Esquire,You are right, we don't need so many bases around the world. If
other nations want us there to help with their defense, they should more than
just reimburse us.I'll take your word for it on how much of the
budget earmarks are, but they are the low hanging fruit. If congress can't
eliminate that very easy discretionary spending, how do you expect them to make
the tough calls?As for means testing social security - what you get
out is based on what you put in. To implement means tests would further pervert
SS.Or what about the case of someone who was at the poverty level
throughout their working life, but because of hard work and thrift set aside
enough money for a reasonably comfortable retirement? Should they be denied
what they paid in poverty because now they are no longer poor?
It's not just the Dems, lots of GOP'ers feel the same. Earmarks have a role,
and they only make up about 3/10 of 1% of the budget, if that. Discretionary
domestic spending is not really the problem, though there needs to be some
fixes. Look a military spending. Do we really need 700 bases around the world?
How about national security programs. Do we need over 800,000 people with
security clearances, a huge percentage who are contractors? How about means
testing social security? And sometimes you need to spend money to make money.
But when the economy turns around, and the government see more revenue, everyone
will drop back into the status quo. You watch. The Republicans have a history
of being demagogues on this issue.