jobs but that's a drop in the bucket to how many lose their jobs every month anyway. The Dept. Of Energy's budget for 2009 was $24.1 Billion, so that's a nice chunk of change to start with, no? It's not the be all, end all, but we have to start somewhere.

Do away with the Department of Education. The annual budget for the Dept. Of Education was $32 Billion for 2009, $56 Billion for 2010 and $71 Billion for 2011. Add in the Porkulus and the Dept. of Education got an additional $174 Billion over these same three years. Obama has drastically increased the Dept. of Education budgets to no good end, except of course to grow government.

With the closure of these two wasteful, dead weight departments the savings to the Federal budget would be nearly $100 Billion in 2012. And the Dept. of Energy only employees 5000 workers so the effect on unemployment would be statistically zero.

Bring our troops home and close our foreign bases except in Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea. Bring our forces home from Europe and Japan. This would save billions and billions in renting the bases, salary, housing allowances, the costs of shipping equipment and consumer goods to those bases for the benefit of American service persons and their families, etc. The cost of military readiness would be minimal as when we have to go to war we have to ship 90% of the troops and hardware to the potential war zone anyway.

And yes, we will have to cut entitlements. I DO NOT call for cutting benefits to those who already receive them, but we can cut growth and not only can we but we must. As well we can increase the SSI contributions so that no worker ever pays the maximum. At the current time the maximum is about $110K. That means income over $110K does not have SSI contributions removed as the payer has "maxed out" as it were.

As well we need to set a maximum income or asset level for receiving benefits. It's asinine that someone as rich as Warren Buffet receives SSI payments, but receive them he does. Perhaps the limit should be no SSI benefits to anyone who earns over $150K per year AFTER age 65. That means if one has retirement income, interest income or is still working past 65 and earning over $150K, one does not need the measly amount the government sends them. Yes, they have earned it but at least these people are the ones who can afford to have the income cut.

I know my last two proposals seem "progressive" in that some are "punished" for their good fortune, but there comes a time when something must be done. We are at a crossroads. Either we make some major alterations to the way we do things now or fiscal realities will impose themselves that will force us to do more drastic things, or we will become insolvent. THAT IS THE REALITY!

Is an insolvent nation going to be sending SSI checks to anyone? No! Is an insolvent nation going to be able to fund the Departments of Energy or Education? No! Will an insolvent nation be able to keep so many bases open and troops all over the world? No!

As for the partisans who would like to hoist me on my own petard of strict conservatism, I am still a strict conservative. And perhaps when we get out of the mess we are in we can pass a balanced budget amendment as well as a flat tax or fair tax amendment. Until we right the wrongs, extraordinary measures will need to be taken to save us from our own irresponsibility.