Eliminate the Budget Deficit Interactive Tool

[G.Irish]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html</a><!-- m -->

I thought this was pretty neat. You select which tax increases and budget cuts you would make in order to close the budget deficit. My plan's savings were 27% tax increases and 73% budget cuts saving $479 billion by 2015 and $1742 billion by 2030.

Of course this is a pretty simplistic tool, so on some points I would make a cut, but differently than the way they presented it. For instance, I would cut some parts of the Joint Strike Fighter program (like the Marine Corps variant) but I wouldn't eliminate it totally. Or I would cut the number of government contractors but part of that would be changing some roles to full time employees of government.

Anyway, I thought it was fun.

[CaptainHenreh]

Of course this is a pretty simplistic tool, so on some points I would make a cut, but differently than the way they presented it. For instance, I would cut some parts of the Joint Strike Fighter program (like the Marine Corps variant) but I wouldn't eliminate it totally.

JSF sucks. Cut the whole fuckin' thing. Build Moar SupAr Hornets if you're gonna cut the USMC JSF Variant. The Navy doesn't want the F35 anyway. Put better electronics/'stealth add-ons' in the F/A18, or make an F22 Carrier Variant, or both. The JSF is stupid, and a colossal waste of money, especially considering the way we're fighting war. Hell, it doesn't make any sense for the role it's 'designed' for. It's just new and shiney, that's all.

[G.Irish]

Well building a carrier variant of the F22 would cost more than just continuing with the naval JSF's that are already planned. It wasn't designed for carrier landings to start with so you'd have to go through design, prototyping, testing, and re-tooling to build that out.

You also have to consider than the JSF is also supposed to replace the F-16 so you if you cancel the whole program you've gotta come up with a replacement for the Air Force too. To be perfectly honest though, I would probably axe the VSTOL close air support component of the Marine Corps. Hard to see a situation where Marines would be engaged in a confrontation in a place where at least one naval carrier isn't out there supporting them.

I do agree though that for the type of war we're going to be fighting in the near future we need more close air support-type aircraft. A successor to the A-10 would've been ideal along with continuing to develop unmanned attack aircraft.

[BLINGMW]

pretty nice way to show how far behind we are. But too easy. 100% budget cuts!

[CaptainHenreh]

You also have to consider than the JSF is also supposed to replace the F-16 so you if you cancel the whole program you've gotta come up with a replacement for the Air Force too.

Bah. We have to replace the F16 because...? It's scheduled to be in service until 2025, I say let's save our money until 20/20, when unmanned aircraft will fill the role of the F16 in the USAF. The navy can fly the FA18E, they like those anyway.

[Evan]

oh NYT, The fishwrap of record is still a flaming pile of worthless journalism.

Ask anyone who has taken Econ 101, raising taxes can lower tax revenue, and lowering taxes can raise tax revenue.