3 ms·

Might be before your time (1993): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnersh

by xnx 1y ago

Might be before your time (1993): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinv... > elimination of over 100 programs, the elimination of over 250,000 federal jobs, the consolidation of over 800 agencies Didn't solve all budget issues, but was a legitimate and meaningful effort to reduce waste. Polar opposite of DOGE.

orwin 1y ago
But it took 5 year, that's slow and inefficient! DOGE can't be slow and inefficient because it's lead by corporate america, not bureaucratic america.
tim333 1y ago
Yeah, and the results: >He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2023. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget I don't really understand why they can't do something like that which was carefully thought out and worked, rather than the present mess. I realise carefully thought out doesn't really go with the current president but I actually had hopes Musk might do something sane.
- ndiddy 1y ago
  I think the demographic situation is one difference. The population was younger in 1998-2001 than today, so less of the population was on Social Security/Medicare than now. The article mentions that the increase in spending today is mainly due to Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. To illustrate my point, last year the budget was $6.75 trillion and the deficit was $1.83 trillion. Discretionary spending only made up $1.72 trillion of the budget. This means that if Congress decided the federal government shouldn't do anything and cut 100% of discretionary spending, we would still have a slight deficit. It's possible to increase taxes to counteract this, but last year the government only brought in $4.92 trillion so the increase would be significant (and therefore unpopular). If we wanted to continue the surplus, we'd also have to keep increasing taxes through the late 2040s as the proportion of the population on Social Security and Medicare continues to increase. Given that we haven't fixed things for the past 45 years when they would have been a lot easier to fix, I don't see the political will for both spending cuts and massive tax increases to materialize anytime soon.
- jfengel 1y ago
  Clinton's budget surpluses had more to do with the dotcom boom than with his spending plans. Federal spending continued to rise all through the 90s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W019RCQ027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W019RCQ027SBEA Budgets were balanced by slightly higher tax rates, and a whole lot of capital gains to tax. We've got a massive market bubble right now, and could potentially make a dent in the deficit by taxing it. The deficit has grown so much since the 90s that you couldn't come anywhere close to balancing it even with an aggressive tax regime, but it would be much more effective than haphazardly firing Federal employees. We did actually raise taxes a bit -- or rather, tariffs. They've taken in about $150B, more than DOGE has done. But that comes mostly from the poor and middle class, and doesn't come anywhere close to balancing the tax cuts (which go primarily to the upper class).

by xnx 1y ago

orwin 1y ago

But it took 5 year, that's slow and inefficient! DOGE can't be slow and inefficient because it's lead by corporate america, not bureaucratic america.

tim333 1y ago

Yeah, and the results: >He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2023. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget I don't really understand why they can't do something like that which was carefully thought out and worked, rather than the present mess. I realise carefully thought out doesn't really go with the current president but I actually had hopes Musk might do something sane.

ndiddy 1y ago
I think the demographic situation is one difference. The population was younger in 1998-2001 than today, so less of the population was on Social Security/Medicare than now. The article mentions that the increase in spending today is mainly due to Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. To illustrate my point, last year the budget was $6.75 trillion and the deficit was $1.83 trillion. Discretionary spending only made up $1.72 trillion of the budget. This means that if Congress decided the federal government shouldn't do anything and cut 100% of discretionary spending, we would still have a slight deficit. It's possible to increase taxes to counteract this, but last year the government only brought in $4.92 trillion so the increase would be significant (and therefore unpopular). If we wanted to continue the surplus, we'd also have to keep increasing taxes through the late 2040s as the proportion of the population on Social Security and Medicare continues to increase. Given that we haven't fixed things for the past 45 years when they would have been a lot easier to fix, I don't see the political will for both spending cuts and massive tax increases to materialize anytime soon.
jfengel 1y ago
Clinton's budget surpluses had more to do with the dotcom boom than with his spending plans. Federal spending continued to rise all through the 90s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W019RCQ027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W019RCQ027SBEA Budgets were balanced by slightly higher tax rates, and a whole lot of capital gains to tax. We've got a massive market bubble right now, and could potentially make a dent in the deficit by taxing it. The deficit has grown so much since the 90s that you couldn't come anywhere close to balancing it even with an aggressive tax regime, but it would be much more effective than haphazardly firing Federal employees. We did actually raise taxes a bit -- or rather, tariffs. They've taken in about $150B, more than DOGE has done. But that comes mostly from the poor and middle class, and doesn't come anywhere close to balancing the tax cuts (which go primarily to the upper class).