SPENDING PRIORITIES ASKEW

The Federal Budget is for better or worse subject to the priorities set by Congress. What those priorities SHOULD be is a matter of opinion, and no ne can be certain what course of action is best to follow.

Without doubt the Federal Budget should provide funding for those functions enumerated in the Constitution, but those all tend to included in the discretionary budget. Congress has over the years catered to special interests and decreed that vast sums will be spent for socially worthwhile programs. Once enacted these programs NEVER die, they just become more and more expensive. I personally believe that the discretionary budget needs to be as carefully pared down as the closure of obsolete military bases so beloved of Congressmen.

Everyone is opposed to excessive spending (whatever that is). However, we are spending really huge amounts on terrible programs. For instance, the tax expenditures for the super-rich run into the trillions. The prescription-drug program is, considering it on a cost/benefit basis, a waste of really huge sums. We are spending over $400 B on a gilt-edged military. That program contains huge waste, such as an excessive number of carrier groups.

I agree in general, but disagree that money spent on the military is inappropriate. If anything, I'd like the Navy to have more and more modern ships afloat. These are assets that are necessary for diplomacy to be effective, and in the final analysis they are our best means of projecting power abroad. I strongly favor the all-volunteer Army, but think it too small and without a sufficient logistical tail. Since the middle of the 20th century air superiority has been repeatedly shown to be essential. We are ahead of the world in military aviation technology, and we must retain that lead. All that costs money. Fail to spend the requisite money, and some future battle may be lost.

"Gilt-edged military?" Our career military are fundamental to preserving this country. They sacrifice much, sometimes even their lives for the country, yet a highly trained and skilled soldier makes only a fraction of the salary in private industry. Military benefits have slowly been eroding at least since the end of the Cold War. We have the best military in the world, and they are as often under attack at home as abroad.

You've mentioned the prescription drug program. Without that program, I personally couldn't afford the medications my doctor prescribes. I'm not by any means the poorest retiree around, yet that Social Security check has saved our bacon on more than one occasion. There are children suffering from diseases that would have been fatal only 60 years ago, who now can look forward to long productive lives because the government makes some medical care available. The costs of medical care have skyrocketed far faster than the National Debt, and touch more closely on more lives. Yet, I personally dislike even the suggestion of socialized medicine managed by the government. What do you suggest might be done to cut the costs of medical care while slashing those portions of the non-discretionary budget?

Do the super-rich really have trillions of dollars in entitlements? Who are the super-rich, and what entitlements do you mean? Social Security and Medicare should surely be equally available to all who have met the qualifications for them. If a person owns a lot of stock in a corporation, and as a result of, say farm subsidies, shouldn't they reward the management of the corporation for their prosperity?

I think there should be financial oversight for military and all other spending. Don't you? Would you give the military everything it asks for? You evidently support base closings. The number of carrier groups, which are quite vulnerable in a modern war, should be debated. The B-2 bomber is a disaster. It costs over $2 B a copy, is subsonic, and is really not that stealthy. It is basically pork spending.

It is interesting that the top 28,000 earners make more than the bottom 96,000,000 people, and yet received large tax cuts. The vast majority of tax-cut dollars went to the top 2 % in income, and these cuts are costing trillions over term.

I think there should be a single-payer health-insurance plan. The payer could be a nonprofit. Now, we have about 90 million without, or having inadequate, insurance. People can't afford their meds. Many are, in essence, being told to drop dead. In the rich countries, we are at the bottom of the list for life expectance. The prescription drug program is horrible regarding cost/benefit. Much of the govt. expense goes to cover grants to health and drug companies, and the govt. cannot negotiate lower drug costs. I could go on about this program, but will let you look it up.

Advocate,

First, I apologize for letting my rhetoric get away from me above.

I agree, that all Federal spending has to be monitored, and the GAO has done a pretty good job of that. Even without teeth the GAO performs a valuable service to the nation. There have been military spenmding boondogles in the past, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. On the other hand, what is a boondogle to one, is worthwhile to another. I and many others, for instance, do not share your feeling about money being wasted on carrier groups ... or advanced aircraft design either.

I don't have to be convinced that the medical coverage currently available is both inadequate to the need, and with terribly poofed up costs that will be passed along to the taxpayer. The doctor comes in and says, "howdy", and then goes back to his office and bills the government $1000 for consultations. In order to minimize those, and even worse practices, we have to keep a hungry army of auditors at work (and each of them has their own means of boosting personal income from the programs).

As you may know, congress frequently forces the military to continue to spend on a bad program. This is the case regarding the B-2 and several other planes. Parts of the B-2 are produced in virtually every congressional district in the country.