Cuts need to come from benefits, defense

I listened to an NPR report that suggested the new (?) Republican mantra in this election campaign will include the battle cry: “The federal government should spend less than it takes in!”

Fine. Every rational homeowner probably will agree that balanced budgets make sense. But please do not hide behind ideology alone. Channel this positive energy, think harder and suggest how the government could do something that actually might help.

Do consider that the U.S. government's $3.5 trillion budget breaks down approximately as follows:

l Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid = $1.5 trillion (43 percent of total)

l Other mandatory programs (including interest on national debt) = $0.8 trillion (23 percent)

l Military Spending = $0.6 trillion (17 percent)

l Human Services = (3 percent)

l Transportation = $0.1 trillion (3 percent) (hard to believe given how difficult it is to motor around Cedar Rapids these days!)

l Everything else (11 percent)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Doesn't it seem that any meaningful cut in federal spending has to include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other mandatory programs or Defense? I can't seem to skip over that 43 percent for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Seems obvious to me why the current administration originally started down a path toward radically improved health care (including radically lowering its costs).

What are the odds that the forthcoming Republican platform will recommend cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or Defense (or tax increases)? Aren't they still arguing for increased Medicare spending (to fund Medicare Advantage programs)?

Dale March

Cedar Rapids