Clusterstock has a fascinating post in which it examines (in excessively incendiary language) what an austerity budget for the U. S. might look like, using the Irish budget revisions as a model. Minus the slanted language, here’s what would happen:
- Reduce money to the unemployed, i.e. would would probably stop extending unemployment benefits.
- Reduce money to job seekers.
- Reduce Labor Department spending and the Recovery Act.
- Reduce spending for the Administration for Children and Families.
- Reduce the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
- Reduce Medicare and Medicaid dental benefits.
- Start Social Security benefits at age 66.
- Reduce salaries of all government employees from 5 to 10% (sliding scale depending on income).
- Reduce retirement benefits to current and future government retirees.
- Implement a carbon tax (or cap and trade).
- Reduce federal spending on science education.
- Reduce health and children spending by 3.5%.
- Reduce welfare spending by 4.1%.
- Reduce defense spending by 4.7%.
- Reduce total budget by 8.8%.
We aren’t Ireland, our budget isn’t aligned like Ireland’s, and the proportions and areas in which we’d make cuts would be different. I think it would be too facile of me to suggest that these are precisely the directions in which we should be going but I’ve got to admit that at least a half dozen of those measures look pretty good to me. Indeed, on some of them I’d go farther.
These two are an absolute must and it needs to be done at all levels of government. Right now many retirement programs are defined benefit and there is a damned good chance there wont be the money to pay for them. The potential problem for places like California is huge.
In case people didn’t read Governor Christie’s speech yesterday:
“You know, Marlboro, after a two year negotiation, they give a five year contract giving 4.5% annual salary increases to the teachers, with no contribution, zero contribution to health care benefits.
But I am sure there are people in Marlboro who have lost their jobs, who have had their homes foreclosed on, and who cannot keep a roof over their family’s head there is something wrong.
You know, at some point there has to be parity. There has to be parity between what is happening in the real world, and what is happening in the public sector world. The money does not grow on trees outside this building or outside your municipal building. It comes from the hard working people of our communities who are suffering and are hurting right now.”
My modest proposal would be to outlaw government employee unions , but if I had to be actually modest, not merely ironically modest, automatic pay increases to public government employees should be preempted by pre-existing statute during a recession.
That sounds like a good start to me.
The original post, that is. As for the proposal to outlaw government employee unions, I don’t think that’s necessary. We just need to become willing to pull a Reagan when the unions make unreasonable demands. The big problem with government employee union negotiations is that while the unions generally do an excellent job of representing the interests of their members, elected officials often do a terrible job of representing the interests of taxpayers.
When are we gonna stop pretending that people are NOT living longer?
Tried twice post this with a link, but no go. Here it is without the link (but it would be to the Consumer Guide to Dentristy site).
I don’t know how much would be saved by curtailing Medicare dental benefits.