No. of Recommendations: 15
>> He points to agriculture subsidies, such as the sugar subsidy--that Citizens Against Government Waste says inflates the U.S. price of sugar to nearly twice the world average sugar price--as one of the areas where outdated programs are draining taxpayers’ wallets unnecessarily.

“It's an old style Soviet command and control program,” Schatz says. “By eliminating the sugar program, tax payers could save $1.2 billion in one year and $6 billion over five years.”

After sugar, Schatz says the next program that is in need of reform is dairy.

“Also an old-fashioned program,” he says. “The price of milk is based on the distance from which it’s produced from Eau Claire, Wis.—very old-fashioned way to produce milk. Savings there: $1.1 billion in one year, and $5.7 billion over five years.”
.....
Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that there are between 55,000 and 77,000 government buildings sitting empty and unused across the country <<
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/waste-fou...

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here is link tofull list of cuts:
http://cagw.org/sites/default/files/users/user1/2013%20Prime...

The heavy hitters in cuts are in 2 areas 1)defense 2)entitlements.

Of course that is because you have to go where the money is spent. I could live with the cuts; but politicians would find it untenable as it could cost them re-election.

Following CAGW cuts would save $2 trillion in 5 years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Federulers are slowly selling bldgs and properties off.

www.gsaauctions

- left margin click on property/real estate
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I question that list because it does not seem to include corn. Corn subsidies are number 1 last I knew. Most of which goes to feed and corn products (e.g. HFCS), not ears and niblets consumed directly by people.

Here's a chart from 2005 data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_farm_subsidi...

Sugar is egregious, too, but it doesn't even make that list.

This more-recent paper (2009) seems to lump corn and soy together at $4.9B per year. Pretty sure corn gets the lion's share of that, but even if it's only half that's still more than the quoted sugar subsidy in the OP ($1.2B).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit...

From a health standpoint corn is also the worst thing to subsidize.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tgrmn shares, "The Federulers are slowly selling bldgs and properties off."

------------------


"All the Federalies say,
could've had him any day,
but they let him slip away,
out of kindness I suppose,"

Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard...Pancho and Lefty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzJAF1BxP4

Great song!


Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
He points to agriculture subsidies, such as the sugar subsidy--that Citizens Against Government Waste says inflates the U.S. price of sugar to nearly twice the world average sugar price--as one of the areas where outdated programs are draining taxpayers’ wallets unnecessarily.


Not only does this cost the taxpayer money, it substantially increases prices consumers pay and it is destructive to all industries that use sugar as a raw material, which are put at a considerable disadvantage to foreign producers.
Society would be better off if the money was piled up and burned.
While not all taxpayer money is spent wisely, you can usually make a case for any particular expenditure; not in this instance. This is government waste writ large.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I certainly wouldn't wait for Obama to do anything about it.

Look at what O Man said in 2007-2008

"President-elect Barack Obama vowed today to get rid of federal programs that no longer make sense and run others in a more frugal way to make Washington work in tough economic times.

Obama said that to make the needed investments to create jobs, "we also have to shed the spending we don't need."

"In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative," Obama said. "We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

He introduced the man who will be largely responsible for the budget, Peter Orszag, who will be director of the Office of Management and Budget and is now director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Obama said that Orszag "knows where the bodies are buried. "He knows what works, and what doesn't," he said.

"



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/20...
Print the post Back To Top