Who would you not pay? (debt)

[anvi]

"Subeconomic" means activities that are not justifiable on purely economic grounds.  I think BigSky believes Department of Energy policies undermine real economic growth, and therefore deserve elimination.

I deleted the following before, because it occurred to me that this might not be a serious thread, and I don't have much of a sense of humor today.  But I'm going to put it back up.

The Department of Energy has primary jurisdiction over the country's nuclear weapons, as well as oversees the production of U.S. Navy nuclear reactors, oversees the management of nuclear waste disposal and ensures that the country's electric grids are reliable. The budget of the entire Department of Energy is about $29.5 billion out of a whole federal budget of $3.4 trillion, which represents about .8% of all federal expenditures.  "Laying off the entire staff" of the Department would both put the country in several forms of immediate risk and save almost no money.    

[anvi]

Yes, indeed, because fossil fuels will last forever, especially now that automobiles are in more and more demand in the most populous Asian countries.  The deficit is not the only thing that will effect our children and grandchildren.  Besides, new energy research represents only a fraction of the spending at the Department of Energy, which oversees lots of vital things about the county's and military's energy use; these functions are not redundant.  And, as mentioned, the Department of energy as a whole represents an extremely tiny portion of the federal budget, so singling it out as the first thing you want to cut proves that you care far less about the deficit than you do about grinding political axes.