A common fallacy Frank is that serious deficient reduction can occur by eliminating so called waste in the federal budget. The good news is we have experts that determine such things so we donít have to count on tea party types and delusionary individuals like you when it comes to dealing with whatís real.<quoted text>A two percent cut off the bottom line doesn't have to mean any one person losing their job. Government entities already add two to six percent to their projections every year. In most cases the two percent plus is less than their projected increase and their total expenditures will still be more than the last year and much more than their 2008 expenditures. In most cases they can save far more than two and a half percent by merely cutting waste,maybe buy less erasers,paper clips or ink pens. Government agencies could cut the expenses they waste on things like seminars,where they fly hundreds to Las Vegas for four days to attend a sixty three minute meeting.
CBO estimates that, if no legislation originating from the deficit reduction committee was enacted, the automatic enforcement process specified in the Budget Control Act would produce the following results between 2013 and 2021:
Reductions ranging from 10.0 percent (in 2013) to 8.5 percent (in 2021) in the caps on new discretionary appropriations for defense programs, yielding total outlay savings of $454 billion.
Reductions ranging from 7.8 percent (in 2013) to 5.5 percent (in 2021) in the caps on new discretionary appropriations for nondefense programs, resulting in outlay savings of $294 billion.
Reductions ranging from 10.0 percent (in 2013) to 8.5 percent (in 2021) in mandatory budgetary resources for nonexempt defense programs, generating savings of about $0.1 billion.
Reductions of 2.0 percent each year in most Medicare spending because of the application of a special rule that applies to that program, producing savings of $123 billion, and reductions ranging from 7.8 percent (in 2013) to 5.5 percent (in 2021) in mandatory budgetary resources for other nonexempt nondefense programs and activities, yielding savings of $47 billion. Thus, savings in nondefense mandatory spending would total $170 billion.
About $31 billion in outlays stemming from the reductions in premiums for Part B of Medicare and other changes in spending that would result from the sequestration actions.
An estimated reduction of $169 billion in debt-service costs.