money to burn
Sep. 29th, 2005 03:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hnpccOK, is it wrong to find it amusing that part of the money for rebuilding New Orleans is coming from cutting research into alternative energy resources?
Mind you, there are some very interesting things that they're no longer funding in there. Some of my favourites:
Level Funding for U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
The United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N. peacekeeping budget. Current military obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including U.S. peacekeeping efforts in the region, are not deducted from what the U.N. assesses the U.S. in dues. Freezing the account maintains current commitments, while recognizing the need for other countries to support additional peacekeeping expenses. Savings: $1.3 billion over ten years ($500 million over five years)
OK, so we'll invade but you guys get to clean up, mm'kay? And besides, isn't that Halliburton's job?
Eliminate International Fund for Ireland
This is a targeted economic development grant program for Northern Ireland, an economy that has seen marked improvement and an area that has lower unemployment than the U.S. Savings: $195 million over ten years ($75 million over five years)
They were funding Northern Ireland? Why? And I'm just curious as to how much of the money ended up in non-government hands here...
Eliminate Money-Losing Timber Sales
Timber sales in the National Forest System, under the direction of the Forest Service, are incurring more administrative costs then revenues collected from harvesting the timber. According to CBO, in 2002, program costs exceeded timber sales by $146 million. Eliminating timber sales in four regions where expenditures were more than twice the receipts would save money and lessen the depletion of timber resources. Savings: $1.6 billion over ten years ($710 million over five years)
This one I'm thinking of as the "Bill Bryson" initiative.
Eliminate the Essential Air Service
Essential Air Service subsidizes air service in communities with federally mandated service before deregulation in 1978. The cost per passenger has gone as high as $500, but averages around $200. Given the proliferation of options, many travelers prefer to drive to a larger airport where they can find an even better fare than a subsidized flight from the small community. If small communities consider air service important, they could provide these subsidies themselves. Savings: $1.1 billion over 10 years ($525 million over five years)
Well they're not really going to have much choice in it, are they? (OK, this would be the Australian bit going "?!?")
Eliminate Teen Funding Portion of Title X Family Planning
HHS reports that 1/3 of Title X clients are teens. The program was designed in the 1970s to pay for family planning for the poor. Federal regulations allow teenagers to qualify on their own income as “poor” and thus qualify for free and reduced-priced contraceptives, including the IUD, the injection drug Depo-Provera, and the morning-after pill to teenagers, without any parental involvement or consent. $286 million is spent on the program each year, and if 1/3 of funds spent are spent on teens, that totals $95 million per year. Savings: $1.3 billion over 10 years ($511 million over five years)
Cos if you eliminate this, you can blame them when they get pregnant and then stigmatise them as either single mothers or abortees. Or something. Damn those teenagers trying to do something about contraception!
Eliminate School Lunches for Students Above 350% of Poverty
The School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program provide funds that enable participating schools to offer subsidized meals to students. For the 2004-2005 school year the federal subsidy was $0.21 per full price lunch and $0.23 per full price breakfast. This option would eliminate the breakfast and lunch subsidy for full-price meals for students whose household income is above 350 percent of the poverty line, while increasing the subsidy for reduced-price meals (both breakfast and lunch) by $0.20. Savings: $6.7 billion over ten years ($3.2 billion over five years)
You know, this one I find kind of sad actually.
United States Postal Service Revenue Foregone
This program reimburses USPS for prior years’ lost revenue from legislatively mandated reduced rates to non-profit mailers. The President’s 2005 Budget proposed to discontinue this reimbursement. During the 2005 budget process, the House agreed to discontinue the reimbursement but the Senate did not. Lowered USPS pension payments more than compensate the organization for the loss of this small revenue foregone, and the appropriation should be terminated. Savings: $598 million over ten years ($231 million over five years)
OK, so we'll lower the pensions of the ex-employees to cover it. Wanna do the same thing for ex-Congress members and Senators? Cos you'd save billions that way...
Decline Member Pay Raise
A pay increase for Members of Congress is automatic under existing law and amendments blocking its enactment were out of order during appropriations consideration this year. In light of unwarranted fiscal constraints, Members of Congress could temporarily forgo their pay increases. Savings: $24 million over ten years ($9 million over five years)
How about they go back a couple of years? Then they'll save even more! And you notice it's only a temporary measure.. actually this could solve the budget deficit! Make up the deficit with Congress' salaries! If it works for USPS retirees...
Reduce Funding for the Centers for Disease Control
Under the House-passed appropriation level, the CDC’s funding increased 25% over last year, a significant infusion given the current fiscal situation. Savings: $25 billion over ten years ($9.7 billion over five years)
Hmm, now why was it increased again? Oh yeah, anthrax. Flu, anyone for flu...?
Eliminate the Applied Research for Renewable Energy Sources Program
The Applied Research for Renewable Energy Sources program funds research and development of renewable sources of energy, including developing alternative liquid fuels from biomass. However, such research is already subsidized through the tax code, and the development of applied energy technology is not necessarily a proper role for the federal government. Savings: $4.2 billion over ten years ($2 billion over five years)
*giggle* Oh c'mon, it's amusing. Nah, seriously, it is. :-)
Eliminate the Clean Coal Technology Program
The Clean Coal Technology program provides government financing for new coal technology research and development. The private sector has a competitive incentive to conduct this research and develop these technologies and would continue to move forward without government support. For example, GE is currently running privately funded TV commercials on network, advertising their coal technology advancements. Savings: $543 million over ten years ($259 million over five years)
As is this. OK, I have a strange sense of humour.
Eliminate Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, unveiled by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address, is a new $720 million research and development initiative for hydrogen as a transportation fuel, aimed at developing the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. Elimination of this initiative will produce significant overall savings. Furthermore, private industry is better equipped to develop future fuel technologies within the free market. Savings: $2.5 billion over ten years ($985 million over five years)
Well that lasted a good... ooh, nearly two years!
OK, I'm stopping laughing now.
Mind you, there are some very interesting things that they're no longer funding in there. Some of my favourites:
Level Funding for U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
The United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N. peacekeeping budget. Current military obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including U.S. peacekeeping efforts in the region, are not deducted from what the U.N. assesses the U.S. in dues. Freezing the account maintains current commitments, while recognizing the need for other countries to support additional peacekeeping expenses. Savings: $1.3 billion over ten years ($500 million over five years)
OK, so we'll invade but you guys get to clean up, mm'kay? And besides, isn't that Halliburton's job?
Eliminate International Fund for Ireland
This is a targeted economic development grant program for Northern Ireland, an economy that has seen marked improvement and an area that has lower unemployment than the U.S. Savings: $195 million over ten years ($75 million over five years)
They were funding Northern Ireland? Why? And I'm just curious as to how much of the money ended up in non-government hands here...
Eliminate Money-Losing Timber Sales
Timber sales in the National Forest System, under the direction of the Forest Service, are incurring more administrative costs then revenues collected from harvesting the timber. According to CBO, in 2002, program costs exceeded timber sales by $146 million. Eliminating timber sales in four regions where expenditures were more than twice the receipts would save money and lessen the depletion of timber resources. Savings: $1.6 billion over ten years ($710 million over five years)
This one I'm thinking of as the "Bill Bryson" initiative.
Eliminate the Essential Air Service
Essential Air Service subsidizes air service in communities with federally mandated service before deregulation in 1978. The cost per passenger has gone as high as $500, but averages around $200. Given the proliferation of options, many travelers prefer to drive to a larger airport where they can find an even better fare than a subsidized flight from the small community. If small communities consider air service important, they could provide these subsidies themselves. Savings: $1.1 billion over 10 years ($525 million over five years)
Well they're not really going to have much choice in it, are they? (OK, this would be the Australian bit going "?!?")
Eliminate Teen Funding Portion of Title X Family Planning
HHS reports that 1/3 of Title X clients are teens. The program was designed in the 1970s to pay for family planning for the poor. Federal regulations allow teenagers to qualify on their own income as “poor” and thus qualify for free and reduced-priced contraceptives, including the IUD, the injection drug Depo-Provera, and the morning-after pill to teenagers, without any parental involvement or consent. $286 million is spent on the program each year, and if 1/3 of funds spent are spent on teens, that totals $95 million per year. Savings: $1.3 billion over 10 years ($511 million over five years)
Cos if you eliminate this, you can blame them when they get pregnant and then stigmatise them as either single mothers or abortees. Or something. Damn those teenagers trying to do something about contraception!
Eliminate School Lunches for Students Above 350% of Poverty
The School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program provide funds that enable participating schools to offer subsidized meals to students. For the 2004-2005 school year the federal subsidy was $0.21 per full price lunch and $0.23 per full price breakfast. This option would eliminate the breakfast and lunch subsidy for full-price meals for students whose household income is above 350 percent of the poverty line, while increasing the subsidy for reduced-price meals (both breakfast and lunch) by $0.20. Savings: $6.7 billion over ten years ($3.2 billion over five years)
You know, this one I find kind of sad actually.
United States Postal Service Revenue Foregone
This program reimburses USPS for prior years’ lost revenue from legislatively mandated reduced rates to non-profit mailers. The President’s 2005 Budget proposed to discontinue this reimbursement. During the 2005 budget process, the House agreed to discontinue the reimbursement but the Senate did not. Lowered USPS pension payments more than compensate the organization for the loss of this small revenue foregone, and the appropriation should be terminated. Savings: $598 million over ten years ($231 million over five years)
OK, so we'll lower the pensions of the ex-employees to cover it. Wanna do the same thing for ex-Congress members and Senators? Cos you'd save billions that way...
Decline Member Pay Raise
A pay increase for Members of Congress is automatic under existing law and amendments blocking its enactment were out of order during appropriations consideration this year. In light of unwarranted fiscal constraints, Members of Congress could temporarily forgo their pay increases. Savings: $24 million over ten years ($9 million over five years)
How about they go back a couple of years? Then they'll save even more! And you notice it's only a temporary measure.. actually this could solve the budget deficit! Make up the deficit with Congress' salaries! If it works for USPS retirees...
Reduce Funding for the Centers for Disease Control
Under the House-passed appropriation level, the CDC’s funding increased 25% over last year, a significant infusion given the current fiscal situation. Savings: $25 billion over ten years ($9.7 billion over five years)
Hmm, now why was it increased again? Oh yeah, anthrax. Flu, anyone for flu...?
Eliminate the Applied Research for Renewable Energy Sources Program
The Applied Research for Renewable Energy Sources program funds research and development of renewable sources of energy, including developing alternative liquid fuels from biomass. However, such research is already subsidized through the tax code, and the development of applied energy technology is not necessarily a proper role for the federal government. Savings: $4.2 billion over ten years ($2 billion over five years)
*giggle* Oh c'mon, it's amusing. Nah, seriously, it is. :-)
Eliminate the Clean Coal Technology Program
The Clean Coal Technology program provides government financing for new coal technology research and development. The private sector has a competitive incentive to conduct this research and develop these technologies and would continue to move forward without government support. For example, GE is currently running privately funded TV commercials on network, advertising their coal technology advancements. Savings: $543 million over ten years ($259 million over five years)
As is this. OK, I have a strange sense of humour.
Eliminate Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, unveiled by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address, is a new $720 million research and development initiative for hydrogen as a transportation fuel, aimed at developing the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. Elimination of this initiative will produce significant overall savings. Furthermore, private industry is better equipped to develop future fuel technologies within the free market. Savings: $2.5 billion over ten years ($985 million over five years)
Well that lasted a good... ooh, nearly two years!
OK, I'm stopping laughing now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-29 10:12 am (UTC)*bangs head on wall*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 01:57 pm (UTC)School lunch prices are set by the individual districts, but from my experience moving around a lot as a child, the regular price lunch is around $1.25-$1.50 in K-6 and $2.00-$2.50 in 7-12. The only time I ever ate breakfast at school was in 7th grade, and it was $0.50 for cereal and milk, $0.75 if you wanted an extra carton to drink. Those prices may be slightly out of date due to my age, but they can't have gone up much; I only graduated from high school in '99. The point is, they're very cheap.
And in many districts there's no oversight on who qualifies for a reduced-price or even free lunch. In fact, the prices on lunches for everyone else were higher in districts where a significant portion of the student body was given reduced-price lunch (an informal observation, to be sure, but there was one school in there where I only knew for sure of two other people paying full price for their lunch--everybody else I ever stood behind in line paid the reduced price). In many of these districts, filling out the request form and not being obviously unqualified or obviously lying is all that's required. I knew students who would admit that their parents were only listing one job on the form specifically so their child(ren) could qualify for free or reduced lunch.
So really I have no sympathy. School lunches are already so cheap that they don't cover the cost of the food being served, and I've seen enough abuse of the system that I really have no sympathy at all.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 03:33 am (UTC)The sad comment was in reference to how much the subsidy was - I have no idea how much the overall meal costs, although I know it's approx 32p/meal in the UK (thank you Jamie's School Dinners, and I don't imagine it's much more in the US. It was more a comment from a public health perspective, to be honest: it amazes me sometimes how little value we put on healthy food in schools.
Actually while I'm on this, do they teach cooking in American schools? (Sorry, you are my current expert on US schools. At least you're the most accessible right at this moment!) I mean, is there a junior high subject (or two) which is basically food preparation? We did home economics in years 7 and 8, and then there were various food/nutrition subjects up to year 12. I was wondering for several reasons, not least the problems with teaching cooking when people have different food allergies/intolerances, won't eat various things, ethical food issues etc.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 03:07 pm (UTC)Nutrition is covered in Health class (in this state, a required half-year class). In fact, nutrition (with a bit of substance abuse prevention) is pretty much all that was covered in the health classes I was forced to take, since here in Texas, they really don't teach sex education since the parents get so angry about it. Which relates to one of your other points...
But really, education varies a lot from state to state. Really I'm only an expert on Texas schools, since every state has its own regulations on what classes students are required to take and what is taught in them.
Incidentally, I did spend a year at a junior high in Kansas, and the health class I took there covered mostly substance abuse and sex education, with some nutrition thrown in there as an afterthought.