On January 7, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama introduced a new position called the Chief Performance Officer, and named Nancy Killefer to fill the position. Why? According to Obama: "We committed to change the way our government in Washington does business so that we're no longer squandering billions of tax dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of a lobbyist or interest group."
That sounds good, but at the same time Obama is pushing for a stimulus package that will near a trillion dollars. He himself notes the financial hole that has been dug: "Just today, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the deficit we are inheriting for this budget year will be $1.2 trillion. And we know that our Recovery and Reinvestment plan will necessarily add more. My own economic and budget team projects that, unless we take decisive action, even after our economy pulls out of its slide, trillion dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."
Wow. I have to give him credit for his honesty. He's pretty much saying - the economy is in the tank, and things are going to look a lot worse before we can turn it around. Kudos for being direct with the public for a change.
So while some initial steps will actually make the deficit worse, the long term goal is to take a closer look at where all the money goes. Some of the programs the government funds probably are wasteful and need heavy renovation, and some probably need to be tossed wholesale into the "recycle bin."
But which ones?
There are lots of pet programs getting funding that probably shouldn't be, while there are others that are underfunded. We're not talking about pork barrel projects or earmarks, we're talking about fundamental programs that have been going on for ages. Some of them surely don't work, others might work better if the goals and methods were tweaked, others might work better if their funding was increased.
So here's our chance. We whine and complain about this and that. How about we come up with a list of programs that should be shut down...or need renovation...or need more funding?
Let's see what kind of list we can build. Then we'll send it on to the incoming Administration. I hope Nancy Killefer has a big in-box.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 216
First on my list to "programs" to cut... The size of government!
Thank you for submitting your article to Obama Watch
That ought to be a REAL blast! I'm coming back to this one, just to see if there are some serious, and thoughtful suggestions.
Thank you, David. ROFL.
I sure feel a heck of a lot better about the future knowing Obama is in there instead of someone like Jeb Bush. So much to do, so many whiners.
I saw an artist rendering of what Obama would look like when he gets out of office if he had two terms ... the poor guy looked beat to hell.
I wish him the best.
Kudos to Obama. Whether he's covering his ass or not, straight shooting is important today. I'd rather know the straight facts of what I'm facing than operate on assumptions.
"Obama pledged to rein in the government's biggest long-term commitments -- "entitlement spending" such as Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare health insurance for seniors."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090108/tpl-obama-vows-action-with-us-deficit-to-10170b4.html
Hasta la vista, baby! Tuck and roll, grandma/grandpa, tuck and roll!
[Felix - I have no idea how to interpret your last sentence]
Obama said he would not side with Washington insiders but would bring in new blood but all he has done is pick Clinton era politicians that served Clinton and started our economic down turn with NAFTA. He also is keeping Bush crime lords in place like Gates.
Government has to be made smaller. Its proven that corporate welfare does nothing but make the corporate cons richer and speeds up the economic downfall which is very quickly heading us into depression.
Their is no mandate in the constitution that backs all the cabinet posts that have been created and this is where cuts and spending has to be brought down. We need lees government interference in our schools and communities not more. Our schools are supported by state and local taxes and we do not need government making mandates that just waste more money we do not have.
Get rid of the Patriot Act and homeland security that is a direct assault on the constitution and stop the blood for oil wars which is eating up most of the money that is not handed out to corporate welfare.
No matter what Obama wants to do he is reliant on a congress that does not take care of the public business and all congress does is look for bigger pork barrel spending. The public has to get rid of the congress that is destroying our economy and government and put in new blood that will bring new ideas to help what is left of our economy.
Get off the religious scam that is a constant thorn in the side of the public. You cannot legislate moral values and trying to do so is just dictatorship.
Get back onto a real capitalist system and off the corporate pity pot socialism. Capitalism has guidelines that have to be met or it does not work and its about time we started to make the corporate cons toe the line.
I've been reading and hearing on the news things from Obama that I can align myself with, on the other hand I see these three stooges Pelosi, Reid and Durbin scrambling to play this I got power and want more game. These are not politicians of the people, these are power hungry egoists that have no business governing our nation .
I see Al Franken stealing an election in Minnesota, I see Blago in Illinois caught trying to sell Obama's senate seat. I see a lot of evil and corruption in our government. Hope I don't see it in manifest itself in the Whitehouse
Sadly, our politicians have looked at saving thousands, hundreds of thousands, even a million as not worth the effort, much like our kids throw pennies on the street because it's not worth putting them in your pocket.
Maybe he should consult McCain/Palin to find out which departments they were going to downsize or get rid of. :-)
BTW- I don't see Obama taking away from those that have not including those dependent on social security, medi care etc. His entire life in Chicago was based on working with the poor and those in need.
BTW - I do believe there is a purpose for a welfare program... as a hand-up, not a hand-out. The current system is far too burdened by those looking for handouts!!
Now Reagan was elected on a platform to eliminate the EPA, the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He. Could. Not. Do. It. Im talking about Ronald Reagan here.
The problem is this. You decide to cut program A. Then it turns out that if you do so, 35,000 people who DONT work for the government will be out of work, Programs B C and Q will need to hire more staff, Senator Smith and Congressman Jones will refuse to vote for your stimulus package, A petition with 50,000 names is delivered demanding that Program V, (which it turns out depends on Program A) be saved, and your leading economic advisor discovers that cutting Program A, while it doesnt seem to be doing anything is absolutely essential to the well being of the Alaskan lobster fishery and the California initiative on green energy.
You get the point. It aint easy, which is why someone needs to spend time and money figuring out how to do it. Bravo Obama!!
"Signs of bigger government!"
"Somehow I doubt the solution to fixing government is adding another layer of bureaucracy."
These are excellent points. It seems counterintuitive to add a layer of government charged with making the government smaller.
But, let me suggest the following:
1) I'm not sure its a "layer" of government. Hopefully the office will be small (her and an assistant?).
2) The idea isn't simply to look at government size as much as it is to look at government efficiency. Efficiency by definition includes getting things done with the least waste (in time, money, effort, etc.). Some things can be made more efficient by adding staff, whereas others by reducing staff or eliminating the program all together. Unlike the "kill everything that isn't what I find important" people, there is no "one size fits all approach" to fixing government. Someone has to look at it, and think about it. Thinking has been the missing element in the past.
3) The jobs of each of the Agencies, program offices, etc. are to, well, do their job. It's asking a lot for the head of the department to spend his time trying to figure out a way to eliminate his department. That has happened in the past, e.g.., when Watt and Gorsuch tried to dismantle their respective charges, but generally these programs (departments, Agencies, etc.) are in place because at one point there was seen a need for them. But mostly the job of the department head is to run his department, i.e., continue doing the jobs for which the departments are responsible. In most cases they are charged with implementing certain laws. They don't have the power to ignore those laws or to eliminate themselves (though they probably do have the power and the mandate to be more efficient). By having an office whose only function is to find ways to make every other office function better (or disappear altogether), there is a real mechanism for changing how things work. By making it a person who reports directly to the President, as Nancy Killefer will, there is a real mandate from the top to cut through the inevitable resistance (including working with Congress to change laws if necessary).
So while counterintuitive on the surface, it is necessary to accomplish the objectives set forth by the President.
I genuinely do want to hear what programs people think are wasteful.
But you bring up an even more critical point - the interconnectivity of everything. For those whose skipped Sy's comments, go back up a few comments at: Sy g., Jan 8, 2009, 10:16am EST, and read them.
It isn't as easy as it looks.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I can't imagine how it could possibly be unconstitutional. President Bush created a whole Department of Homeland Security with a stroke of a pen.
Did the writer any insight into how or why it was unconstitutional?
I use to work for a small town. I worked for the department of recreation and public affairs. We handled all of the towns historic sites, tourist events, PR events, etc. Our department consisted of the director, me, and two other women. THAT WAS IT. Meanwhile, the mayor had TWO secretaries. Once one of the secretaries went on vacation and they asked me to fill in for a week. After two hours I had all of the work done that this person normally completed in two days. I was like "what EXACTLY does it take two people to do in this office ALL DAY?" Meanwhile, every other "officer" also had HIS own secretary.
This is the kind of waste Obama needs to focus on. Duplicate efforts. Duplicate positions. Are we maximizing our human resources? Are we maximizing our office equipment? Do we need to buy new furniture every two years?
I actually have a plan that would help reduce government spending. Reward government employees for cutting waste instead of punishing them. Under current budgeting, it is "use it or lose it." i.e. if your department is given 1 billion dollars and you only spend $700,000,000, next year you only get $700,000,000. This encourages departments to "max out" and spend even if they don't need to.
Instead, offer bonuses to employees based on how much UNDER budget they are. Maybe you take a third of the savings and divide it between the employees in that department.
So using the above example, lets say department A has 5,000 employees. That department comes in 300,000,000 UNDER budget. You take 100,000,000 of that and give a bonus to the employees of $20,000 each. Yes, it's a HUGE bonus. But the government is STILL saving $200,000,000!!!
The following year, you do NOT cut the budget. But instead, to get the bonus they have to beat the savings from the previous year. (or maybe they only get a pro-rated bonus, because if it isn't possible to beat the previous year's savings you still want to encourage them to save overall.)
How fast to you think waste would be reduced if employees were empowered to look for cost cutting themselves?
I might have been more inclined to vote for P/E Obama if he described just how he intended to make this happen during the campaign, instead of just stating the objective and asking us to trust him. We have heard that line before.
The only power the President has is the threat of the veto for bills that contain wasteful spending. Past Presidents have lacked the courage to use this power. We hope P/E Obama proves to be the exception.
I think the writer is an idiot is my first thought.
Note that Obama has NOT created a whole new department. Killefer will be working within existing treasury departments to identify problems. This is a position that is sorely needed. Frankly, nobody knows where all of the money goes! When you are dealing with budgets in the trillions across hundreds of departments, there needs to be a centralized person to connect the dots. Personally, this position has been a long time coming.
Another area that can be reviewed and trimmed is farm subsidies. While I still see value in a subsidy program, the "fat" of continuing to pay to NOT plant on land that has been sold off for developments (malls, homes, airports, etc) is wasteful considering the land CAN'T be farmed. Also, the program began to help farmers that couldn't make ends meet and were loosing their farms... in many cases now, it's just a large loophole that allows big-dollar farmers to cash in at our expense. There should be a reaistically-scaled value system applied that saves the farms, but doesn't make folks rich for not working!
Your turn...
Randy - I would submit that getting Congress to eliminate and/or modify laws (and more importantly, appropriations) is difficult, but the Executive branch controls all the Agencies, not Congress. He can't eliminate anything mandated by Congress (unless the laws are changed), but he has the freedom to figure out the best way to implement those laws. The Executive branch actually has quite a bit of flexibility to administer as it sees fit (again, within the limits of the laws, some of which are very prescriptive, some of which are very broadly written).
OK, then make your arguements for which departments are not directly related and why they should be cut. You haven't answered the question.
Since hardly anything is actually in the Constitution, perhaps it would be easier to list those things that aren't in the Constitution, and then we could go down the list of everything else and see if we need any of it.
You misunderstood my entire comment. Doesn't matter...let's just the tax THE sacred cow...the wealthy.
When considering Social Security we need to keep in mind that it is not a retirement program and that the age for retirement benefits has risen to 67, not 65, already. The funds for Social Security are dedicated mandatory contributions for that specific purpose and not general fund taxes. And that Social Security, right now, receives more than it puts out. Not much longer, we need to realize. But it is the only self funded program in the federal government. It needs to remain self funded and that is what I'm expecting Obama to accomplish with it, secure the necessary funding.
It would be a violation of trust and purpose for say, the Social Security contribution to be raised and that spent on other programs. Or even if it is not raised, it is a separate insurance. Two goals should be to keep SS solvent and not privatize. Carving out a profit for private insurance would cost more and weaken the system.
Medicare has bigger problems and might well be incorporated into a generalized national health care program. While even after 2042, Social Security will still be able to pay 70% of benefits with nothing being done. Medicare does not have that much security.
President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans.
Well, surprise, surprise!!!
Never mind what I meant.
Tammy - That seems like a good place to start. We actually pay people not to farm on land that isn't even farmable?
I'm excited by this new office in the administration. I think that if there is any "fat" to be trimmed from the budget that spend the taxpayer's money better that it is a good thing. What I'm concerned about, mostly, is that this could mean that our necessary infrastructure repairs won't get done. Or, that essential services will be discontinued. We enjoy a terrific lifestyle in this country because of the massive federal projects that help the states. I would hate to see our lifestyle diminished because of ideology that demands that we don't need government in this country. So, that is my concern.
Anyway, all well and good but in virtually every administration over the last 30 years or so its been a plan that has translated to at best small scale improvement/cuts. Considering Obama has pledged that at least 20% of his proposed 3 million jobs created will be government (80% of the 3 million are supposed to be 'private sector'), any minor tweaks around the edges will be lost in the sea of new bureaucrats.
I also note that the only agencies his administration is now talking about for cutbacks is DOD; the requested 30k Marine/Army manpower increase for 09 that he had earlier claimed to support is likely dead on arrival. DOD has waste as anyone that has a clue will attest too but if you are talking about an expansion of one campaign area and even looking at involvement in more humanitarian/UN missions I fail to see how cutbacks/freezing spending in that sector will not have at least as ugly an effect on the services as many have decried for the last 4 years.
I do have a list of areas that should be cut however. We can start by eliminating the Departments of Agriculture (more bureaucrats than farmers to oversee), Labor, Veterans Affairs (roll back into DOD and integrate as before), Education (has done miserably except in increasing spending on bureaucracy), cut the Interior by shedding much of the western lands to either the states/various Indian tribes, Homeland Security (why have DOD if we are replicating missions?), cut HUD by shedding any jurisdiction for housing and "urban development and turn over all medicaid/care to states with a simple block grant formula for Federal monies, and DOD could be cut by eliminating some overseas bases--especially in western Europe, also get rid of NEA, BATF...two agencies that have little positive effect to say the least while sucking up taxpayer dollars.
Though I hope Obama is sincere, I see no way this will gain much ground. Every time one of these accursed programs/government agencies is created, they gain defenders. He'll do what every Dem president had done whoever and cut DOD at least a bit but I seriously doubt (though pray I'm wrong) he'll do much else.
MTV Sports Pure Ride commercial Tuck 'n' Roll Grandma psx us
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JExMYu0W-Bs
And so we are to surmise that in your cryptic way you are suggesting that social security and medicare will be gutted, which is akin to abusing the elderly?
The "First Auditor" might be a good way to look at the CPO role (not Chief Petty Officer), though simply auditing isn't the only responsibiliy as I understand it. She would work directly with the head of the Office of Management and Budget in coordination with each of the Department Secretaries to find ways to be more efficient in meeting the mandated requirements and goals.
The argument about Social Security is that we can't afford it. Of course, we can and should continue with a program that has been so successful. Not all government programs are bad. In fact, many government initiatives enhance the quality of life in America.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008
Just off the top...
How about the $7.5M you and I gave to support the $28B wine industry? Did they really need it? Yep... a chunk of that came with the MUST HAVE NOW financial bailout plan.
Here's another one...
$1.1M for mormon crickets... the what?? If the research is so important, maybe the Department of Ag should take some of the "over the top" farm subsidies and funded this instead of allowing the backdooring of the budget!
And lets not forget....
$3M for First Tee.... I guess even with corporate sponsors like Shell Oil, LGPA, PGA, etc... it still needed a little cash..... and by all means... let's take the money from defense appropriations... heck, they overspend anyway!
And here's my favorite...
Nearly $2M for the Rangel Center... yep, our buddy Charlie Rangel of not-so-clean political fame, got himself a check for $2M.
Sure, pork is only a small percentage of what has caused our debt... but it's a great place to start cutting.
So what is the answer? I haven't a clue. But it seems obvious that we need to address the issue somehow. The problem is you can't suddenly cut off people who are retired and had countred on SS. But maybe you can tell 20 year olds that they will pay into the system (effectively a tax) but never be able to collect from it. I don't know.
Every election we vote 98% of the time for the incumbent, then we complain incessantly until the next election, then vote for the incumbent 98% of the time again. Who should we blame?
The whole (intended) point of this post was to come up with a list of programs, departments, options to suggest as areas in need of closer review by the Obama Administration. Ideally we would provide our reasons why we think so, but I would imagine if enough people say "Program X sucks" then that would be a tip off of a problem even if no rationales were provided.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this Ruman: "A person could do a lot with the right knowledge." Too often we vent and do nothing. This is our chance to do something.
I thought just like you for many years about the Social Security trust funds. I finally realized that I was misinformed and only regret that the funds borrowed from SS show up in the budget each year as part of the deficit rather than artificially lower deficits. Senator Daniel Moynihan tried to get this changed years ago but presidents on both sides of the isle wanted to continue that bit of smoke and mirrors deception.
Bear in mind that a dollar bill has nothing intrinsic to back it up either. Nor the government bonds, or the money we owe China. No mortgaged property as collateral. The bottom line is the government, and that's us, is either good for it or not! I'd feel better if everyone would make it clear to the government that we are expecting a responsible handling of all federal debt including this. Keep telling someone they are never going to repay and they may not.
Please, check it out with Social Security if you want the facts. And no, the return from Social Security may not be the same as that from a 401K. However, have you heard of the incredible shrinking 401K? I can personally assure you that it is real! But the bottom line is a 401K, which you may still have, is an investment, with the risks and rewards of such. Social Security is an insurance. Administered with minimal overhead and supported by involuntary worker contributions.
However, for those that make it to retirement, they may well get a lot more from Social security than they ever paid into it. And those who become disabled or loose their lives? What will their families get from their 401K? Obviously, it depends upon the years the worker has in the 401K but in a majority of cases, the return is far greater with Social Security. The idea however, was never to make big dollars on SS but to be insured that you have enough for food on the table, without doubt. Or that your beneficiaries have that.
Again, it is one of the most successful programs ever implemented by the Federal government and which has served the intended purpose for many years, and continues to do so. The corporate interests who want 401K to be the only option are not interested in your welfare, I can assure you!
Thanks you for the great explanation of your view on this. Like you, I can only give my opinion and it can be wrong, but I don't believe so.
I suppose my position is that like most Americans, I really don't know what the answer is. We elect our representatives to represent us, then tie their hands by demonstrating that unless they pander to our whim we won't reelect them. This simply isn't conducive to encouraging them to work hard for sustainable solutions.
When you say other areas to "cut," do you mean entirely (e.g., eliminate the entire Dept of Agriculture, etc.) or do you mean more along the lines of "streamline?" It would seem that each has a role to play, though I'm sure all have waste issues.
Place a maximum raise percentage on all government employees. It is know reason that the cabinet can't give up a few dollars. Everyone knows that if a person gets into a government job they have it made. Years ago I was sitting on a plane along side a young government engineer. He was telling me that he just screwed up his first big job and felt bad about it. I asked him what they did when he blow up his new engineer design and he said they just gave him another one to work on.
I too was an engineer but with the chemical industry and could only wonder what would happen if I messed up one of my jobs the way he had what my company would do. I knew the answer, they would fired me on the spot and get someone smarter. They could not afford to lost money due to poor engineering.
My suggestion is to push the government to hire the best they can find for all their job, but when the person fouls up, give them their walking papers, or transfer them to a position that they can do with the skill they have.
No more of this protection for poor employees that have managed to climb the ladder due to their poor performance. I remember a typist that was promoted because that is the only way her bosses could get rid of her because she had time in her work type. Let's get rid of these people as fast as we can and let our workers make the money for what they can do.
IDEA NUMBER ONE FROM THE OLD MAN. I AM LOADED WITH THEM!
On the other hand, I know many good scientists that work for the government. Point is there should be a way to tank the ones that are worthless and reward the ones that do well. Unfortunately, many of the really good ones leave government to get paid substantially more in the private sector.
Always welcome to your ideas, Gordon. :)
Having some experience in this field, it is not easy to change the status quo even when the CEO wants you to. (Remember how many times Kennedy TOLD the military to get the outdated missiles out of Turkey? Did they? No.)
A governemt mailshop a friend of mine has been there a few years but is making 20.00 an hour... How many workers do they overhire so the government employees is not overworked, which they dont need? When you weigh the benefits in.... wow, these people are set for life, about like the GM workers... Start on goverment jobs first and I guarantee this will make a big difference...
Now, go to Congress and stop allowing them big fat raises and make them actually work a full year with a couple of weeks off for vacationa as the common man does..... This will save a bundle...
Next, as you said about SS... some people actually get a ss disability check for not having any income... in other words put them in this governent program, even though they never worked enough units to earn this money... We want to put them here instead of welfare...while others have busted their butts to have these people who either didnt want to work or maybe, they actually do have a medical problem a free ride....
SS is where you have worked for this money and paid your units in but now are disabled to a degree, but now you can get a check and work... This does not make sense to me... So they are now encouraged to colleck a check, get insurance because they are deemed disabled, and allowed to work... even though it is only so much.... I thought if you were ill enough to get a check, and you cant work this is why, you received the check to begin with?? While many others are working and have medical problems but they have to pay for their own benefits and dont get a check from the government..
I think the whole government handout system needs to be revamped,,,, but looked at from an indiviual view... Not all cases are the same... Example,,, the elderly cannot get around as easy as someone younger that possibly could work for a living....
Another program is Schips that needs to be shaved down..... I know several kids who are on this program, because their parents dont report their whole income.....
Free breakfasts and lunches .... again , so many kids are deserving of this but I have worked in these systems and have seen the abuse.... Many kids dont deserve these freebees...
I heard on the news that Cal. was broke... That whole state needs fixed... They brought up the expense of carry for so many illegals, they even have a program that will furnish transportation to those who do not have a way to work and a way back home.... but it was to my understanding, it was only for the illegals....Look, at the gas prices a couple of months ago ..... and what expense this brought on....
I think Obama is headed in the right direction,,, but as someone already pointd out... He has power hungry Dems.. I hope he doesnt let Peloski and Reid bring him down.... I think they are vicious and together they will be a force to reckon with as each of them only change open their mouths to change feet.
if people remember that barack dID NOT cause these deficits but is trying to untangle what the Repubican's have caused since Bill Clinton left us with a surplus!
For example
Yes, to: public schools, infrastructure, child care, nuclear plants, etc.
No, to: social security, medicare, welfare, space exploration, etc.
"military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost almost $136 billion for the 2009 budget year that began Oct. 1"
I wonder if people do not like Social Security, what they are going to
suggest be done when the need for it has increased recently for the
same reasons it was put in place to begin with.
Meanwhile, we seem to have one tool in government anymore,
the tax cut.
I see a lot of unreality out there.
I'm glad Obama's in... Government stupidity is bad enough, but stupid government is the last straw!
Your suggestion about Social Security sounds reasonable. If people are allowed to opt out of the program and they wind up with nothing as often happens to investors, the taxpayers will have to subsidize them in their old age whether they participated or not. We don't settle for hungry and homeless old people in our country ever since the New Deal. It is part of what improved out quality of life. Social Security is no panacea, but it is a form of insurance that works well in this country. We need to save the system. Private investments only work out for a certain percentage of investors. Many investors lose money and wind up with little to show for it in their old age. They have to eat and have a roof over their head, Felix.
I suggest that one valuable yardstick to use in these explorations is that of sustainability.
If our government is paying for things that are not sustainable, it needs to stop. If it is not paying to do things that are vital to the creation of sustainability, in terms of energy use or food policy or medical care, then maybe it needs to start to pay for those things. When we evaluate programs in financial terms we should look at the concept of time.
I think what this is about is that some people do not want to devote the amount of money necessary to pay got SS so they find any old argument to attack it and hype it up.
So we need to raise the ceiling on the richer people to pay for social security.
This brings up the redistribution of wealth argument .... what I want to know is why we can live with poverty economic injustice, corruption, favoritism to the super rich, the top 1% always growing in wealth at the expense of the bottom people, but it is immoral to talk about the fairness of that or doing something to even things out?
This country did a lot better economically when we have higher taxes in the past when the rich were not making so much money and claiming they were investing it in jobs for the rest of us? The unreality of what we are told to believe is laughable. We had 4-5% growth in the 50-60's when top tax rates were 70-90% on huge salaries.
We have to start looking at what functions do things serve in our country, not just at clearing the path so the rich can do anything they desire.
If you read my initial comments you'll see that I support the Social Security program, but, seeing that many seem to think it is a drain on the economy. I suggested that these people should have the option to opt out. Don't support it, but, also...should the need ever arise...they should not benefit from it.
Many old people in New York on Social Security are reduced to earing dog food...seriously. The average rent goes well over $700.00 per month...if Ms. Killefer is looking to revamp...she should start by RAISING their stipend not any sort of reduction. You want to give workers a tax break...fine...they deserve one, but, don't touch the pittance that is given to people on fixed incomes, like, Social Security...Medicare...Food Stamps.
We have military bases in 63 countries...start by cutting those.
Don't try to take from the neediest to give to the prospective needy...take it from those who have...and have more...and than some more...
Talk about rescinding those permanent tax cuts the wealthy have gotten these past 8 years. You don't like 'entitlements' fine...opt out.
Joe, the Republicans have been trying eliminate FDR's programs for years and in the 1990's...Newt Gingrich was joined by the Bill Clinton Democrats...Social Security and other progams for the aged and less fortunate has been under attack from both sides ever since.
We need to go after the top 10%, instead of the bottom 10%.
Currently, Social Security takes in more in payroll taxes than it needs to pay out.
"Not only is Social Security not in crisis, it is as financially sound as ever, according to the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, run by Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker, coauthors of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis."
Here's their argument:
Social Security can pay full benefits as promised until 2042 according to this year's Social Security trustees report (or 2052 if you use projections from the Congressional Budget Office). Thereafter it will be able to pay about 75 percent to 80 percent of promised benefits.
Even if benefits were cut to 75 percent of what's promised, that reduced level would still be more than what today's retirees get, Weisbrot said.
See: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/index.htm
Another article (that cites the above article) entitled:
Extremely Disappointing Language from Obama on Social Security
""Social Security crisis." For those who weren't politically engaged in early 2005, those three words might not be terribly meaningful. But for the folks who fought tooth and nail to ensure that the Social Security program was not dismantled by President Bush and his Republican lackeys on Capitol Hill those three words come off like a dog whistle, because paramount to the conservative effort to kill FDR's great gift to American society was the attempted propagation of the myth that the Social Security system was in crisis -- a myth that has no basis in reality."
...So, anyway, having someone suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/8/232730/945
Fix it...maybe not in 4 years, but, certainly in 8. I don't think so. 4 years and if it's the same or worst...NEXT!
I wish him the best results for the sake of the country, but, he's never made such sweeping guarantees if fixing it. He will be trying his' darnest to fix it, but, if he doesn't...he can kiss 4 more years goodbye.