Interesting topic came up....

[Rick_in_CA]

The whole A-10 vs. F-35 vs, A-??  mess is the military arguing to civilians who control the spending, although fortunately some of the civilians were military at one time (to the Air Force's dismay).

Actually the whole Air Force hates the A-10 thing was explained to me by an Air Force vet this way: "No one ever made general by flying something that didn't go zoom!"

[TAHAWK]

OK.

 

But ask a "Hog Driver" to get the divergent opinion.  They even have a fan with stars. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18236/why-the-a-10-warthog-is-such-a-badass-plane/ 

[Krampus]

The whole A-10 vs. F-35 vs, A-??  mess is the military arguing to civilians who control the spending, although fortunately some of the civilians were military at one time (to the Air Force's dismay).

 

A-10 any day. Those boys could drop a whole lot of hurt in a few seconds...and drove a plane that could take punishment like few others.

[TAHAWK]

Can drop/drive/take.  Four just stationed in Philippines to patrol international waters west of there.

Edited April 23, 2016 by TAHAWK

[walk in the woods]

So I'm really curious about what yeh would choose to cut, eh?

So, my answer is all of it .  So per CPs example, I used to be a Democrat but they abandon me, the GOP is as straight up crazy as the new Democrats, so I find myself identifying with the Libertarians more and more.

 

Military: Let's institute the "you're rich enough to take care of yourself rule."  Let's finish pulling our troops, aircraft and equipment out of Europe.  The Europeans are quite capable of expending the funds to defend themselves and deal with the newly resurgent Russia.  They could even use their bureaucrats in Brussels to form a pan-European uniformed fighting force.  We can quite capably deploy as required but in general, let that side of NATO deal with that side of the world and we can focus on the Pacific/China side.  Japan and South Korea are basically rich enough to take care of themselves as well but less likely to be able to take over their own defense as quickly as Europe.  Besides, we need a larger counterbalance against China.

 

SS/Medicare/Medicad: Eliminate them, along with SNAP, WIC, ACA, minimum wage laws, and every other social welfare program; replaced with a national minimum income.  If $15/hour is the right minimum wage then maybe $30k/year is the right guarantee.  Phase out the guarantee when individual/family earnings rise above minimum (e.g. wages and guarantee can't exceed say $45k).  Get the Gov't out of all those programs and let markets figure out the rest.  I don't really like the idea of a national minimum income but it seems like it could be run by 7 people with a small database, and, I'd rather just give people money and the freedom to spend it as they see fit, rather than bureaucracies.  

 

Privatization: I like CP's idea about privatizing the TSA, I think it's a model that could be expanded.  I'm good with private resupply missions to the ISS and expanding that function with NASA.  Somebody mentioned the FAA as a critical government resource but what I read is our FAA makes Luddites look like technogeeks.  Other countries are reportedly already down the privatization path, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/02/16/free-the-skies-privatizing-air-traffic-control/#64b3fe8546ac.  The end of that article also suggests privatizing the USPS, Amtrak, and TVA.  I'd sign on to all those.

 

School vouchers: Same argument as minimum guaranteed income.  Stopping giving taxes to education bureaucracies.  Rather, give the parents $8000/kid/year indexed to geographic cost of living and the requirement to get the kid educated to a given standard.  Then get out of the way of the markets to fix education.  Replace physical schools with virtual classrooms, etc.  Lot's of models that don't involve a sage on a stage.

 

End the War on xxxxxx (Drugs, Poverty, whatever).

 

Consolidate all the "Special Law Enforcement Units" that aren't a part of Homeland Security.  There's no need for armed agents outside the FBI or ICE.

[Krampus]

Military: Let's institute the "you're rich enough to take care of yourself rule."  Let's finish pulling our troops, aircraft and equipment out of Europe.

...or, let's leave the decision of what to do with the military to people who actually know how to protect you. You wouldn't hire a golf pro to teach you tennis, why allow someone who has no clue on how to protect you to make decisions about your security?

 

replaced with a national minimum income.

Thank you Karl Marx, but I'd like to determine exactly what I am going to pay my employees, thank you. If you did that you'd pay $8 for your Big Mac and not even get fries and a drink.

 

If $15/hour is the right minimum wage then maybe $30k/year is the right guarantee.

No reputable free-market economist thinks this is a rational idea.

 

Privatization: I like CP's idea about privatizing the TSA, I think it's a model that could be expanded.

You don't privatize something that broken, you simply open the contract up to companies to bid on. Privatizing means turning the TSA into a business. That's dumb. It would lose money based on how it is organized and operates. Put the whole process up for contract for companies to bid on. Makes more sense.

 

School vouchers: Same argument as minimum guaranteed income.  Stopping giving taxes to education bureaucracies.  Rather, give the parents $8000/kid/year indexed to geographic cost of living and the requirement to get the kid educated to a given standard.

Why not use the Texas model. Each area has their own independent school district funded through property taxes and other bonds. People are free to move to wherever they think the better schools are. That's true freedom without too much government intervention.

[Peregrinator]

No reputable free-market economist thinks this is a rational idea.

The Negative Income Tax (very much like a basic income) was developed by Milton Friedman.

[walk in the woods]

...or, let's leave the decision of what to do with the military to people who actually know how to protect you. You wouldn't hire a golf pro to teach you tennis, why allow someone who has no clue on how to protect you to make decisions about your security?

 

Are we saying Europeans aren't capable of fielding an Army and/or Navy strong enough to protect themselves under NATO operations?  Every joint exercise I was ever involved in had a armada of American ships with 6 row boats from all our allied "navies."  I just think it's time for our European brothers to step up to the plate.  Only 5 members of NATO are meeting their 2% of GDP defense spending goals according to http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/.    We can spend less while Germany, Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Italy, Canada step up.  The EU's GDP is roughly the same as the US.  Just saying it's easy to be a social dem when somebody else is keeping the bad guys at bay.

Thank you Karl Marx, but I'd like to determine exactly what I am going to pay my employees, thank you. If you did that you'd pay $8 for your Big Mac and not even get fries and a drink.

 

Businesses would still be free to pay their employees whatever they cared to negotiate under the guaranteed income plan.  In fact, probably less than today since I also mentioned doing away with the minimum wage laws that go with the current bureaucracy.  We're already paying as a nation more than $2T based on Beavah's numbers on social programs.  According to http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014SS, Medicare, Medicaid, health, income insurance and other benefits is closer to 70% of the budget or actually $3T!

No reputable free-market economist thinks this is a rational idea.

 

Milton Friedman argued for a negative income tax back in the late 60s.  It's effectively the same thing as a national minimum guaranteed income.  It might actually simplify the tax code because we could eliminate a number of other tax credits.  Instead of $30k, make it $15k, or whatever fits it into the current tax structure.   Two trillion divided by 350 million people is just under 7000/year.  Assuming people making significantly more than 30k wouldn't be eligible for the guarantee, it's fairly easy to get to $15k without changing taxes at all.  Plus by eliminating the specific programs (housing subsidies, etc.), people are at least in theory forced to exercise of personal responsibility.

You don't privatize something that broken, you simply open the contract up to companies to bid on. Privatizing means turning the TSA into a business. That's dumb. It would lose money based on how it is organized and operates. Put the whole process up for contract for companies to bid on. Makes more sense.

 

OK

 

Why not use the Texas model. Each area has their own independent school district funded through property taxes and other bonds. People are free to move to wherever they think the better schools are. That's true freedom without too much government intervention.

 

One of the arguments for vouchers is giving people the ability to send their kids to any school without changing their home.  Or better yet, pay for private or alternative schools instead of state monopoly schools.  If parents are spending the money and the government monopoly on schools is broken, I think we'd get a much better product for less spending.

$4T in annual spending and $18T in debt, gotta change something ! .

[Krampus]

The Negative Income Tax (very much like a basic income) was developed by Milton Friedman.

The Negative Income Tax (very much like a basic income) was developed by Milton Friedman.

Friedman never advocated setting a minimum wage that high.

[Peregrinator]

Friedman never advocated setting a minimum wage that high.

Of course not, negative income tax is completely separate from minimum wage. It's the government's duty to assure a basic income.

[walk in the woods]

Of course not, negative income tax is completely separate from minimum wage. It's the government's duty to assure a basic income.

I'm not convinced it's the government's duty but they've certainly taken on the responsibility.  Assuming that part of the equation isn't going to change, something like the negative income tax might simplify the process by eliminating bureaucrats (e.g. no need for the SSA, medicare administrators, medicaid administrators, food stamp administrators, housing authorities, ACA bundlers, etc.).  FWIW, Hayek also supported a basic income although I've never ready anything explaining exactly why.  

 

I'd argue that the minimum wage laws should go away if a negative income tax scheme was implemented.  

 

It's an academic argument though because the bureaucratic branch of government would never let it happen.  It would put too many of them out of power.

[Krampus]

Of course not, negative income tax is completely separate from minimum wage. It's the government's duty to assure a basic income.

????

 

It is YOUR duty to assure a basic income. The government should have nothing to do with you and your income.

 

A true free market capitalist does not want government anywhere near their income or the market.

[Beavah]

So, my answer is all of it .  So per CPs example, I used to be a Democrat but they abandon me, the GOP is as straight up crazy as the new Democrats, so I find myself identifying with the Libertarians more and more.

 

Military: Let's institute the "you're rich enough to take care of yourself rule."  Let's finish pulling our troops, aircraft and equipment out of Europe.  The Europeans are quite capable of expending the funds to defend themselves and deal with the newly resurgent Russia.  They could even use their bureaucrats in Brussels to form a pan-European uniformed fighting force.  We can quite capably deploy as required but in general, let that side of NATO deal with that side of the world and we can focus on the Pacific/China side.  Japan and South Korea are basically rich enough to take care of themselves as well but less likely to be able to take over their own defense as quickly as Europe.  Besides, we need a larger counterbalance against China.

 

SS/Medicare/Medicad: Eliminate them, along with SNAP, WIC, ACA, minimum wage laws, and every other social welfare program; replaced with a national minimum income.  If $15/hour is the right minimum wage then maybe $30k/year is the right guarantee.  Phase out the guarantee when individual/family earnings rise above minimum (e.g. wages and guarantee can't exceed say $45k).  Get the Gov't out of all those programs and let markets figure out the rest.  I don't really like the idea of a national minimum income but it seems like it could be run by 7 people with a small database, and, I'd rather just give people money and the freedom to spend it as they see fit, rather than bureaucracies.  

 

Privatization: I like CP's idea about privatizing the TSA, I think it's a model that could be expanded.  I'm good with private resupply missions to the ISS and expanding that function with NASA.  Somebody mentioned the FAA as a critical government resource but what I read is our FAA makes Luddites look like technogeeks.  Other countries are reportedly already down the privatization path, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/02/16/free-the-skies-privatizing-air-traffic-control/#64b3fe8546ac.  The end of that article also suggests privatizing the USPS, Amtrak, and TVA.  I'd sign on to all those.

 

School vouchers: Same argument as minimum guaranteed income.  Stopping giving taxes to education bureaucracies.  Rather, give the parents $8000/kid/year indexed to geographic cost of living and the requirement to get the kid educated to a given standard.  Then get out of the way of the markets to fix education.  Replace physical schools with virtual classrooms, etc.  Lot's of models that don't involve a sage on a stage.

 

End the War on xxxxxx (Drugs, Poverty, whatever).

 

Consolidate all the "Special Law Enforcement Units" that aren't a part of Homeland Security.  There's no need for armed agents outside the FBI or ICE.

 

Yah, @walkinthewoods, I like it!

 

Well, most of it anyways.   I think there's a strong case to be made for just givin' poor folks money rather than lots of bureaucratic hoops to jump through.   I reckon there's a strong case for allowin' choice and da markets to drive things that are optional purchases or purchases where havin' choice to better fit your own needs makes sense, like education.

 

Not quite with yeh on some other things, though.   I don't want all da highways to be privatized.  Leads to different rules, different standards, lots of private fees that increase da friction of trade and make da economy weaker.   Same with da FAA, who lays down the highways of the air.  Best to have only one, eh?  And one whose mission is to treat everybody equally, not just serve higher-payin' customers.  Only one police force, not lots of private ones too, eh?

 

Medicine is probably it's own special case as well, eh?  Let's face it, health care when you're sick or injured is not an optional purchase.   Da only time it's optional is when it's for preventive care, and that's exactly when yeh don't want it to be optional because lack of preventive care ups da cost for all of society.  Lack of preventive care also lets new disease mutations grow and thrive that can affect everybody, eh?  Seems like da school voucher system for medical care is what yeh want, but then that's pretty much da basis of da ACA.

 

Just for fun, let's bring it back around to da BSA, though.      Seems like you'd be advocatin' for a smaller national office, less GTA/G2SS/etc. regulations, and more local market choice with different kinds of troops takin' different approaches.   Sound about right?

 

Beavah

[TAHAWK]

If the governments were subjected to the same tests as private charities for efficiency - % of $$ actually helping "clients - I wonder how they would be rated.  

 

The Office of the Inspector General,  Department of Health and Human Services, determine in 1995 (Yes, the last investigation was twenty yeast ago.)   as regards to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and Food Stamp programs:

 

"The accountability issues are very basic. We are not sure what we are paying for and whether the funds are being spent in a cost-effective manner. The way that the current system operates, it would be too resource intensive to even try to find out the answers. We do know that some States spend double and triple what other States spend per recipient, without any clear relation to outcomes. There are a lot of reasons offered as to why this is the case, but no solid evaluated data to confirm the degree to which these reasons affect administrative costs. We also know that we could find no significant correlation between the costs incurred and the recipients served on an individual State-by-State basis."

[Stosh]

The effectiveness of a charity organization is dependent on the mission, charity status, non-profit status and governmental status and even how they go about fund raising.

 

Some of the most cost effective organizations are the religious organizations.  VERY few of the personnel involved are professional and the vast majority are volunteers or volunteers working for just enough to stay alive.  No one's going to be having a meeting anywhere other than a hut or under a tree.

 

Then there are the non-profits, they tend to be quite relaxed in their approach and tend to have a greater number of paid volunteers, Red Cross, BSA, GS/USA, United Way, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA's, and medical kinds of research all fit in this middle ground.  Then there are the for-profit organizations that do work for the benefit and welfare of others, like hospitals, private schools, etc.

 

On the bottom of the scale where people contribute with no cost to the organization, i.e. passing the plate so to speak these organizations can operate on about 7%-10% administrative fees of moving goods and services to those who need them.  Lutheran World Relief and Catholic Charities fall into this level of assistance.  That means 90%-93% of the money raised goes towards the mission for which it was collected.

 

On the other end of the scale, we have such organizations such as Red Cross and YMCA's that have high administrative fees.  Those can run into the 90%+ range meaning less than 10% of the money raised actually gets to those in need.

 

How many is raised also has an affect on the amount that goes to the "cause".  If the American Cancer Society relies on telemarketers to raise funds for their operation, the telemarketers cost about 90-cents on the dollar which means for every dollar taken in by the telemarketer, 10-cents goes to the American Cancer Society.    Basically this is a for-profit operation posing as a non-profit to raise money for charities.  The 10-cents becomes a donation to the American Cancer Society they can take as a tax write-off.  American Cancer Society doesn't complain because they get a donation and the public who thinks they are making a substantial contribution are being deceived.

 

The government has no checks and balances for it's "charitable" efforts, on average takes $2 worth of administrative fees to provide $1 worth of benefit, barring no political ramifications.

 

There was a major drought in Northern Africa a few years back and the US government sent tons of relief aid which sat at the airport tarmacs and wasn't being delivered.  In the mean time Catholic Charities and Lutheran World Relief vehicles were going out half full of church contributions on routes and in vehicles that had been used and were set up to do this kind of work in the area already.    The US government would not put US goods on the "religious" trucks that were taking things to the people in need anyway.  They had to wait for the Army vehicles to get clearance and come into the area to haul the goods.  By the time they got the stuff to the people it was weeks if not months late.  The religious trucks did the best they could with what they had in the meantime and actually did some good.  No price tag was ever set on that kind of stupidity.