President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan included $255 billion in spending cuts over five years. — BC

I seem to recall Clinton balanced the budget. (I asked gemini.google about this fact, and it demurred, saying 'I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now.' And people are freaking out because DeepSeek won't answer questions in Tianamen.)

The US paid off the huge WWII national debt through a combination of economic growth (a boom), higher rates of taxation (especially on top earners), and fiscal discipline. By 1974, the post WWII economic book started to wane; over the coming decades a lot of tax burden shifted from wealth to workers. At the same time, spending was not curtailed--indeed, it was accelerated for Star Wars and similar boondoggles. Expansions in social benefit programs are also expensive.

Short of another boom (none in sight), the main tool is fiscal discipline--reduce the yearly deficit by a) raising taxes on those with the most wealth (very unpopular among that group) and reduce spending (very unpopular if it's your ox that is gored in the reduced budget). Not impossible, just really, really hard to pull off -- even with cooperative congresses and presidents.

Can this be done, difficult as it is? Sure -- it just won't be done, in all likelihood.

ChatGPT showed no such reticence about Bill Clinton, saying

From 1998 to 2001, the federal government ran a budget surplus, meaning revenues exceeded expenditures. This was the first time the U.S. had a balanced budget since 1969. Several factors contributed to this:

*Economic Growth – The 1990s saw strong economic expansion, partly driven by technological advancements and the dot-com boom.
* Tax Increases & Spending Restraint – Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised taxes on higher-income earners and controlled government spending.
* Bipartisan Cooperation – In 1997, Clinton worked with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass the Balanced Budget Act, which further limited spending.
* Defense Cuts & Welfare Reform – Post-Cold War defense spending reductions and welfare reform measures helped reduce expenditures.

By 2000, the U.S. had a budget surplus of about $236 billion, the largest surplus in U.S. history at that time. However, these surpluses did not last long, as tax cuts, increased military spending, and economic downturns in the early 2000s led to deficits again.

Of course, the merest suggestion of raising taxes causes apoplexy amongst the MAGA, never mind that tarrifs are, of course, a tax on imports.

I also asked Gemini / Google about year to year budget reductions. It said:

AI Overview

Yes, the federal budget has been reduced year-to-year in the past. For example, in 1993, President Clinton's Economic Plan cut federal spending by $255 billion over five years. The deficit decreased year-over-year in December 2024, dropping by $44 billion.

Beats me.

Strange, that. I went back to Gemini after making that post and asked again, and it just kept saying 'I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now.' Maybe because I used 'President Bill Clinton' in the prompt? It's kind of creepy, though. What with the Orange Emperor just having been handed a list of 5000 FBI agents he wants to sack.

In what sense, derives from a mandate? — Wayfarer

One of Trump's campaign promises was to address the federal debt. Musk and others are the ones he put on that job. There is no such thing as an elected debt-reducer. Musk represents Trump, and the President has more control over the federal bureaucracy than any other individual.

And sure, Congress is the ideal party to address federal debt, but they have shown themselves unable to do so for a long time now. It's really not that strange to see a president who was elected in part because of his promise to reduce the debt appoint an official to reduce the debt.

I don't think the average citizen is concerned that Musk is trying to address the debt. I think they are grateful that someone is finally doing what should have been done decades ago. The problem of the federal debt is one of the least partisan issues. And those who are making cuts are basically guaranteed to make certain groups angry, namely the groups who are benefitting from the money that needs to be cut.

The real wonder here is that Trump is giving Musk so much authority. That's surprising, but also hopeful. Musk has even expressed a willingness to make cuts to defense spending (which is where it would really count), but it is less likely that he will be allowed to touch that. Even Bernie Sanders was pretty happy about that idea.

Why do you think he wants Greenland and Canada? — frank

Canada is a fine place, and may it continue as a sovereign nation forever. Even so, I don't quite see Canada as the escape hatch for anyone's existential threat. Even less so Greenland. Besides, Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores.

One of Trump's campaign promises was to address the federal debt. Musk and others are the ones he put on that job. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry but the way he's going about it is an outrage. He's being given latitude to prevent programs being executed that have already been approved by Congress. There are many things that he's doing, and that Trump has done, that are blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. I'm really dismayed that an intelligent contributor such as yourself can be so sanguine about it, it's really completely beyond the pale.

If Trump wanted to do it formally, DOGE would be an advisory panel, and they'd draw up a list of programs and expenditures to cut, and take it through Congress and Senate. Barging into Federal offices without any authorisation other than 'Trump says so', and cutting programs and expenditures that are already in progress, is a completely different thing.

Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores. — BC

actually not that long, going on recent data. And their gravesites may well be underwater.

And let me ask you this: the USAID projects that have been abruptly terminated without notice, run things like medical clinics, malaria prevention programs, countless food aid and charity programs, all throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East. These services actually do save many thousands of lives every year. Do you think if their abrupt termination due to Musk's unilateral decision that USAID is 'an evil organisation', results in thousand of deaths, then that is justified in the name of the United States balancing its budget?

Secondly, as USAID is at the forefront of US 'soft power', then what of the sudden, massive vacuum in international aid caused by this withdrawal, what with tens of thousands of people going begging, who do you think might be the most likely of the global political powers to rush in and fill that vacuum? Would that have any bearing on considerations?

Canada is a fine place, and may it continue as a sovereign nation forever. Even so, I don't quite see Canada as the escape hatch for anyone's existential threat. Even less so Greenland. Besides, Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores. — BC

What's your theory on why he wants Canada and Greenland? I just assumed somebody told him that both those areas will be prime real estate in the future.

I'm sort of surprised to see Australians with a bookmark in the New York Times expressing such strong opinions on U.S. politics. If I read a single news outlet from Australia and opined strongly on Australian policies, how would I be viewed?

The Trump-Musk team is inevitably a brake-gas team, and even your NYT article says that Trump has pumped the brakes at times (Trump himself has said that Musk requires authorization from the White House for any moves he makes in this capacity). But given that the mainstream media hates Musk for helping Trump get re-elected, and that anyone who makes cuts is going to be demonized, these sorts of stories are very much to be expected. No agency is going to take a cut laying down, and that's why Musk may be just the right man for the job, aggressive as he is. The Pew Research Center reports fairly often on the debt, and recently had a piece on the federal workforce.

There is a basic tendency among citizens to say they want the deficit addressed, but then to object whenever anything gets cut. Or to say they want illegal immigrants deported, but then to object whenever illegal immigrants are deported.

Regarding USAID, here is Senator Rubio, who is now the acting head of USAID and is an elected official:



As Rubio says, "There are a lot of functions of the USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be part of American foreign policy." So the idea that everything within USAID is being cut seems like scare-mongering. Here is the White House Press Secretary on the strange USAID expenditures. As I understand it, the argument from the right is that USAID was created to provide aid and promote U.S. interests abroad, and it is now largely failing in that charter due to ideological capture. It is not being shut down but it is being reorganized to accomplish its purpose.

:up:

Can this be done, difficult as it is? Sure -- it just won't be done, in all likelihood. — BC

What in the WW2 example is usually forgotten is that huge change that happened of one spending totally ending, fighting the war, that opened another type of spending and demand. For example the US autoindustry stopped making cars for the public and transfered everything to making tanks actually earlier than Nazi Germany did such move! Private demand was curbed and limited, all that debt that people willingly bought war bonds went to military production of bombs and tanks. Which then totally ended once the war was over, and the millions in the armed forces went back to civilian life.

Nothing like that can happen here where the debt is basically there to uphold present consumption. And sooner or later DOGE has to look at where the actual government spending is, which isn't USAID.

Do we think that DOGE will go after enormously expensive health care spending, which first and foremost is expensive because corporations make profit from it?

I'm sort of surprised to see Australians with a bookmark in the New York Times expressing such strong opinions on U.S. politics. — Leontiskos

Two of my grandchildren are American. Their father is a dual citizen. And as the old saying goes, if America sneezes, the world catches cold. America is going to do much worse than sneeze, and the world is going to get much worse than a cold.

Senator Rubio, who is now the acting head of USAID — Leontiskos

An illegal appointment. U.S.A.I.D. was established by an act of Congress, and can't be dissolved or merged into State without Congressional approval. Of course the MAGA congress is totally supine, but the point of principle remains.

Or does it? Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice.

So, question: do you support the right of Trump to act illegally in such cases, and the right of the Executive to ignore Congress and established law? That Trump can, in effect, rule by decree, as he is appearing to do? Why bother with Congress and Senate at all? Frank's already said democracy has failed.

the idea that everything within USAID is being cut seems like scare-mongering. — Leontiskos

It is far from scaremongering. All of USAIDS websites have gone dark and nearly all their employees have been frozen out of their accounts. A few exceptions have been made but there are thousands of programs that have been terminated without notice.

What's the opposite of scaremongering? What do you say when you see a real clear and present danger, and the people standing next to you shrug it off?

I imagine you have to work for a living. Put yourself in the position of a USAID staffer, who is told on Sunday night, without notice, that their job is terminated, and find themselves locked out of the office and their systems the next day. How would you feel about that? All for a good cause?

scare-mongering. — Leontiskos

The Myth of Cassandra

In Greek mythology, Cassandra was a Trojan princess blessed with the gift of prophecy by the god Apollo. However, after she rejected his advances, he cursed her: she would always see the truth, but no one would ever believe her. This left her in a tragic position—she foresaw the fall of Troy, warned her people not to trust the Greeks and their wooden horse, and later predicted her own death at the hands of Agamemnon’s wife, Clytemnestra. Each time, her warnings were ignored, leading to inevitable disaster.

Do we think that DOGE will go after enormously expensive health care spending, which first and foremost is expensive because corporations make profit from it? — ssu

Interesting comment. I've wondered about our health care system, and this past year I have discovered how well it functions for senior citizens during the treatments of a broken leg and cancer at age 87, with complications. It's been one year since the fall shattering my right femur, then, in hospital, finding I had cancer elsewhere. I have a Medicare Advantage plan provided by my public employee's retirement program, and pay into it monthly, but my out of pocket charges were virtually minute.

A good friend recently had triple bypass surgery, and his surgeon told him that at the age of 82 had he lived in Ireland he would not have had surgery and would have been sent home to die.

Two of my grandchildren are American. Their father is a dual citizen. — Wayfarer

Okay, fair enough.

An illegal appointment. — Wayfarer

Except that's not true at all. The President appoints the administrator of USAID (and other executive agencies). The Senate approves the appointment. And of course it has not been dissolved.

Or does it? Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice. — Wayfarer

Are you just making things up? USAID is a government agency of the executive branch, and like other executive agencies was originally created by Congress. It is in no way illegal for the President to fire and replace officials in executive agencies (link).

So, question: do you support the right of Trump to act illegally in such cases, and the right of the Executive to ignore Congress and established law? — Wayfarer

It sounds like you don't understand the U.S. government very well. The Democrats have pushed for a strong executive branch over time, in order to circumvent the gridlock that our system is designed to produce (especially in the legislative and judicial branches). Trump has inherited that strong executive branch, and is using it.

Put yourself in the position of a USAID staffer — Wayfarer

Cuts are cuts. If the American people didn't want cuts they shouldn't have asked for them. It's not like you make cuts without cutting jobs, and in many cases it seems that benefit packages have been provided, or offered for those who wish to leave. The goal is to move a significant percentage of the government workforce into the private sector.

- That's good to hear, jgill. :up:
My father has a similar story with cancer and Medicare.

The President appoints the administrator of USAID (and other executive agencies). Congress approves the appointment. — Leontiskos

But Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State. The decision to merge USAID with State was not approved by Congress, nor even floated with them. As for job cuts:

The Trump administration said today that it is pulling almost all US Agency for International Development (USAID) workers off the job and out of the field worldwide, moving to all but end the agency's six-decade mission overseas that fought starvation, funded education and worked to end epidemics.

The administration notified USAID workers in emails and a notice posted online, the latest in a steady dismantling of the aid agency by returning political appointees from President Donald Trump's first term and billionaire Elon Musk's government-efficiency teams who call much of the spending on programs overseas wasteful.

The order takes effect just before midnight on Friday and gives direct hires of the agency overseas – many of whom have been frantically packing up households in expectation of layoffs – 30 days to return home unless they are deemed essential. — Channel 9 Sydney 5th Feb

Did you hear what Musk said at the top of this thread? “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Mr. Musk gloated on X at 1:54 a.m. Monday. “Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead.” This is a guy who is literally barging into some of the most sensitive offices in the Government and threatening anyone who stands in the way with arrest, making decisions on the fly as to what programs, jobs and spending should be cut, and directing a bunch of 20-something y.o. engineers to carry out his orders. And you're OK with that? I really don't understand.

Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice.
— Wayfarer

Are you just making things up? — Leontiskos

No, I'm reading international media.

From your link:

A recent amendment to the Inspector General Act, the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A), changed the notice provision to require a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” for the removal. It also narrowed the president’s options under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), for replacing a terminated IG. The 2022 law was mainly a response to Trump’s first-term IG firings and manipulations of the IG system. It was one of very few executive branch reforms during the Biden administration.

The Friday IG terminations were announced in emails from Sergio Gor, the White House Director of Presidential Personnel. Gor said the removals were immediate and reflected “changing priorities.”

So, your opinion piece says one thing, but plenty of others differ. And the whole point of Inspectors General is that they're not political appointees, and generally none of those fired were. They're being fired to make way for MAGA appartchiks.

If the American people didn't want cuts they shouldn't have asked for them. — Leontiskos

Right - cuts are perfectly understandable. Had the debate been had, USAID been informed that it was to be merged with State, staff told that it was happened and had a chance to respond and wind up operations, it wouldn't be a story, and I wouldn't be complaining about it. But that is not what is happening. This is like the US equivalent of Kystalnacht.

Hope you get good treatment!

I think it has been discussed here earlier just why the US system is so expensive. It's when people's first contact to health care services is ER, which is the most costliest type of health care. The that the price of medication is through the roof for people (as the government isn't a huge buyer) and medication is advertized is something American and lastly that insurance companies are there to make a profit. They don't have obligations to handle part of the universal system without profit making as they do for example in Finland. Then there is inefficiency, which isn't so easy to get rid with a purge everything -mentality.

But that is not what is happening. This is like the US equivalent of Krystalnacht. — Wayfarer

That's why independent inspector generals would be a problem, as you said.

his job derives from a mandate — Leontiskos

Trump won the popular vote by a little over 2 million votes out of a total of 152 million votes. That's not a mandate by a landslide vote by any stretch of the imagination. Musk's job derives from an electoral victory, but more from Trumps adoration of business success (richest man in the WORLD) and Musk's rabid animus toward government. Musk has the role of Trump's junkyard dog.

Biden had more popular votes than Trump and a bigger mandate--81.2 million votes, a 4.4% lead over Trump.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had 23% and 18% popular vote wins respectively-- much closer to a mandate.

But Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State. — Wayfarer

So what? Is there some reason you think Rubio cannot serve as both? Or are you concerned about the rumor that USAID will be merged? Note that USAID is already closely tied to the Secretary of State:

As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, secretary of state, and the National Security Council. — USAID | Wikipedia

And you're OK with that? — Wayfarer

I think you've been caught up in the sensationalism. From what I have seen Musk did not do anything without approval from the White House. I mean, what is the objection, here? That USAID has "some of the most sensitive offices in the government"? That doesn't seem true. That Musk had a team of young techies helping him? What's wrong with that? And sure, I wish Musk wouldn't talk that way about the wood-chipper, but that's Musk. He's always been like that. And what if it's as bad as he says? I am seeing a lot of hearsay online intended to whip people up into a frenzy.

So, your opinion piece says one thing — Wayfarer

It's not an opinion piece, it's from an American legal scholar. You merely linked to a Google search. Do you have a concrete source for your view? Namely for your claim that the act of firing an inspector general requires congressional approval?

Right - cuts are perfectly understandable. Had the debate been had, USAID been informed that it was to be merged with State, staff told that it was happened and had a chance to respond and wind up operations, it wouldn't be a story, and I wouldn't be complaining about it. — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but it would probably still be a story.

And the whole point of Inspectors General is that they're not political appointees — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. The President can remove IGs. Their "point" is not to be above the head executive.

Biden had more popular votes than Trump and a bigger mandate — BC

There you go, and you've unwittingly admitted that Trump has a mandate. :up:
The point here is that trimming government agencies is not an undemocratic move by a rogue Musk.

From what I have seen Musk did not do anything without approval from the White House. I mean, what is the objection, here? — Leontiskos

A nod and a wink from Trump does not a proper authorisation make. Again, surprised by your view, but from now on I will confine any conversations with you to matters philosophical.

Andrew Natsios, who ran USAID under President George W. Bush and is a lifelong conservative Republican, calls such moves “illegal” and “outrageous.” What Musk and Rubio are doing “is criminal. They can’t abolish the aid program without a vote of Congress.” — Politico

Nothing like that can happen here where the debt is basically there to uphold present consumption. And sooner or later DOGE has to look at where the actual government spending is, which isn't USAID.

Do we think that DOGE will go after enormously expensive health care spending, which first and foremost is expensive because corporations make profit from it? — ssu

There is zero chance that DOGE / Musk will go after United Health Care, et al. The sort of government spending that will be sacrificed are USAID, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, National Endowment for the Humanities. The Library of Congress? How many congressmen ever check out books there, anyway? Sell it to Amazon!

- Well, you're always welcome to produce some arguments or some sources. It would be especially helpful if you produced support for your views that appointing Rubio administrator of the USAID was illegal, or that removing an IG without congressional approval was illegal. Those are pretty big claims, and they formed the backbone of your consternation. I would suggest doing some research before making accusations like that. I think Australians would be surprised at how different the Overton window is in the U.S. as compared with Australia.

Like many Americans, I believe we need to make cuts to address the national debt. I don't expect such cuts will come easy.

Read the passage in my last post. Lifelong conservative Republican, ran USAID under W. He and others are saying that the forced merger of USAID into State without congressional approval is illegal and that Musk is acting without clearly-defined authority or oversight. (Trump is too busy making up foreign policy on the run to pay attention.) Many politicians expressed the view that the termination of Inspectors General without notice or due cause was illegal. Opinions have been published that this act was, if not outright illegal, in violation of the requirement that due cause and notice is given, see American Oversight Opens Investigation into Mass Firings of Inspectors General by Trump Administration

The source for the Politico quote is here. FWIW, mentions that Australia and Canada folder their foreign aid organisations into State departments.

- I agree that Musk does not have the authority to abolish USAID, but the video from Rubio makes it fairly clear that USAID has not been abolished. And "notice" is a fair bit different than "approval." We can agree that it was in violation of the requirement for "substantive rationale," which my link speaks to in detail. :up:

@SSU The size of the national debt does concern me. I understand that deficit spending keeps the economy afloat, particularly, consumption.

people do consume a lot; I do my part. It's good for the economy. BUT if we wanted to tighten our belts and spend less on consumption and spend more on national debt reduction, where could we save a significant amount of money???

Americans spend about 1.3 trillion dollars a year on products that are optional. I don't consider coffee optional, but the rest of you can jolly well live with out it. We could save $1.3 trillion a year by foregoing these products, which would significantly reduce the debt. Coke and Pepsi will really hate it, as will brewers, vintners, distilleries, and bottlers of tap water.

But there are other optional items I didn't list, and if coffee is critical for you, then maybe carpeting and floor care are non-essential for you. We spend about as much on lawn care as we do pet care. So, maybe ditch the lawn mower and get a puppy. A large dog will ruin the lawn, so no more mowing. Fair trade, I'd say.

If we can squeeze a trillion dollars out our worker pockets, think how much can be squeezed out of the pockets of the 1%? (Might have to be by force; I'm willing to sacrifice their comfort and convenience for the national good.)

What the rank and file could save on

$46 billion - bottled water
$29 billion - salty snacks
$164 billion - candy
$259 billion - beer, wine, spirits
$70 billion - commercial weight loss products
$30 billion - dietary supplements
$342 billion - sweetened and diet drinks at home and away from home
$13 billion - vaping products
$110 billion - coffee
$153 billion - lawn care
$5 billion - car washing
$48 billion - perfume & fragrance
$33 billion - cake (bakery, freezer case, mix)

1.3 trillion total