Should government spending be cut in half?

Yes

1 of 5

by Lynda Kohn

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

First I think the issue of whether or not to cut US government spending in half is rather simplistic. In my opinion it isn't merely cutting how much our federal goverment spends. Its how to do it. To me its specifically what programs should be reduced and by how much. The initial step should be how much is our national expenditures really bloated. What progams are most responsible for the national waste. How is national waste defined? What should the defintion of wasteful programs?

If you believe the federal budget is too bloated that's one thing. The other issue is how to bring it down to size. The immediate goal should be to trim the spending. The question how does the US government do the trimming. In other words what is cut? What is the best, most fairest way to decide?

Its quite obvious that soon to be former President George W. Bush thought social programs for the most vulernable were the most needed to be either severely slashed in funding or completely eliminated. If there is a Helium writer here who presumes cutting govt. in half by simply doing more of the same I think of that person as being at the least extremely insensitive to the needy. My opinion holds especially true if they are for reducing spending by only drastically reducing much needed social programs. Cutting govt. solely on the backs of the most vulnerable is totally against my ethics. As a disability advocate my thoughts can't be otherwise.

This is not to say some social programs may be wasting the taxpayers money. Any program that isn't efficient should be at the very least looked into. A federal agency should help whoever it is designed to be helping. This is true no matter what targeted population is. However to go after only social programs that target people in poverty, the disabled, the aged is mean spirited. Conversely program should be examined to see if they are truly needed. I am for examining programs to see if their services arn't being done in a different agency more efficiently. In other words is there a justification for program A if program B is already doing what program A is doing? On the other hand perhaps the president should look into both A and B and see if they could be consolidated into one.

One can say welfare aka public assistence should be done away with. Why give hand outs to lazy people? The fact is there are millions of persons who receive medical assistance, ( health insurance for low income people). The truth is there is a very high, 60 percent or so of adult people with disabilities who are either unemployed or underemployed. This is a terrible disgrace but that is a topic for a different editorial.

For everybody who thinks that the solution to the federal budget is simply drastically cutting or even getting rid of social programs I say this is an extremely uncaring way of thinking. Bush's proposed budgets cuts were hurting the lives of people living in poverty so much that the Medicaid Safety Act HR5613 was proposed and eventually turned into law 2008. His cuts at least to me were particularly hypocritical. One of the best examples is the way he proposed the menta health freedom iniatiative. It was suppose to be on a grand national scale of encouraging mental health care. Than Bush totally eliminates mental health care for seniors. A second example is how he started a war in Iraq and then absolutely cuts to 0 federal programs for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I personally know from my advocacy work, how horribly disabled people, especially mental health consumers would be effected if our former president's cuts would've passed. He cut job programs. I may see cutting job programs if they didn't work the way they should. The reality is he cut programs to help the poor, disabled to obtain paid employment just to cut them. There's a saying I am certain most of youare familiar with. You can give a person a fish or you teach them to fish. Bush prevented needy people the opportunity to be taught to fish. This is me by far is the cruelest cut of them all. One can argue social programs should be cut. However when you propose cutting programs that are formed to get people out of poverty well thats just plain mean.

Referring to the Medicaid Safety Act the fact is suspened seven Medicaid regulations. Translation, these programs would've been drastically cut and some of them would be completely eliminated. These would be including sharply slashing reinbursement for public hospitals, nursing homes, etc for services from Medicaid. The result would be low income people would be less able to seek the services of these institutions. It would restict rehab services for persons with mental illness and people with developmental disabilities. Bush proposed cutting education related medicaid services including health care, outreach.

Speaking of health care. I certainly am hoping Obama's Health Care plan will include effective methods in reducing health care costs and equally important deliver quality medical care to every citizens in the US. One way may be to see if the prices of brand name pharmaceuticals could be possibly reduced. Or at least let health consumers purchase much cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and possibly Mexico. Instead of just listing the dangers of buying from foreign pharmacies, why isn't the FDA doing something about the problems. Perhaps its because this would mean less money going to some of the most profitible firms in the US, namely US Prescription Drug companies. Issues such as counterfeit meds, lack of information on the use of the specific drugs, and lastly not enough data for correct usage I think should be looked into to see if they can at least improved. I can't say if this section of the economy can be reduced. However I think its worth looking into to see if it can be done.

My point is our soon to be former president wanted to reduce the budget with greatly reducing services that are quite important to the most vulerable population of our nation. Whe pundits claim we must reduce our national spending I certainly hope they don't mean the cuts should only go to sevices, programs that are of crucial importance to needy people.

Conversely there are commentators in the more conservative political bent who complain that the Medicaid Safety Act will not only not prevent fraud in this entitlement program, it will encourage it. The result of this possibility part of the MSA is including an asset verification program so that only clients who need the medicaid programs will get it.

You may be wondering what I think should be cut. Well I can't say for certain without more information. Does the US truly need as much money as it currently spends on defense? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't. My proposal is to examine if cuts could safely be made there. How real is the threat of terrorism? Just how much military spending do we realistically need? I don't know the specifics here. I do know to me, for Obama , or any other chief executive, to spend any money on whatever without first knowing how much is really needed is definitely fiscally foolish.

Hopefully when this horribly unnecessary, wasteful war in Iraq is ended. Or at least the troops start coming home, the money spent will be now freed for social programs, education, health care, enviroment and many more necessary spendings.

NASA. I am not anti science, research. My question is can we justify the space program when there are so many problems here on earth? Many serious diseases, especially certain cancers are either effected or caused by the environment. Speaking of illnesses what is the justification of space exploration when literally tens of millions of people are suffering from serious and at times life threatening illnesses. I include mental illness here . Many people who are mentall ill are homeless. There are quite a few women who are victims of domestic abuse who in this population too. How can space exploration be helpful to them? How can you possibly say NASA is needed when there are so many problems right here on earth. Some may say that NASA does help Americans. My question is could assistance be done in a much less expensive way? That I think is something we should think about. If there is funding for NASA I believe it should be exclusively for helping with dealing with severe, dangerous weather conditions. That I think is what NASA does best.

I think goverment spending should be determined how eficient the program is. We should keep the steak and get rid of the gristle. For those who are vegetarians well make up your own analogy. The question is what is the steak and what is the gristle? I say

Learn more about this author, Lynda Kohn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.