Jude 2

My wife made a suggestion last night that I thought worthy of consideration. As we watched Endeavor launch into space she quipped "look there goes our taxes, benifits, and national debt payments up in flames."

If we were to nix the space program, or at least make it inactive for a period of time, how much would that reduce the annual budget? And what if any effect would that ahve on the national debt?

What other federally funded programs could be cut without actually stopping the operation of our government?

Actually, the space program is one of the few government programs that makes money.

We allowcate about 2 billion a year. It returns generally more than that in payload costs to private industry. Many of the items you get for cheap right now were developed on the Shuttle. It is a good business venture. That is why private corporations are getting into the space business. We recoup more than you can imagine. It is very low cost for the benefit.

Where can we cut the budget? I have never known why the President needs a 747. He could do just as well with a smaller and more efficient aircraft.

This president won't need nearly as many body guards. NO one will attempt to bother him......no one would want Joe Biden and Nancy Pellosi.

Seriously, we could cut half of the budget in just what Palin suggested......a good red ink marker that cut out pork barrell spending. Halt all of that mess for about two years and we could balance the budget.

I could give you many ways to cut it.....no raises for elected officals. No retirement for anyone serving less than 20 years in the Senate or the HOuse.....No retirement for former presidents. They make enough on their books, speaking engagments, etc. Anyone who has a net worth of more than 10 Million should not be paid for being an elected official.

I could go on for hours.....but do NOT cut the space program. It has more benefits to us than we can ever know.....just google that puppy and see what it brings to the table.

Poimen wrote:What other federally funded programs could be cut without actually stopping the operation of our government?

I think we need to get out of the business of funnelling locally spent money through Washington DC. States should be in charge of their own health care, medicare, public schools funding. This would put these programs into a competitive market, which would lower costs and increase the quality of service. It would also stop the ravage that earmarks have on the political process in Washington. The federal goverment should be responsible for things like the military and the interstate road system, but the states should keep much of their money at home and take ownership of their own programs and services.

You are exactly right Tim.....but we now have a president who wants to have it all come from "Big Brother".

It could take months to formulate an answer to this question. I think we should start with a thorough audit of the books, then see where we are bleeding money and act accordingly.

Dr. Ron wrote:but we now have a president who wants to have it all come from "Big Brother".

Ron, we probably have a president who will be a little more fiscally responsible than Bush was. I didn't hear you complaining about doubling the national debt in the last eight years under Republican leadership.