U.s. Post Office Administration

The first reason that military spending should be cut down on is that it takes away the focus from other incredibly important areas. One of the many areas that loose focus because of the large amount of military spending is the education sector. Primary education should be one of the main concerns of our government. Not only because it is where we teach our children about the world, but also it gives them the chance for a better future. They do not learn this from the military. The main reason that education is a better investment is because in the long run education helps the economy grow, since it creates a more skillful labor force. The amount of spending that goes into the military takes away from the potential of a long-term benefit to our

But having a budget is a good step in the right direction. Continuous reexamination is necessary to keep the budget on track. A potential reform for the federal budget is the switch from a short-term budget perspective to a long-term perspective (Budget & Projections, 2015, p. 1). This switch can be beneficial for several reasons. The main beneficial reason is having a greater outlook. Having a greater outlook on future budgetary effects can help policymakers make better-informed decisions in regards to the federal budget. Another potential reform for the budget is to commit and concentrate on spending control. In order to reduce the debt, spending must be under control. A good policy must be in place to ensure the control on spending is a continuous effort by the

Overspending is a pertinent problem facing the lawmakers in Congress. In 2012 discretionary spending reached $1.3 trillion and mandatory spending $2 trillion, while only bringing in $2.5 trillion in revenue. Since the turn of the century back in 2000, non-mandatory spending by the government has topped out a whopping $16.1 trillion just in the past 13 years (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). This persistent overspending on programs and services that are not necessary to the functionality of the country is what is causing the deficit to rise year after year. To remedy this issue the government must either increase the revenue it brings in through taxes and trade or reduce the amount of money it spend or perhaps even both. In 2012 thirty-one cents of every dollar that Washington spent was borrowed (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). Most of which went to large programs such as Social Security and Medicare and if these large, growing programs, or just the budget in general, do not undergo financial reform it could spell disaster for the economy and fiscal state of the nation.

The middle five includes: Veterans benefits and services, Transportation, Education, Justice, and Homeland Security. It is hard to look at these, and try to decipher which ones could be cut in order to provide more in other categories, because they all serve a different purpose in supporting each different goal of our preamble. One point that is evident is that there is not enough money going to education from the federal government. Referring back to Document D of the DBQ packet the federal government is contributing only 1.8% of the budget to the education system. Being able to fund education is so incredibly important because the education that is provided to the children in the US is what shapes and forms the future of America. Not being able to provide these kids with a proper education is a matter that will ultimately have a negative effect on the country. That being said it’s hard to decide where the money needed to better the education system should be taken from, seeing as the big five has already been deciphered, and the five different categories here in the middle cluster are all so important. The most substantial chunk of the money here in the middle five is going to veterans benefits and services, and at first thought, it does seem that maybe some money could be taken from there. However, when one thoroughly analyzes where that money is going to (medical costs, support for

Those not onboard with reduced funding argue that we can put more money into the programs if we raise taxes on the rich sector. This is another one of those ideas that looks great on paper but also has many drawbacks. There a couple of things wrong with this idea one being the fairness of it. Why should we punish those who earn more? That is segregating one group from the population because they earn more. People battled for years to end segregation and now we want to segregate one group and tell them they owe the government more money because they can afford it. That is not at all morally right or considerate. So taxing the rich more is not an answer. When we were little we were told, “Help people who can not help themselves “ but the real question is if they can

The Post Office Department known as the United States Postal Services (USPS) (Annual Report, 2009) today, is a dominate player in the mail delivery arena and has been existence since 1776. The Post Office was originally a governmental agency, but due to mismanagement by Congress, was reorganized in 1971 and no longer a part of the presidential cabinet; but became an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government. To date, the USPS maintains a monopoly on the day-to-day delivery of mail but competitors do share the market on some of the other types of deliveries; shares the market on some of the other types of deliveries (i.e. express

Answer: If there is a difference in the spending of government and the in income will lead to the deficits. More over deficits occurs when the amount of government total budget exceeds its total receipt for a fiscal year was said by US senate budget committee. From the US debit clock, largest budget items list are medical, social security, defense/war, income security, net interest on debt, federal pensions. As we can see that the largest budget items every item has its own importance for Medicare the budget is $949 billions, social security is $872 billions, defense is $591 billion, income security is $310 billions, net interest on debt is $245 billion, and federal pensions is $253 billion. A cut back in the spending of the government is not an easy task because which lead to so many issues. Every items has got his own importance consider defense which is a national importance, medical which is health importance, likewise every items has got their own importance. I would recommend cut back on income security in which the budget is allotted to maintain forester care, earned income credit, unemployment compensation, nutrition assistance, family support, making work pay this is meant for the citizens of the social welfare.

I agree that a solution to fix the issue of the national debt is to increase taxes by fifty-seven percent or cut all government spending by thirty-seven percent. Although I agree with it, I think there maybe a way to improve it without making things awkward. Increasing the tax percentage could fix our problem, I just wonder how the younger generations will handle this considering the financial situation they are dealing with now with high student debt and other economic factors. Cutting government spending is not necessarily a bad thing. However, if you cut spending on vital programs like Medicare, the quality of products from the programs may not help us the way they were meant to

Today the United States faces many challenges, challenges that mirror the changing world we live in as well as the changing dynamics of our country as a whole. There is more than a few issues on the horizon for America, and many of these issues can be tied directly to government expenditures. Not the least of which is our current position on social security spending; arguably becoming the largest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. However, it is the details that really accentuate the complexity and scale of this ever growing budgetary concern. In 2012 social security spending totaled 819.7 billion dollars. Making it the number two largest expense in the in our government spending structure, second only to defense by a

The federal government has a multitude of programs all requiring continuous review to ensure efficiency. Americans do not have to search far to find examples of government fraud, waste, and abuse. The federal deficit crisis makes any examples of program waste unacceptable. A program review process needs to have clear value criteria and allow for itemized reductions to gain efficiency without losing effectiveness. There are several alternatives to federal program efficiencies including empowerment to state governments, consolidation of duplicate programs, privatization, and straight up elimination of non-value added activities. I have selected three recommended domestic programs for adjustment. The recommendations are to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, require states to cover 1/4th of the cost for food stamps, and reduce the cost of the federal workforce. Impact of implementing these recommendations is a total of $520 billion to debt reduction.

There are not any easy ways to cut spending on the military especially since we are in the middle of fighting in Iraq. We can not just pull some troops or provide them with less weapons or supplies then expect them to protect our country as well as they are now. We need a defense budget that matches the new security challenges, not the threats of the last century. We need to recognize that a strong economy is essential for providing the resources to meet future threats; addressing these long-term debts will keep our economy strong.

Its five categories are Veteran’s benefits and services, Transportation, Education, Justice and Homeland Security. The category that needs to be increased is education. Document D asks, “Do you think the federal government should play a larger role in education?” the answer is yes. Therefore as Americans, we have a right to education and deserve to obtain the best there is. Education should be increased since most schools need the money. Some schools need to construct improvements and renovations in order to upgrade the school, and then cannot due to not having enough money. According to Document B, the budget pays less than $100 billion for education. The document also states that, “about 90% of education money comes from state and local taxes” (Document B). Having said that, a person might believe, that it is in the country’s best interest if the government gave more money to education. If the government were to put extra money into education, everyone would have a chance to acquire an education and schools would be able to get fresh money. The Preamble objective education addresses is general welfare. General welfare is key for the reason that it takes care of the citizens, as quoted in this line “…a strong national government in order to build a strong economy so that all people could live a decent life by working, buying property, and “pursuing happiness”” (Document A). Money could be taken out of transportation and

As a country, we are millions of dollars in debt and who is the most to blame for this predicament? Of course, it’s the people that are older and have been around and spent all our money. My proposal is that we eliminate all the people using our Medicare and give the people of the younger generation the use of that money to get out of debt because that would reduce the money the government is paying on us and increase the money the government is taking in.

Republicans and democrats are butting heads over how to reduce it. Democrats want to reduce it by raising taxes, especially on the highest earners, while republicans want to do it by cutting spending. Each party is super-glued to their respective stance. Just like two siblings fighting over a remote when neither of them likes the show that’s on; each kid would rather endure the terrible TV show than watch their sibling get what they want. Democrats believe in raising taxes so that they can spend more on social programs, thereby supporting the foundation of society, and keeping people from slipping through the cracks. Republicans believe in cutting spending so that taxes can be reduced, hard workers can be rewarded, and businesses can operate more freely. I believe that discretionary spending on the abovementioned social programs is an integral part of a country’s long-term success. If we can make that happen, and lower our deficit by marginally raising tax rates on the country’s highest earners, I think we should. People in the lower class naturally have fewer opportunities available to them, e.g., private education, families that are well connected in certain industries, etc. The lower their socioeconomic status, the harder it is for them, on average, to succeed. If we have programs in place that help them jump over those hurdles, then we can make use of their potential. Furthermore, I think we can do that without a significant increase in discretionary spending. We need a more precise cost-benefit analysis of our budget so that we only spend on things, like education, which will promote our country’s long-term success. We need a strict review of discretionary programs (e.g., scientific research projects, welfare, and social security) so that we know how to make them more selective, and efficient. At that point, small budget cuts can be made while we maintain the benefits of these

The changes to the Postal One System encompassing Value Added Refunds (VAR) processing went into effect in January 21, 2015. The Revenue and Field Accounting (RAFA) Team verified the BNS 606 requirements and outlined the attributes sent to APEX to eliminate the potential for processing duplicate VAR payments.