If a picture is worth a thousand words, and we price words at $1 each , we only need 3 billion pictures to equal Obama’s bloated socialist budget … and here’s the first one.
The Atlantic passes along a graph pf what our insane federal spending looks like:
I’ve talked about my $0.8 trillion budget before, but here’s a rough visual representation:
A recap of how we cut spending and get rid of long term obligations
The total TJIC budget is $805 billion. I note that this keeps the essential functions of a state – a military, care of veterans, the courts, the national parks, federal marshals, border patrol, coast guard, mint, the presidency, statistics and censuses, diplomacy, etc. all fully funded.
In the first year, the social security “obligation” would be discharged by creating for everyone over the age of 65 to an annuity, and anyone between 40 and 65 a funded 401k plan. Funding would come from revenues raised by auctioning off radio spectrum, now-unnecessary office buildings, equipment, BLM land, etc.
To hand-wave some numbers: assume that 20 years of current benefits spending is sufficient to fund annuities that would pay the same level of benefits in perpetuity (the actual math is more complicated, because according to the actuary tables many recipients are going to die tomorrow, and many more have decades to live, but this is hand-waving, so live with it).
$580 billion in 1 year expenses times 20 years is approximately $10 trillion. The BLM holds 262 million acres. At $1k each, that’s half of the money right there. Sell of 50% of the federally owned offices and real-estate in DC, Manhattan, Boston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, and we’ve made another 10 billion or more. Sell off the strategic helium reserve for another six bucks and 12 cents, etc., and pretty soon, we’re fully funded.
Transition over, we now need to come up with $805 billion / year.
I’d scrap the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, FICA, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, and customs…which is to say, absolutely all current tax programs.
I’d replace this with a head tax, with an optional higher tier: everyone pays $2k. Those who want to brag pay either $5k or $50k. A public service campaign involving celebrities and sports heros broadcasts the message that if every citizen in the US payed $2k/year, we’d collect $600 billion/year.
To close the gap, we grant citizenship to 400,000 individuals who promise to pay at the $50k/year tier. As Joshua pointed out, we’d end up with a fair number of bankers from Singapore, China, and Russia.
Or, perhaps, we sell off 5 times as many slots to folks willing to pay at the a $10k/year level.
Are there 2 million in the Indian middle class who might want to live here?
Voila. Social Security solved. Unconstitutional programs ended. Progressive taxes killed. Free trade established. Farmer welfare ended. The budget cut by 70%. The middle class expanded.
…all done in the context of the current American system.

February 9th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Military costs could significantly drop if we stopped using them as the worlds nanny police. Reagan got Libya out of the terror business with a few hours of bombing.
Imagine the cost savings if we had the simple policy of “Any terrorist camp or site worldwide posing a risk to the US will be met with sortie of cruise missiles.”
February 9th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Military costs could significantly drop if we stopped using them as the worlds nanny police.
As long as we’re not worried about consequences, why not just disband the military? We’d save even more, then.
The nanny police (or “Pax Americana” if you like) makes globalism possible, which I suspect more than pays for the cost of maintaining it. I agree it could be done more cheaply, but not that the role should be abandoned.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
What in the Sam Hill is “Income Security”. Is that a job and a savings plan? Some how I dont think so.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I agree there are areas like South Korea where our presence is beneficial. But at the same time, occupying middle east countries for decades and forcing them to build western governments and societies is ridiculous when a policy of destroying terror havens and freezing the assets of groups and countries that support terrorism is more effective.
Plus Europe could chip in a bit for it’s defense. And God forbid that the US start drilling for its own oil and we could stop buying oil from the middle east and let China deal with the problems their.
US interests doesn’t require us to be the global cop.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
GoodEgg, I think income security means welfare, food stamps, etcd. Might be wrong.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
If “makes globalism possible” means “makes the seas safe for shipping”, then presumably there’s a good reason not to internalize the costs by letting merchant ships arm themselves.