Thompson Releases Plan to Reduce Federal Government Spending

Posted on January 9, 2008

One last Fred post for the night. Once again, Fred releases a well thought out plan. He seems to be the only candidate that has any plans.

In 2007, the federal government’s spending rose to an astounding $2.8 trillion– the equivalent of $22,000 per household. Growth in federal government spending, however, rarely translates into better services for the American people. Solutions for many public policy problems are best found in the private sector, and then at the State and local level–not in Washington, DC. Indeed, the federal government loses billions every year due to ineffective programs, poor management, waste, and fraud. And, the problem is getting worse. Within the next five years, federal spending is expected to reach more than $3.2 trillion, or about 20 percent of our economy; more than half of this amount is mandatory spending for entitlements. Increasing government spending is not the answer to our country’s problems. It is time to get it under control with better solutions and better management of our federal government.

Balance the Budget and Eliminate Underperforming Programs

Congress has consistently refused to balance the budget and address the deficit. In fact, federal spending continues to grow at rates double inflation. This rate of growth in federal spending is not sustainable and must be brought under control. The following actions will result in better control of the growth of non-defense discretionary spending:

Limit Non-Defense Federal Spending to Inflation. Federal spending is expected to grow an average of 4.5 percent each year over the next five years. This growth is more than twice as fast as the estimated rate of inflation! Slowing the rate of growth in federal spending would help the federal government balance its books. Further cost savings can be achieved by limiting increases in the annual rates of growth for mandatory federal spending programs.

Implement a One-Year Hiring Freeze Pending Completion of Federal Government Strategic Assessment. Initiate a senior-level Administration assessment of the federal government’s activities to determine their proper alignment with national priorities. This assessment will permit a re-shaping of the federal government to best address these priorities. Until that assessment is completed, institute a one-year freeze on the hiring of all non-essential civilian workers and contractors. This will give a new Administration time to assess its personnel requirements in order to “right size” the federal workforce, commensurate with national priorities, to match staffing and contracting needs to agency responsibilities across the executive branch.

Conduct a Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis of All Federal Programs. Over the past few years, the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool has found that many federal programs are ineffective or only moderately effective. With the aid of rigorous cost-benefit analysis and relying on the Government Performance and Results Act, the President must work with Congress to determine which federal programs to eliminate, reduce, combine, or place on probation.

Read the entire plan here.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Elections, News, Politics As Usual

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Thompson Releases Plan to Reduce Federal Government Spending”

Neil on January 10th, 2008 12:05 am

Fred is the kind of guy that most people seem to say they want - straight forward, has plans, etc. Hopefully he’ll get some momentum going.
Miles on January 10th, 2008 4:43 am

I’m convinced! My vote is for Fred. Call me a Fred-Head, from now on.
Kerwin on January 10th, 2008 7:51 pm

I like it but his idea of limiting non-defense spending growth will not fly. He would be best to limit all spending across the board at an equal percentage as that might work if you can convince Congress of the need to tighten our belt. Our military like everyone else can adapt to a sensible spending plan instead of wasting money on high tech toys. He would probably have to veto a lot of bills.