
Originally Posted by
Ozme52
You can't deal with these as a single topic. To do so will result in never reaching consensus nor alignment.
Cutting K-12 School Funding I agree. School Funding is supposed to be locally funded. That said, locally, less administration and more education would cut costs. In California, the lottery was supposed to fill the spending gaps but they, local administrators, seem to fritter the extra money away. In the meantime, budgets swell.
No Child Left Behind Funding (Which Ironicly is his program) Sure. It's a flawed program. Causes wasted administrative spending that could go to better education. Note above.
Low Income Energy Assistance for Low Income People - Severly Cutting it, or Discontinuing this program all together No. There needs to be energy policy at the federal level... if for no other reason than leaving this solely to the utility companies puts them at the mercy of energy brokers who have no compunctions about inflating prices. Look at what Enron did to California. And as long as US Foreign Policy impacts energy prices, it needs to ameliorate those impacts for the poor and people on fixed imcomes.
The Federal Food Stamp Program I don't know. Should this be at the Federal level or the State level? Regardless, it's a pretty widely held belief we spend more money on preventing fraud in this program than we actually spend on food. Maybe more than we would spend if we just handed out food stamps to anyone who asked.
Medicare & Medcaid Funding and letting those who recieive find alternate Methods of Medical Coverage No. Not after collecting Medicare taxes from us. It's one thing to collect general taxes and have to cut a program... but to collect taxes earmarked for that program with the promise that it is going to be there when you retire, and then cut it as the majority of workers start reaching the age when they will receive the benefits, that's just wrong. As far as Medicaid is concerned, I think I have the same feeling about it as I do energy. Put restraints on the rising medical costs or assist the poor.
And Funding For all Domestic Violence Programs, this would include the stopping of Programs and Housing that Asists Women who are Victims of Domestic Violence - Severely Cut In Federal Funding Or Discontinuing Funding all together I guess this depends on whether you think this should be locally funded or federally funded. If local laws were changed so that domestic violence didn't require a complaint from the abused, in other words, if the police see a person who was beaten, that would be grounds for an arrest, arraignment, and trial, the need to provide shelters would be less.
Cutting or Discontinuing these Programs will have a catastrophic effects on those who depend on this Programs to survive,The Elderly, Those Disabled, Children ect Rhetoric. It's about whether the programs should be locally or federally funded. In a lot of cases, getting rid of federally mandated rules would leave more money for actual assistance at the local levels.
It should also be noted that aside from these cuts he wants to increase our Defense Budget Well that's wrong too. The budget was fine and ample until he started this ill-conceived war.
He said these cuts are necessary because they cost the Governement too much money annualy Yep. They do. And so do a lot more. There is indeed a lot of waste. I'm for the line item veto... which won't ever happen because the republicans and democrats both don't want it. It would give the executive branch more actual power to control spending and the legislative branches, regardless of party, don't want that.