Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (372884)	3/6/2008 11:15:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575765

It would be awkward all over the place. But if your going to control spending you need some "awkward". The fact that they paid a dedicated tax doesn't make it much different than programs that are funded by non-dedicated taxes, the more important issue is the fact that people have come to depend on the money, basing their life decisions around expecting to get it. Cutting many federal transfers would be awkward, as would defense, mostly for other reasons, and other areas. One point is that "zero based budgeting" doesn't necessarily imply cuts. The most extreme form would suggest unrealistic up and down moves, which probably should be smoothed out a bit, but I think its a good idea not to consider the level of any federal spending area to be untouchable, or to automatically climb upwards. If zero based budgeting is to much for people, than an alternative would be "no increase based budgeting", where every increase has to be considered and justified, and a slowdown in the rate of increase is still considered an increase not a cut.