"The complex network of 18 food assistance programs emerged piecemeal over the past several decades to meet various needs. Agency officials and local providers told us that the multiple food assistance programs help to increase access to food for vulnerable or target populations. However, the 18 food assistance programs show signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and lead to inefficient use of resources. For example, some of the programs provide comparable benefits to similar target populations. Further, overlapping eligibility requirements create duplicative work for both service providers and applicants." - http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-346
Easy I am only talking about eliminating waste - NOT eliminating the entire program. Is it really cost effective to have 18 food assistance programs? I mean we can't consolidate them down to say 4 or 5 programs.
Homelessness Programs Overlap - http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590782.pdf
Why are there 8 different agencies in charge of helping the homeless? Why can't there just be 1 agency.
Easy you obviously aren't majoring in business, but come on, is it really that hard to understand that our Government is filled with waste that could be cut without doing any damage to anyone except the politicians.
So Obama can't be held accountable for anything - not even the plan that he put forward? We should just ignore the fact he has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP and owns the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. You believe the government is running at peak efficiency and contains absolutely zero waste. Clearly, it makes sense to have food assistance in this country be carried out through 18 duplicate government programs. Just business as usual that we have 8 different agencies supervising programs for the homeless. Do you honestly believe this would pass in the private sector.
We didn't any get real cuts to spending with the sequester. Compare the 2012 budget to the 2013 budget - did it the stay the same, get reduced, or did it increase?
Answer - It INCREASED. Yet, the progressives declare that the sequester was some huge cut to the budget. This is called a Fail.
So, Obama can keep trying to inflict maximum pain by going after the most visible and popular governmental services, but so far the public ain't falling for it, despite what some of the delusional people commenting on this board like to think.
Also, thinking Easy would be a good lawyer based off his illogical rants on this board is funny. Lawyers have to be able to argue both sides of an issue, something that Easy clearly cannot do.
Federal Spending 2012 = $3.53 trillion
Obama 2013 budget request = $3.59 trillion
After Sequester = 3.55 trillion
OMG!!! With the sequester there is Gasp only an INCREASE of about $25 billion over the previous year. Doesn't the public know that the government is the epitome of efficiency. You would have to be crazy to think that the government has any sort of waste.
We all know that any half competent manager would demand agencies cut the lowest priority spending in their budget. You know maybe cut back on travel, go after excessive pay, or perhaps reduce staffing.
Surely President Obama wouldn't try to inflict maximum pain on the public by cutting vital services first. I mean there is just no way - because if that were true it would mean he is completely incompetent as a manager.
Wow, I never knew Economics was so black and white. Find some flaws in one study and so now it's all aboard the Krugman Express. WOOOO WOOOOO!!!! Who cares about inflation or increasing taxes or the ratio of GDP to debt. None of this matters anymore - Yippee!!! Crank up the printing press boys and let's double down on the ideas of our Big Government messiah John Maynard Keynes.
I mean what's the worst that can happen?
Rick no one thinks we should eliminate all regulations and become an unrestricted free market. Furthermore, no one talks about trickle down economics except for liberals. There is not one economist that has ever even argued for such a thing. You can criticize the right's position, but at least try and have a basic understanding of what you are criticizing first.
So Obama and the liberals kept saying that they deserve a vote. Well they got a vote and because it didn't go his way that means he gets to throw a tantrum about it - Ridiculous.
Your point Easy? Or you just showing everyone that you can type the phrase "opt of social security" into google and copy and paste the first result you get?
How about letting me and others who so desire opt out of Social Security? I will agree to never accept a social security check once I retire. And heck, I will even let the government keep all that money that they have squared away for me in the old "magical lock-box" free and clear. What is wrong with this idea? How in the world is this not fair?
CPI reform is not Social Security reform, it is correcting how we measure inflation. I'm glad that Obama acknowledged this needs to be fixed. The fact Democrats are freaking out over a technical correction so we can accurately measure inflation shows they are not serious about fixing Social Security. We need real Social Security reform and this is just a small step in the right direction.
Sadly, people have been lied to about Social Security. People have been told that it is a retirement insurance program where contributions are linked to benefits. In reality, however, it is a transfer of income from workers/self-employed to retired people. The Baby Boomers better wake up and realize that Social Security is broke before it is too late.