Tech CEOs Tell US Gov't How To Cut Deficit By $1 Trillion 311
alphadogg writes "The US government can save more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years by consolidating its IT infrastructure, reducing its energy use and moving to more Web-based citizen services, a group of tech CEOs said in a report released Wednesday. The Technology CEO Council's report, delivered to President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also recommends that the US government streamline its supply chains and move agencies to shared services for mission-support activities. 'America's growing national debt is undermining our global competitiveness,' said the council, chaired by IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano. 'How we choose to confront and address this challenge will determine our future environment for growth and innovation.' If the cash-strapped US government enacted all the recommendations in the advocacy group's report, it could save between $920 billion and $1.2 trillion by 2020, the group said. The federal government could also reduce IT energy consumption by 25 percent, and it could save $200 billion over 10 years by using advanced analytics to stop improper payments, the report said."
Re:For only $500 Billion up front! (Score:3, Interesting)
Really want to reduce energy consumption in IT. Switch all those desktops to linux - a LOT less juice used to run the desktop.
And get people to turn their machines off at night.
And don't move to the cloud. There's a lot of stuff that works better locally, with fewer security concerns - like not having critical systems connected to a "cloud".
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell that to the Navy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For only $500 Billion up front! (Score:3, Interesting)
How does an i7 desktop running Linux use less power than an i7 running OS X or Windows 7?
My MacBook Pro gets worse battery life in Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 than it does in Snow Leopard.
Re:Don't see how that would work (Score:3, Interesting)
"I don't see how laid off government employees will contribute to producing anything exportable"
Do you think that it might be your problem? That you don't see it doesn't means it isn't there.
"If anything they will create an extra tax burden on those who can produce exportable goods by consuming unemployment money"
How can that be, specially in the case of the government? Since they are civil servants they *already* are a tax burden. So, provided you substitute them with a more efficient service, you can fire them and expend the difference between the old and new system to pay their unemployment and still stay ahead because of the gained effectiveness that you can rewire to other activities (like producing something exportable).
And then, those people neither are going to recieve unemployment forever nor they are going to be unemployed forever, so this means further gains along the road.
But all of this is Economics 101: whenever you make a process more efficient you can get the same for less so you can create wealthness on the long run out of the difference.
Re:Don't see how that would work (Score:4, Interesting)
National Debt % of GDP
1972: 34.5%
1976: 34.0%
1980: 32.5%
1984: 40.0%
1988: 51.0%
1992: 64.9%
1996: 66.6%
2000: 57.0%
2004: 62.2%
2008: 69.2%
Yes, can we please go back to before Reagan took office, and make sure he doesn't? We could have eliminated the Reagan and Bush years in one brilliant stroke.
Re:Don't see how that would work (Score:3, Interesting)
They used to be taxed at even higher rates, and still had luxurious lifestyles but sadly that's no longer the point.
The capacity for greed in the upper class has risen.
Along with this, it is now much much easier for capital flight. (ie for money to leave the country and seek out lower tax havens)
If you try taxing the rich beyond their willingness to pay, they will find it a lot easier to simply move the bulk of their wealth somewhere else.
Re:Don't see how that would work (Score:3, Interesting)
National Debt % of GDP
1972: 34.5% -
1976: 34.0% |
1980: 32.5% |_ Democrats in charge of spending.
1984: 40.0% |
1988: 51.0% |
1992: 64.9% -
1996: 66.6% |
2000: 57.0% |- Republicans in charge of spending.
2004: 62.2% |
2008: 69.2% -
2009: 86.1% |- Democrats in charge of spending.
2010: 98.1% -
Yes, can we please go back to before Pelosi took office, and make sure she never wields the gavel again? Thanks.