to set the record straight,

[stormrider]

I copied this from the web site www.devvy.com

So, where is your money going? Not to pay for services but for debt created by congress and the President. The latest Bush's debt grew at $5 hundred billion a year. The newest pres' debt is growing at the rate of $1 hundred billion a month. Whoopi, were all gonna sink in the debt cesspool.

11/1/2007 $9,080,228,573,291.65 7% (R)
9/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7% (R)
9/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50  8% (R)
9/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32  9% (R)
9/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62  9% (R)
9/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16  7% (R)
9/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06  2% (R)
9/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86  0% (D)
9/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43  2% (D)
9/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62  2% (D)
9/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34  4% (D)
9/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73  5% (D)
9/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39  6% (D)
9/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32  6% (D)
9/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38  9% (D)
9/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66  11% (R)
9/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03  13% (R)
9/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25  13% (R)
9/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32  10% (R)
9/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16  11% (R)
9/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00   (R)
10/30/2008 $10,530,893,033,778.21  (R)
4/16/09 $11,183,899,252,728.00  (D)
 Average ('R) 9% 
 Average ('D) 4% 

Wikpedia has more info on the debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I can't think fast enough to keep up with this one.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Before we start pointing fingers, let's ask ourselves, who allowed this to happen? We all share in the blame.

Now, let's get back to work making more for them to spend.

[DeathWishBikerDude]

[Scanner]

Stormrider, this is from the same Wiki article you cited.

You'll notice that under every Republican president (except NIxons first term) the debt significantly increased, and with every Dem president the debt decreased.  Unfortunately, the mess this president was left with will probably not allow him to get the same outcome.



U.S. president  ↓    Party  ↓    Term years  ↓    Start debt/GDP*  ↓    End debt/GDP*  ↓    Increase debt ($T)  ↓    Increase debt/GDP  ↓

Nixon1 Richard Nixon    R    1969-1973                    38.6%                   35.7%                      0.07                    -2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford    R    1973-1977               35.7%                   35.8%                      0.19                    +0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter    D    1977-1981                    35.8%                   32.6%                      0.18                    -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R    1981-1985                    32.6%                   43.9%                      0.65                   +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R    1985-1989                    43.9%                   53.1%                      1.04                    +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R    1989-1993            53.1%                   66.2%                      1.40                   +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton    D            1993-1997            66.2%                   65.6%                      1.12                    -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton    D    1997-2001                    65.6%                   57.4%                      0.42                    -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush    R    2001-2005            57.4%                   64.3%                      1.15                    +6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush    R    2005-2009          64.3%                   75.5%                                               +11.7%

[Duffy]

Scary! 

So, tax increase anyone? 

[Strong Eagle]

Scary!  

So, tax increase anyone?  

At the risk of offending anyone, has anyone considered that this is the patriotic thing to do?  Doesn't matter who or how the debt got where it is... the fact is that the debt is where it is... and it will drag this country down for a long time.
 
But, we got some so called 'patriots' that only want to talk about reducing taxes, not what is right for this grand country.  Seems like they are more worried about their own pocketbook than keeping America strong and healthy.  But even at $500 billion per year, that means 25 percent of the US budget is deficit spending.  25 percent tax increase anyone?

Hmmm... maybe we can cut.  Social security and medicare consume 50 percent of the budget.  Almost 40 percent for defense, leaving only about 10 percent for everything else.  Where to cut?  Tough choices.
 
There is another way that America can cope with all this debt, and that is to cheapen the money.  Six percent inflation and in about 12 to 13 years the debt is worth half of what it was in real terms.  The Chinese probably won't like this.  And nor will Americans who are holding cash or cash equivalents... the only way out is to hold appreciable equities.  People who hold mortgages will love it, people who made the mortgages will hate it.

[MP]

We need to cut spending.  Do I think it will happen?  Not soon.  By either party.  The repubs are the party of spend too much, the dems are the party of spend even more.
We are in a lose-lose situation.
I believe we will have higher taxes.  Some as direct taxes, but most of it hidden, such as cap and trade, fees on medical insurance, etc.

Then, I also believe as Strong Eagle(wash my mouth out with soap, LOL), that inflation will be the real hidden tax.  There is no way to increase the spending like we are now doing, with out having huge inflation down the road.  May take 1 to 5 years for it to show up, but it will. And, I believe, it will make the 70's inflation look tame.
Make sure you get and mortgages, etc. in fixed interest rates, even though it will cost you more in the short term.
MP

[JimL]

U.S. president  ↓    Party  ↓    Term years  ↓    Start debt/GDP*  ↓    End debt/GDP*  ↓    Increase debt ($T)  ↓    Increase debt/GDP  ↓

Nixon1 Richard Nixon    R    1969-1973                    38.6%                   35.7%                      0.07                    -2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford    R    1973-1977               35.7%                   35.8%                      0.19                    +0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter    D    1977-1981                    35.8%                   32.6%                      0.18                    -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R    1981-1985                    32.6%                   43.9%                      0.65                   +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R    1985-1989                    43.9%                   53.1%                      1.04                    +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R    1989-1993            53.1%                   66.2%                      1.40                   +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton    D            1993-1997            66.2%                   65.6%                      1.12                    -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton    D    1997-2001                    65.6%                   57.4%                      0.42                    -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush    R    2001-2005            57.4%                   64.3%                      1.15                    +6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush    R    2005-2009          64.3%                   75.5%                                               +11.7%

Scanner while I may disagree with many of your positions, I am pleased that you do support what you are saying with empirical data rather than just opinion.

I do not disagree with the numbers, however I will simply say that the numbers are a little deceiving.  There were only 2 Democrat presidents (not entirely relevant since we all know that budgets are crafted by the House and Senate) during this time...Carter and Clinton.  

Nixon preceded Carter and the Nixon deficit spending was fueled by the Vietnam war, Bush #1 preceded Clinton and the Bush #1 deficit spending was fueled by Desert Storm.  Admittedly this may not be a legitimate reason to incur budget deficits in many peoples opinion.

Even though I am a supporter of Bush #2, I will admit that though the Iraq war contributed to a significant amount of deficit spending...it didn't account for all of it...Bush spent money like a Democrat.

Even though I was not a big supporter of Clinton at the time, 3 things happened that enabled him to create a surplus...one of them I actually give him credit for.  Clinton was successful in reducing entitlements (better know as reducing the welfare roles) he deserves big credit for this.  Two other events occurred which produced enormous tax revenue which made it much easier to realize a surplus.  

#1 was the Y2K (Year 2000) software remediation that had to be done in order to keep computer systems running once the millennium changed.  Companies spent and financed heavily for this remediation (I have read that this cost about as much as the entire Vietnam war) which produced enormous tax dollars through high employment.

#2 was the advent of the internet.  People who had no idea what a computer was a couple years previously were now buying them in order to "surf the web".  Companies were also investing heavily in order to gain a "web presence" before their competition.  I know this first hand since I was employed by IBM and assigned to numerous accounts during this time to help bring these systems up.  Lot of tax revenue was generated for the federal coffers.

Anyway to re-iterate I can't dispute your numbers...however I do have a bit of a different perspective as to why they turned out that way.

Jim

[hubcapsc]

#2 was the advent of the internet.  People who had no idea what a computer was a couple years previously were now buying them in order to "surf the web".

Jim

It was a conspiracy. Why do you think Gore invented the Internet in the first place? 

Just joking... to be fair, what Gore said that everyone kids him for was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating
the Internet."... I was a dweeb in the basement of the Computer Center in the 80's when the NSFnet was being funded, and sure enough, that's
what turned into "the Internet"... they put me to managing the SURAnet (an NSFnet regional network) gateway and the SMTP servers - talk about
being in the right place at the right time... 

-Mike

[JimL]

It was a conspiracy. Why do you think Gore invented the Internet in the first place? 

Just joking... to be fair, what Gore said that everyone kids him for was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating
the Internet."... I was a dweeb in the basement of the Computer Center in the 80's when the NSFnet was being funded, and sure enough, that's
what turned into "the Internet"... they put me to managing the SURAnet (an NSFnet regional network) gateway and the SMTP servers - talk about
being in the right place at the right time... 

-Mike

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

[Willow]

At the risk of offending anyone, ...

Wow!  I'm shocked.   

[BF]

We need to pass the FAIR TAX. 

[John Schmidt]

We need to pass the FAIR TAX. 

Naaaww, we all need to pass gas. You'll all feel much better and they can quit blaming it on the cattle.   

[stormrider]

And forget the fairtax plan. It does nothing to cut government spending. Cut government spending, cut the size of the Federal Governmnet.

Farewell quote by Pres. Eisenhower

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


He was warning us of the military industrial complex and how they thrive on war. Is the tail wagging the dog?


And was Smedley just putting on a show? That is, General Smedley Butler.

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler	powered by Aeva

[hubcapsc]

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

[DeathWishBikerDude]

[Serk]

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

Cool! So ya'll are more of the suspenders and beards generation, but glad to know I'm not the only Valk riding geek around here!

[3fan4life]

At the risk of offending anyone, has anyone considered that this is the patriotic thing to do?  Doesn't matter who or how the debt got where it is... the fact is that the debt is where it is... and it will drag this country down for a long time.
 
But, we got some so called 'patriots' that only want to talk about reducing taxes, not what is right for this grand country.  Seems like they are more worried about their own pocketbook than keeping America strong and healthy.  But even at $500 billion per year, that means 25 percent of the US budget is deficit spending.  25 percent tax increase anyone?

Hmmm... maybe we can cut.  Social security and medicare consume 50 percent of the budget.  Almost 40 percent for defense, leaving only about 10 percent for everything else.  Where to cut?  Tough choices.
 
There is another way that America can cope with all this debt, and that is to cheapen the money.  Six percent inflation and in about 12 to 13 years the debt is worth half of what it was in real terms.  The Chinese probably won't like this.  And nor will Americans who are holding cash or cash equivalents... the only way out is to hold appreciable equities.  People who hold mortgages will love it, people who made the mortgages will hate it.

Spoken like a true "ultra" liberal Democrat

The suggestion that there is no waste to be cut from government spending and that the only solution to the problem is to increase taxes by 25% or more is "INSANE".

There are thousands of places that the federal budget can be cut.   

Every single goverment program and agency wastes more money in a year than most of us will see in a lifetime.

If you remember, one of Obama's campaign promises was that he'd go through the federal budget "line by line" to cut wasteful spending.

If the Federal government had to as accountable for its spending as every small business owner in the US things would be better.

The problem is that the government has a long history of "looking" at the funds as if they were comming from a bottomless well.

With the currrent economy that well (the American Taxpayer) is about to go "dry".

If the average American were to go around the country buying things with checks and he didn't have the money to cover them he'd soon find himself in jail.

It's time that the members of government be bound by the rules of ordinary men.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have".
President Gerald R. Ford (12 August 1974)

 

And BTW Social "Insecurity" and Medicare are not government handouts.  In case you haven't noticed a "special" tax is taken out of each and every paycheck for them.

And, I for one would be more than glad to opt out of both if I could also opt out of the tax.

[Strong Eagle]

Spoken like a true "ultra" liberal Democrat

The suggestion that there is no waste to be cut from government spending and that the only solution to the problem is to increase taxes by 25% or more is "INSANE".

There are thousands of places that the federal budget can be cut.  

Every single goverment program and agency wastes more money in a year than most of us will see in a lifetime.

Ya know, you posted this stuff before, along with the same, 'ultra liberal democrat' slur, but once again, after rambling along, you offered not a single concrete example of what you would cut.  So, let's try it again.  What is it you would be cutting to make a significant difference... say, cutting the entire budget by 25 percent?  Please describe the 'waste' you want to see knocked out of the budget.

Where will you cut?  Military spending?  Social security?  Medicaid?  The way you talk about this it sounds to me like you have never had to manage a P&L, especially in a downturn.  Any manager that has managed a P&L can tell your there are always tradeoffs, and in the case of government, powerful special interest groups that will attempt to block cuts for their favorite expenditure.

You should really download the spreadsheet at the link (right click and save)... enough budget detail for you to take a whack at making some cuts.  This is the official US government budget summary, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/fct.html.  It is quite revealing for it shows all the things that the federal government spends money on and in what amount.

http://www.herbhost.com/miscimg/2009FedBudget.xls

So wise one with the answers:  Do let us know where you will cut.  Military?  No Congress critter has the balls to cut defense programs out of his/her district.  Agricultural subsidies?  No president has pulled that off since before Johnson.  So, don't just tell me what you would cut, tell me how you would get it cut... something that either a Republican or Democrat president could make happen.

Here is a condensed table of the budget above.



Health (medicaid), medicare, income security (pensions, pension guarantees) and social security make up almost 61% of the budget.  

[JimL]

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

I have never seen that cartoon before...it is a keeper!  Too bad they couldn't fit SED in there somewhere!

[Robert]

The fact that the list only lists all the major spenders is unfair our government hemorrhages money that the gao cannot even keep up with so how do anyone expect us as ordinary joes to fully know where to turn the screws on spending. The government needs to be audited like a regular company would be and the results known. Here are a few areas of improvement that are possible.
Take back the Federal Reserve and all the interest on the money being printed and the transaction fees.
No more funding of teens as unwed mothers, the government pays 100% the medical expenses of any teen thats unwed and having a baby even if the father is in the picture so many wait to get married till after the baby is born and even after that still keeps them on health care IF NOT MARRIED Have you seen the figures on unwed mothers? Now there even a show 16 and pregnant.
Millions of dollars gets funneled off by our congressmen getting financing for projects that are dead end deals to put family's in positions of control of those company's and then they close the company. If you dont believe it msnbc did a report on just this and is readily available.
Making Nancy Pelosi pay and other leaders pay for their own personal travel
Cut back on air force one maintenance and the amount of planes and equipment associated with protecting the president. Its not the purchase price but the upkeep that will kill you.
How about making the leaders of this country pay for their own health care or at least not the premium service that we could not hope to afford.
The bail outs failed
The cutting off of a few offices of the government that are really unnecessary
Stop subsidizing the ethanol industry
The government throws away brand new equipment that is in boxes and no one can remove it out of the dumpster the reason if you dont spend all your money this year then you will not get a automatic increase in funding next year. The equipment that is thrown away is to be able to buy new equipment next year to utilize the budget this year. And yes they do throw it away and yes you cannot take it.
There are so many more that dont have any impact on the main things listed and yet could potentially get us out of this mess. If we as Americans have done the things that goverment has to their books it would be considered a offense punishable by law including the using of funds for social security to prop up poor spending practices. It amounts to stealing the money.
Some here run their own businesses and know that you cant do what the government does and stay in business.
  Take a careful look at California and see whats happening to trying to approve a reasonable budget.
  I can almost say that the uselessness of these kind of postings are almost comparable to the waste in government. I would really like to see if anyone that posts on the waste of government or ones like these is doing anything to make a difference, I also include myself. So stop wastering your time with posting go do something else go ride and blend with the fine Americans so that when its all said and done all we hear is the bleating of sheep in the governments pens and those all saying I knew this would happen.

[JimL]

Cool! So ya'll are more of the suspenders and beards generation, but glad to know I'm not the only Valk riding geek around here!

Serk that a little bit spooky the way you were able to tell so much about us from only that little bit of information!  But the beard did go a couple of years after this photo...gray hair and gray beard was just too much!  As you can tell I was a little tipsy rooting on the Green Bay Packers...and so was the person taking the photo!

[Charlie]

Ya know, you posted this stuff before, along with the same, 'ultra liberal democrat' slur, but once again, after rambling along, you offered not a single concrete example of what you would cut.  So, let's try it again.  What is it you would be cutting to make a significant difference... say, cutting the entire budget by 25 percent?  Please describe the 'waste' you want to see knocked out of the budget.

Where will you cut?  Military spending?  Social security?  Medicaid?  The way you talk about this it sounds to me like you have never had to manage a P&L, especially in a downturn.  Any manager that has managed a P&L can tell your there are always tradeoffs, and in the case of government, powerful special interest groups that will attempt to block cuts for their favorite expenditure.

Eagle, my wife works for the Federal Courts.  I hear, everyday, problems within the management of the court system.  Based on things that go on in that one court alone, I am sure there are many places costs could be cut.  The Federal Judges, individually, have way too much leniency on what they choose to do and how they choose to run the courts.  The management of the courts here is pretty bad.  In her court alone, she has watched the management add three employees to do the exact job (court administrator for one judge) she was doing alone just 6 months previous.  She had no problem keeping up with the work load, which has not changed that drastically from when she was in the same position earlier.  Her present position lets her see how the other two judges run their courts.  The waste is pretty much the same in them.  I could talk for hours about things federal management could do, if the system were set up differently.  Until it is, we will continue to see the waste.  My bet is this is no different in any of the branches.  The system is not good for the taxpayer.

[3fan4life]

The suggestion that there is no waste to be cut from government spending and that the only solution to the problem is to increase taxes by 25% or more is "INSANE".

There are thousands of places that the federal budget can be cut.  

Every single goverment program and agency wastes more money in a year than most of us will see in a lifetime.

Yes, I said this and I'll stand behind it 110%.

If you think that it isn't factual then prove it.

Ya know, you posted this stuff before, along with the same, 'ultra liberal democrat' slur

Actuallly, I haven't but the fact that you consider being called an "ultra" liberal Democrat a slur means that you acknowledge that there is something wrong with being one.

Maybe, there is hope for you after all.

Cutting the entire budget by 25 percent?  Please describe the 'waste' you want to see knocked out of the budget.

Actually, Cutting the entire budget by 25% would be a good start.

Where will you cut?  Military spending?  Social security?  Medicaid?  

Have you forgotten about the Air Force's $400.00 toilette seat fiasco?

I spent time in the military, trust me they waste alot of money.

One of my brothers just retired from the Veterans Administration after working in supply for 40 years.

You wouldn't believe the amount of wasted equipment and the overexpenditures that occur.

So, yes if every manager of every government agency was told that he had to cut his budget by 25% it could be done and everyone would still survive.

I agree that it won't be easy.

But, it can be done.

The problem with social sercurity is twofold:

First, there are thousands of people receiving benefits that have never paid a single penny into the system.

That is not part of the original design of the program.

Second, Congress has spent years dipping into the Social Security fund to pay for other things.

This has left the fund short on real cash and with a handful of worthless IOU's.

So the greatest step to fixing Social Security would be to restore it to its original purpose and to prevent Congress from ever "borrowing" from it again. 


If you think that Medicare is a total waste of money then just wait until we have National Healthcare.

As the saying goes, "You aint seen nothin' yet".



It is interesting to me that you deride Social Security and Medicare as a waste of money, but have never once suggested cuts in welfare or Medicaid.

As a healthcare provider I can assure you that Medicaid recipients abuse the system in much greater numbers than Medicare recipients.

I've literally had to beg hundreds of seriously ill Medicare patients to let me take them to the hospital.

Because they were worried about how they would pay the bill.

I've had hundreds of Medicaid patients demand to be taken to the Emegency Room in an ambulance for a common cold. 

The way you talk about this it sounds to me like you have never had to manage a P&L, especially in a downturn.  

This line of thinking is part of the problem.

Remember, Wall Street, GM and Chrysler were being ran by "experts".

Maybe it's time for the experts to succumb to common sense.

Any manager that has managed a P&L can tell your there are always tradeoffs, and in the case of government, powerful special interest groups that will attempt to block cuts for their favorite expenditure.

The fact that special interest groups can control National Policy with their "donations" is a whole other issue entirely.

[Bob E.]

I spent time in the military, trust me they waste alot of money.

One of my brothers just retired from the Veterans Administration after working in supply for 40 years.

You wouldn't believe the amount of wasted equipment and the overexpenditures that occur.

So, yes if every manager of every government agency was told that he had to cut his budget by 25% it could be done and everyone would still survive.

Not saying you are right or wrong...you are probably right...but could you imagine the fallout of the president (any president) suggestng that the military budget be cut 25% in a time of war, or any time for that matter?  He would be crucified.  Obama had proposed cutting the military budget by a fraction of that and was jumped all over.

[BamaJack]

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

I have never seen that cartoon before...it is a keeper!  Too bad they couldn't fit SED in there somewhere!

But bzip2 is misspelled   

[hubcapsc]

Mike I knew there was something I like about you...while you were working the NSFnet from the academia side, I was working with DARPA/ARPANET!  We were using telnet and FTP before the much of the world (me included) had the slightest idea what was about to come from it!

I have never seen that cartoon before...it is a keeper!  Too bad they couldn't fit SED in there somewhere!

But bzip2 is misspelled   

You'd have to have been getting the Clemson Computer Center Newsletter in 1984 to
have seen it, 'cause that's when I drew it... thanks for the remark 

As far as the beard and suspenders...



-Mike

[3fan4life]

Not saying you are right or wrong...you are probably right...but could you imagine the fallout of the president (any president) suggestng that the military budget be cut 25% in a time of war, or any time for that matter?  He would be crucified.  Obama had proposed cutting the military budget by a fraction of that and was jumped all over.

You are 100% correct.

Just cutting the budget won't work.

People have to change their way of thinking as well.

They need to understand the following:

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.   Ronald Reagan

If managers were held personally accountable for waste within their agencies and told that their budgets were going to be cut by 25% and that they would continue to provide the same level of services they wouldn't have much choice now would they.

This type of thing happens on a smaller scale within local governments all the time.

The Federal government has for too long ran under the assumption that the only way to solve a problem is to throw more money at it.

It's time to figure out another way to solve them.

Because, whether it realizes it or not the Government is out of money to throw.