1.The program cuts that I made will have a large effect on environmentalist. I took larger cuts out of energy, natural resources and environment, agriculture, and general science, space, and technology. These categories took a 10%-15% cut. There won’t be as much money available to these programs.
2.The programs that I chose to cut included: international affairs for 10%, general science, space, and technology for 15%, energy for 10%, natural resources and environment, agriculture for 10%, agriculture for 10%, transportation for 5%, community and regional development for 10%, education/employment/social services for 2.5%, health for 7.5%, income security for 7.5%, veteran’s benefits/services for 2.5%, administration for justice 2.5%, and general government for 7.5%. I chose to take from all the programs because a little taken out of each group is better then completely cutting out certain groups. Each program is important in its own way and is needed in society. The decision to take so much out of the environment was based on the fact that that stuff could be slowed, and wouldn’t be what was keeping someone alive like veteran’s services. …show more content…
Through this simulation you could vaguely see the impact these cuts would make on people’s lives. Without actually physically implementing these cuts we won’t know the true impact they might have. For example, the veteran’s benefits and services only involve a fraction of our population, but without that money they won’t be able to go to different places for treatment which means that businesses and employees suffer. If you were to cut each program one at a time by 10%, income security would have the largest impact on reducing the
2.The programs that I chose to cut included: international affairs for 10%, general science, space, and technology for 15%, energy for 10%, natural resources and environment, agriculture for 10%, agriculture for 10%, transportation for 5%, community and regional development for 10%, education/employment/social services for 2.5%, health for 7.5%, income security for 7.5%, veteran’s benefits/services for 2.5%, administration for justice 2.5%, and general government for 7.5%. I chose to take from all the programs because a little taken out of each group is better then completely cutting out certain groups. Each program is important in its own way and is needed in society. The decision to take so much out of the environment was based on the fact that that stuff could be slowed, and wouldn’t be what was keeping someone alive like veteran’s services. …show more content…
Through this simulation you could vaguely see the impact these cuts would make on people’s lives. Without actually physically implementing these cuts we won’t know the true impact they might have. For example, the veteran’s benefits and services only involve a fraction of our population, but without that money they won’t be able to go to different places for treatment which means that businesses and employees suffer. If you were to cut each program one at a time by 10%, income security would have the largest impact on reducing the