R:),
I buy your logic and raise you with some additional ideas fitting to your excellent out-of-the-box thinking.

My late father-in-law voiced many worthwhile thoughts including:

a. Take Federal housing complexes and sign over the ownership to qualified existing occupants in the following manner: Two (2) apartments to a family or single person currently living in the complex. Apartment #1 is to be their personal abode. Apartment #2 is to be their rental income stream. This action immediately puts the property onto the assets of the receiving party thus improving their ability to get loans, start businesses or to continue moving along humbly with their lifestyle. It puts the property onto the local city and county property tax rolls. It generates income for the new property owner. It also possibly changes the mindset of the new property owner to being a small business owner (property rental) creating a concern for their property and the properties of their surrounding fellow owners.

b. Create a program where older generation folks with assets can prepay estate related taxes at favorable rates ahead of their demise. This could lead to significant tax collections particularly among the super-wealthy who in many cases are gaming Congress to attach special exemptions inside the huge periodic omnibus type bills passed by Congress. This and other special carve-outs possibly explains why Congressional actions in the past two decades have grown to more than 1000 pages for a single legislative bill. With a pre-paid tax arrangement having favorable rates, this would take the pressure off Congressmen/Congresswomen to insert special sections for the super-wealthy and enable them to tell them to possibly pound sand. (Then again, when election money is dangled in front of them, maybe not).

Some additional ideas gained from others:

1. In the late 1800s there was considerable economic activity generated by the Federal Government giving away land. Today the Federal Government owns thousands of buildings and millions of acres of land. Many of these buildings could be repurposed in the hands of private owners freeing the Federal budget of repairs and enabling local governments to collect property taxes. The selling of non-essential Federal properties could generate considerable cash flow streams for the government. Obviously, we do not want to sell popular National Parks and other properties having great universal appeal to citizens. Yet there are many properties having little or no civic value that could be sold to qualified private parties. Again, this puts land onto local county tax rolls and hopefully into productive uses.

2. This suggestion may not create funds or reduce expenses, but as a Peter Drucker disciple, I feel the need to voice his thoughts. Peter Drucker said anytime any organization grows by 50% (revenues, # staff members, etc.) it should be reorganized to fit its now larger size. He said it is essential when any organization reaches the 100% growth point. Drucker in his later years posited how the Federal Government's departments/internal organizations were started many decades ago and because of time, size and surrounding ecosystem effects these departments/organizations need to be re-organized to fit present and future missions/needs. Peter also said government is necessary for many missions that cannot be accomplished through private ownership actions and cited national defense, interstate highways and all the other aims requiring a government "hand" on the tiller. Still, Drucker posited how government is comprised of organizations and those organizations were subject to the same re-organization "needs/internal execution aspects" as any other organization.

I salute your thinking RalphCramden!

Uwharrie