aceventura3

The most inefficient jobs should be cut. Money should be directed to jobs that have the greatest benefit. Those jobs are normally going to be private sector jobs, not 100% of the time but most of the time.

When a job becomes obsolete it should be cut.
If there is a less expensive way to get the same result the job should be cut.
If there is not enough money to pay for all existing jobs, rank the jobs and cut the lowest ranking jobs first (ranking does not mean cutting teachers and keeping administrators - it is very possible to rank a teaching job higher than an administrative job)
Etc.
Etc.

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps the military can improve efficiency by 10-20%. For example perhaps the Air Force could utilize flight simulators more in training, get better results, and lower training costs.

Every day in every sector of government people should be asking the question, what can we do better at lower cost? I am not satisfied that people in government, including the military do that, are you?

No. It depends on what happens with the savings from the cuts. If the government cuts 10 positions and the private sectors is then able to hire 20, seems like a win to me.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

As I stated tax policy indirectly affects revenue collected by the government.

The above statement is critical, if you don't agree anything that follows is pointless. And we need clarify why you either disagree or what the impact is.

Just food for thought before responding if you choose to - tax policy has consequences. People will change their behavior based on tax policy. I think you said you owned a cat - what if...we impose a $10,000 tax on cat ownership and then imposed excessive regulatory reporting on cat owners regarding their cat(s). Before the tax and increased regulation cat ownerships is X. What is X after the tax and increased regulation. Obviously it will be less than X. Also what will some people do to avoid the tax, like perhaps not honestly reporting ownership? Etc. Etc. Etc. Then you start to get special interests, perhaps farmers who say they need cats to control rodents get an exception to the tax. Or perhaps Wickens claim a religious exception. Then the actual taxes collected are less than what was budgeted, so what do they do, raise the tax per cat on those who actually pay - the cycle continues...

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

I don't. Deficit spending is not inherently bad. Occasionally it is just a cash-flow issue. If properly managed deficit spending and debt can actually be beneficial. The problem in Washington is the inability of politicians to control spending. They have no discipline, therefore discipline has to be imposed on them through debt caps and ultimately a balanced budget amendment.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

I remember some posts where people held the position that the Tea Party was done after the 2010 elections and would have no future impact, did you hold that view?

Regardless of the Tea Party, people should act according to their own beliefs. Everyone in the Tea Party was clear on their views that we believe that we are T axed E nough A lready. It should not be a surprise that the TEA Party people are against tax increases. The ones that got elected won because they all said that they would go to Washington and work to control spending. I only have one vote, and my one vote will go to those who are true to Tea Party principles on taxes and spending. If the mainstream GOP, liberals, or whoever doesn't like it, so be it.

If there is any desperation it is because others did not take the Tea Party serious. Obama knew the day would come when the debt ceiling would need to be raised years ago, yet he did nothing. Why? why didn't he address the issue when he had a super majority? Why didn't he address the issue during the lame duck session after the 2010 election? Yet you actually think the Tea Party is the problem? The Tea Party in not in control of the Senate, yet they have passed nothing. They don't control the WH, yet there is no specific plan from the WH. The Tea Party is actually only a small portion of the House - are you and others giving the Tea Party too much credit for controlling the agenda on this issue?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."