I have to say, I’m glad I’m not the one having to come up with solutions to minimize our national debt. This survey just proves how difficult it is to cut certain things out of the national budget while keeping others. The first time I took the survey, I realized I only made one cut of $115 billion by eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes. I made this cut because to me, this was an alternative to ending the expiring tax cuts, but on a lesser scale. I know this means that taxpayers would essentially pay more in taxes because they wouldn’t be able to itemize and deduct state and local taxes on income, etc., but it seemed like one of the more plausible options.
I took the survey again, after realizing that I didn’t do a good job of cutting anywhere near the $900 billion, and made cuts up to $533 billion that time. I was unwilling to cut Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits because I felt that the cuts would have too big of an impact, considering the size of the cuts. I also chose to keep the expansion of health insurance coverage. I decided to reduce defense spending because a huge part of our budget is for defense spending, and the proposed cuts over increments of time are reasonable and effective. I also chose cuts to non-defense spending, although this was a difficult choice because I think the amount was more than I would want to cut. I think small cuts over increments of time to certain departments wouldn’t cause too much of a problem. I chose not to create a carbon tax because although it might be effective with reducing carbon emissions, I think it would cause a lot of controversy and I also think that individuals shouldn’t be taxed based on their carbon footprint. Overall, I’m not sure that my cuts would make sense, and I think that it shows that my political values are somewhat neutral, but that I feel certain programs are essential to the nation.
Unfortunately, I don’t fully understand what all of these cuts would mean to different people in the nation, so I’m glad I’m not the one making the final decision.
You point at the end rings true. There are no programs that the government made for fun. Every part of it, EVEN defense, is significant source of jobs or provides necessary services to a part of the population. When money is tight, the federal government always starts flirting with the Greek democratic idea of the greatest good for the most people.
ReplyDeleteI think that cuts are one of the most controversial topics because everyone has a different idea of what is important and what is not. I agree with your point that small cuts over small periods of time is the most successful way to go. In addition, I feel it would also cause much less controversy than a big, sudden cut from one source. Although I think that Carbon taxes would cause a lot of debate and would be hard to enforce because many sources of Carbon are so dispersed, I think that if done properly, a Carbon tax would greatly benefit our country and drastically reduce pollution. I definitely agree that I would never want to be the one to make the final decisions because no matter what angle you approach the national debt from, it will always be a controversial issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a very controversial topic because everyone has their own perspective on what is best. One person might think that it is crucial to cut Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits, while someone else might think their cuts would have too much of an impact on our country and economy as a whole. However, I do believe that making small cuts over increments of time is the best way to go, as a large and abrupt cut from one department would lead to a lot of controversy. In addition, I believe that implementing a carbon tax is a good idea because pollution is a huge problem today in the United States and if people were taxed on their carbon footprint, then they would definitely make more of an effort to decrease the amount they pollute.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Anna and Allie, I think the carbon tax, if done properly is a great idea. It would simultaneously raise money for the government and increase people's awareness of their own carbon footprint. It would cause to be more conscious about their decisions when it comes to polluting the Earth. In general I do agree with you. I would have made many of those same cuts and it is very hard to get up to that $900 billion number without making people unhappy.
ReplyDelete