You Fix the Budget!

The Federal budget is incredibly complex.  The New York Times has an interactive feature that allow you to fix the federal budget.  While it is now where near complete, and there is a lot cross budgeting items.  It is still fun to try.

go here and try it out. Then post what you did to solve our problem.

Keep in mind what ever the Feds don’t pay, the states may have to make up.

18 Replies to “You Fix the Budget!”

  1. Spencer

    You’re right, when you don’t indulge yourself in making any tax increases of any type or any defense cuts, you still end up with a $68 billion deficit in 2015 and only a $120 billion surplus in 2030. Obamacare pretty much makes it impossible to balance the budget without insane tax increases.
    On the other hand, anyone who still believes that the federal government will not resort to rationing of entitlement services should try checking ALL of the boxes for tax increases without making any cuts to Medicare or Social Security and see what you get. You still end up with a $120 billion shortfall by 2030 with nothing left to tax. It really is too bad that John Maynard Keynes is dead. I would love to bring him back just to see our prospects. What a hack.

  2. Darrin

    Ah caheidelberger, you points on healthcare remind me of a great quote. “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free.”

  3. springer

    The fact that Cory’s site is called turth-o-meter about statements by Obama is hilarious! Many lies are coming out about this, like the CBO was not given the correct info to score it in the first place, the doc fix wasn’t in it which would have put the cost well over the projected limit, now waivers are being given for certain parts of the bill if you are powerful enough to get one, insurance rates are rising, and on and on. This was passed in an unethical manner and was never intended to reduce the deficit, only to consolidate more power in the hands of the fed gov’t.

  4. Spencer

    Yes, I followed the link and read the article. It strongly suggests that Obama is pulling numbers out of the sky. It also states that the “cost savings” will only occur if Congress and the White House really are able to follow through with the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. As soon as they realize how pissy many seniors are going to get about getting their Medicare Advantage program cut, I would not bet on most of those cuts actually coming to fruition.

    Secondly, Obama had to do some pretty bizarre accounting to make the claim that Obamacare eats into the deficit by using federal dollars saved from changes in student loan programs and assumed delivery savings to help balance the budget of the new healthcare law. Basically, one of the key reasons it is going to be so hard to balance the budget is that Obama proposed or actually made cuts to federal spending in some areas only to turn around and promise even more entitlements. His strategy to bankrupt America is really twofold: eliminate all the low-hanging fruit while making even more unsustainable promises to more people.

  5. Voter

    I couldn’t find the button to stop paying unmarried women to have more children.
    I couldn’t find the buttons to eliminate and totally defund the Dept. of Energy, Education and Housing and Urban Development. Eliminate those departments and let each state deal with their own.
    I also couldn’t find the eliminate Medicaid button–make taking care of the poor and sick a state and local issue with no help (or taxes) from the Fed. Look how fast the illegals will go home (or be sent home.)

  6. Ranger

    Voter, I couldn’t find those buttons either. I also wasn’t allowed to eliminate the Dept. of Ag or turn all federal land back to the states and eliminate the Forest Service and National Park federal employees. There wasn’t a button to privatize Social Security and allow people to opt out of the program. How many trillions could we save if they put us in charge?

  7. Dave R

    Voter: Yeah. I have taken similar budget games before, this one is particularly limited. The NYT makes numerous assumptions and avoids serious cuts that they wouldn’t like ideologically.

  8. Jeff J.

    I took care of it with a surplus in both 2015 and in the out years (I didn’t actually look at what the surplus would be) by cutting spending on domestic spending and a little bit on the military. I also (shockingly) agreed to some tax increased. I guess a little compromise is alright sometimes. In the end, my plan called for 75% spening cuts and 25% tax increases.

    Of course it didn’t give me the optoin to target my cuts, like cutting the department of education or the EPA.

  9. Troy Jones

    Bill Buckley said we’d be better off if we picked 535 names randomly from the phone book for members of Congress.

    Maybe it should be the SDWC?

  10. MC Post author

    What a some people are forgetting, just because they cut the funds, doesn’t mean the need has gone away.

  11. William

    Or that the needs would not be served better without Federal intervention. Most of life’s problems are NOT Federal issues.

  12. Stan Gibilisco

    Check Cory’s “$330 billion surplus” link (first comment here); I beat him by quite a margin.

    Didn’t shut down the whole government, and didn’t include a value-added tax.

    I did allow for raising the eligibility age for Social Security.

    Also, I figured that we can slash the defense budget considerably, making it a lot leaner (fewer boots on the ground, for example) and a lot meaner (extreme espionage and taking out rogue reactors, for example).

    I actually like the Simpson-Bowles proposal. The other one that came out from a think tank shortly thereafter, not so much.