Funny how this works, by cutting defense spending a bit, unfunding the war in Iraq (which should be ended anyway), and dropping corporate tax breaks a bit I was able to induce a huge surplus while INCREASING funding for Science, conservation, and education. Problem solved.

Budget Totals
Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $3229.7 billion
($2409.15 billion in spending, $820.55 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).
You have cut the deficit by $517.66 billion.
Your new deficit is $-116.65 billion.

Funny how this works, by cutting defense spending a bit, unfunding the war in Iraq (which should be ended anyway), and dropping corporate tax breaks a bit I was able to induce a huge surplus while INCREASING funding for Science, conservation, and education. Problem solved.

You know, while your solutions are different, it does prove the point; that the budget CAN be balanced, without raising taxes (except, in your case, on the corporate side).

I wouldn't personally choose the same budget solutions as you, but it still shows it can be done. And because it can be, it should be.

What we need to do is educate them on how to find a way out. And you can't do that by offering a free lunch.

Exactly.  Welfare programs do not encourage people to make it on their own.

Of course, this is just an intellectual exercise because if you were a real politician you know that you have to answer to PAC's, lobbyist and voters. Every program that you cut is going to lose you votes and support in the next election. We know that their job isn't representing their constituents. Their job is to get re-elected.

I think you all have been playing too much Galactic Civ... "Sure, I could eliminate the budget deficit without raising taxes! I could also have everyone abandon their jobs, head to the research center, and discover the cure for cancer in two years!"

I saw a totally detailed PDF file from the Cato Institute or somebody showing like 150 actual budget items we could cut. Wish I could locate it again for some perspective on what this exercise would look like when dealing with an actual government.

I personally cut things that I thought people could live with. Cut 100% of Social Security and you'll have people starving in the streets. Cut 20% and you'll just have rolled the program back to 1980 or so -- it wasn't a bad deal then, was it?

I eliminated the Department of Agriculture and the mortage-interest deduction, which is a historical accident from interest exemptions that were written before people had mortgages. But I didn't balance the budget.

I basically increased spending on everything by 100% and this happened...

"Your New Budget

Budget Totals
Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $6735.42 billion
($4585.75 billion in spending, $2149.67 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).
You have increased the deficit by $2988.05 billion.
Your new deficit is $3389.05 billion."

Grab a drink and enjoy the party!

The game also doesn't actually make any changes o the SS amount no matter what you do to it.

First, thanks to Draginol for the link.

Dr. Guy said:

I understand Baker's assertion, but the game does not allow you to be discretionary (perhaps that is an idea for another Stardock game) as doing so would greatly complicate the calculations.

Second, I really like Dr. Guy's suggestion here and would love to see just such a game come through.  It would be cool if it went into some depth as suggested above -- allow for a line-item type veto, and other cuts that would really show everyone where we could and couldn't cut items,  perhaps with the typical "for every action...."  outcomes for some of the cuts.  (Such as cutting medicaid might wind up adding even more costs for the economy because of sick people going into work making co-workers sick, etc.)

Anyway, something of substance in this area to play and use as a teaching tool would be quite fun.  Maybe make it highly customizable via .xml files or something that would make it easy to change some of the parameters that decide if changes made would be devastating, very bad, bad, neutral, good, very good, or outstanding (to give some terms to the outcomes that might come from making changes to various budgets).

A nice Economic Simulator would be great fun for sure.

The problem is there's no possible way deal with it accurately. They earmark money and find corrupt uses for it AFTER it is budgeted quite often. The fact that this "greatly complicates" things is their modus operandi.

If it weren't greatly complicated we'd be able to see where they steal the money. When someone needs to find a job for their cousin's construction company, they decide to build a military museum and call it "defense". When someone wants to help out a crony's business, they find a way to send aid to a nation that will be spent on the crony's goods and services.

We shouldn't be spending a DIME sending money to Egypt in military aid we'll probably end up fighting when they again attack Israel, and if you asked the average person on the street they'd agree. That's why they have to hide it in the voluminous budget, and wait until the arguing is over to earmark the money they need to steal.

I agree with Dr. Guy that it spoils the fun of the little applet, but when it comes down to it you aren't addressing the spending of our government unless you CAN address that. Anything else is just a simulation without any genuine data to use.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5969653913574416150

I personally cut things that I thought people could live with. Cut 100% of Social Security and you'll have people starving in the streets. Cut 20% and you'll just have rolled the program back to 1980 or so -- it wasn't a bad deal then, was it?

SS was one program I didn't touch. While I think it's a pyramid scheme that should be phased out, I do not at all believe that includes harming current recipients and forcing them back into the workforce. Common sense HAS to apply here.

I DO think, however, that if you forced every department to find 10% to cut and cut the "nonessential" programs more deeply, you'd find yourself in the black rather quickly. I agree, this game is oversimplistic, but it does make one think. The fact is, we can and should find ways to make the government live within its means, and we should make those means a little less extravagant.

in the short version, i cut a little over 70 billion off the budget.

in the long version, i cut 173 billion off the budget.

i didn't balance it yet, but i imagine if i could get into more detail, i could find more waste.

That makes sense, Gideon. I was thinking philosophically of cutting Social Security, but cutting it this year only hits one group of people. Gotta cut it in the 2020 budget instead.

I was able to eliminate the deficit in a single year by eliminating: * Medicaid ($253 BILLION) - note this is NOT Medicare, just Medicaid. * Eliminating Aid to low-income families ($206 BILLION) - not the federal goverment's job to pay for the poor, let charities do that and let those who have true compassion for the less fortunate give to charities.

If only our politicians were bold enough to do this. If only they had the budget-mindedness of the last President of Turkmenistan:

"Reports from Turkmenistan say President Niyazov has ordered the closure of all the hospitals in the country except those in the capital, Ashgabat... President Niyazov apparently took the decision to close the hospitals at a meeting with local officials on Monday. "Why do we need such hospitals?" he said. "If people are ill, they can come to Ashgabat."

And hey, if they don't even have the personal responsibility to get themselves to the hospital when they're sick (in a country with few paved roads), it's not the government's job to take care of them.

let charities do that and let those who have true compassion for the less fortunate give to charities.

I really can't imagine any charity or collection of charities having the resources and reach to provide housing assistance to every needy family in America. The United Way is the biggest charity and its budget is $4 billion. So saying "let it be the charities' job" is basically saying "let's see if all the charities can become 500 percent bigger overnight" (the $40 billion they raise now, plus another $200 billion.) Actually, what am I saying? I know you don't care if the charities can or will pick up the slack. What's important is that you won't have to.

I really can't imagine any charity or collection of charities having the resources and reach to provide housing assistance to every needy family in America. The United Way is the biggest charity and its budget is $4 billion. So saying "let it be the charities' job" is basically saying "let's see if all the charities can become 500 percent bigger overnight" (the $40 billion they raise now, plus another $200 billion.) Actually, what am I saying? I know you don't care if the charities can or will pick up the slack. What's important is that you won't have to.

Our current entitlement programs didn't exist until charity couldn't carry the load during the Depression. Then FDR and the government stepped in. And of course, LBJ kicked it up a notch with his great society. I don't know what would happen if we eliminated these programs now. Yes, the charities would have to help more people than they currently do but maybe some of these people will start taking care of themselves. I just would hate to see the kids going to bed hungry because of stupid decisions their parents made. Yep, my heart is bleeding.