Cog wrote:So in summary, you want to raise taxes by whatever amount we are in deficit. So raise taxes by $1.4 trillion and everything should be cool. Have you really done the math on this? Or do you continue to maintain that deficits don't matter as long as we continue BAU on entitlements?
Now I have given you a link to the 2010 federal budget. Go through the different departments and tell me how much to cut off them. Then tell me how much you want to raise taxes on the rich. A percentage increase will do and I'll run the math for you to see if we can get to a balanced budget using your numbers. Don't be intellectually lazy about this and spin homilies about poor people's pain. Balance the budget your way and I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, your opinions are no better than what I hear coming out of Washington who don't want to tell the American people the bad news coming at them.
While you are pondering how to solve this budget problem address this issue first:The total cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory programs alone will be $2.2 trillion in 2011. Then when you add in the projected $205 billion in interest payments on our national debt in 2011, we will have a budget deficit of $235 billion right there without including any of the government's $891 billion in security and $496 billion in non-security discretionary spending.
Ok what part of social security, medicare, and medicaid do you want to cut? Or perhaps you want to leave it alone and raise some billions through taxes. Let your conscience be your guide and show me how a progressive balances a budget. I will be enthralled.
Hi Cog. A good challenge (to Six). He won't do it, IMO, as progressives won't balance the budget (social programs they want to preserve) any more than conservatives will balance the budget (military and tax cuts they want to preserve).
As a libertarian, I keep wondering why this is so hard, and then I remember -- the idiot voters vote FOR the clowns who make this mess, and then say "Woe is us" and "It's all someone else's fault".
OK. I did it (far surpassed it) for the NYT budget challenge piece awhile back, so I think I can do it here.
Two ways:
1). If no adults or gutsy enough politicians in the room then you:
a). CUT EVERYTHING by the same proportion. Despite all the screaming, as inefficient as government is, small cuts off of everything (including social security checks) shouldn't cause epic disaster (just epic whining).
b). Raise EVERYONE's taxes back to the Clinton era level.
c). Fire up a 50 cent a gallon gasoline and diesel fuel tax.
Make the amounts large enough between the three to have, say, a $300 billion SURPLUS in normal times, to help pay off the debt, and set something aside for true national catastrophes/emergencies.
(Use Graham-Ruddman style rules to enforce this so any new spending HAS to be paid for with new taxes or other program cuts).
...
Since it's pretty much guaranteed that only I will like this plan, here's another plan:
1). Means test Social Security. Phase out the SS income at a 20% rate for those making over $50,000 a year.
2). Stop the double eligibility for medicare and medicaid. You get one only -- NOT both.
3). Double the copays for all doctors visits and related small cost tests for medicare.
4). End the three wars we are in. Get out as quickly as we can SAFELY move our troops and equipment out.
5). Issue an ultimatum to NATO. One year warning -- no more free ride where the U.S. military carries most of NATO around on its back. Want U.S. umbrella of protection and military bases, etc? Fine -- we will send you a bill for all the expenses, starting in one year. Don't like that -- I suggest you fire up your own military umbrella, and we'll be on our way. We'll pay and do our part -- but not YOUR part.
6). Get rid of ALL the deductions, etc. in the tax code. Period. This includes child credits and mortgage deductibility. This is for businesses AND individuals.
7). Replace 6 with ONE flat moderate exemption per family. Say $40,000. Companies get NO deduction at all.
.
. Enact a strict Graham-Rudmann style budget enforcement. No new programs without new revenues to support them, or cuts of other programs. 9). Lower the corporate and individual tax rates to where we have a (say) $600 billion budget SURPLUS. (Between cutting all the tax escaping junk out, and the program cuts above, substantial rate cuts should be possible). Initiate a FLAT TAX for both corporations and individuals to pull in the needed revenue to get the required surplus.
10. Use half the surplus to pay off the debt. Once we've paid off all the debt, build a rainy day fund to deal with TRUE catastrophes/emergencies. Use the income from the rainy day fund to grow the fund more.
11). Use the other half of the surplus to fund repairing and building out our infrastructure. If $300 billion isn't enough, raise gasoline and diesel taxes until the total IS enough.
....
So there you go. Two reasonable choices with 10 minutes of thought. Of course, I don't care if voters whine about it.
With all the supposed brainpower in Washington -- if I can do this much this easily, SURELY they SHOULD be able to come up with a workable plan -- since they won't like mine...
And I know this is far from perfect, but it would be a good start. We can always tune/adjust for unanticipated consequences.
The lower tax RATES and simpler structure might actually grow the economy as well. An best of all -- ALL high income earners AND companies would pay LOTS of taxes -- but NOT at a confiscatory rate.
We're also talking about military bases, designed for security, as opposed to communities designed for luxury. I think it's more of a fantasy to think they can hold out forever. I also wonder what's going to stop security guards from taking over since they're the ones with the guns.
