Sunday, July 31, 2011

What This Particular Blue-Dog Independent Would Do (King For a Day)

The western mind, both individually and collectively, is a damned curious thing. Whenever something isn't working, we either double down and try the same thing harder, or we do a complete 180. We never seem to want to make minor adjustments. Yes, peeps, I'm thinking specifically about this budget situation. You see, to me, we have an extremely delicate situation here. On the one hand, we have a humongous deficit and debt (worse as a percentage of the GDP than even the Depression era). And on the other, we have an extremely fragile recovery from what was probably the worst economic downturn since the Depression. The real challenge here, I think, is to reduce the deficit but to do it in a way that doesn't put a blanket on the recovery. Here are some of the things that I would do that a) would in fact reduce the deficit but b) wouldn't do it in a way that would stymie the recovery..........................................................................................................1) Allow the Bush tax-cuts to expire on everybody making $400,000 or more (I raised it form $250,000 to take away the Republican talking point pertaining to small businesses getting hit). This I believe would add a good 40-50 billion a year to the treasury and have minimal effects on investing............. 2) I would reduce the cap on mortgage interest deduction from its current level of one million a year to somewhere between $500-900,000 a year (depending upon what the CBO told me). This would undoubtedly add at least another 10 billion a year to the treasury............. 3) I would have the Federal government bargain directly with the pharmaceutical companies - this, for Medicaid and Medicare (as it already does for the V.A.). This would net the treasury somewhere between 15-25 billion a year............. 4) I would have wealthy retirees pay an extra 10% for their Medicare (Medicare is already somewhat means-tested but I would graduate it even more). I don't have a figure but I'd be astonished if it netted less than 5 billion a year............. 5) I would means-test Social Security to the tune of wealthy retirees getting 10% less (so, instead of an $1,800 check - or whatever the max is - they get a $1,620 check). Again, I'm thinking of at least 3-5 billion a year coming form this............. 6) I would close at least a dozen foreign military bases (starting with the one in Aruba) and hopefully net the treasury another 5-10 billion............. 7) I would modestly expedite our withdrawal from Afghanistan and gradually transform our mission there to an anti-terror one. This will ultimately net the treasury tens of billions over time (we're presently spending approximately 100 billion a year there now)............. 8) I would raise the retirement age 6 months. People are living much longer and the demographic nightmare that is bearing down on us is immense. The savings here I approximate to be 3 billion a year............ 9) I would raise the cap on Social Security Taxes by $5,000. I have no idea how much revenue that this would raise but it would definitely extend SS............. 10) I would institute Bob Gates' proposed defense cuts. 20 billion a year over the next 5 years............. 11) I would institute a one year federal wage freeze. The rest of the country has taken hit and it's only fair that the federal work force does as well. That would save the treasury 3 billion a year over the next 10 years (don't ask me why/how)............. 12) I would eliminate ALL federal funding of NPR and public television. Yeah, it's only a half billion a year BUT, in the words of Mr. Schwarzenegger, "it is time."............ 13) Reduce foreign aid by 10%. That would save the treasury 5 billion a year............. 14) Reduce farm subsidies by 20%. This would net the treasury 6 billion dollars. The final tally - somewhere between 150-200 billion (1.5-2 trillion over 10 years).....................................................................................................P.S. I know that I've done a post similar to this in the past. I felt that it was worth repeating, though. You know, what with these idiots in Washington flailing and all.

56 comments:

John Myste said...

Radicalism is the philosophy of the day. Anything that is not potentially catastrophic will not be embraced.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

As usual, John, you are potent in your wisdom.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

[1] The bush tax cuts CAN'T be "Allowed" to expire for only people making more than a certain amount. It's all or nothing. The Republicans will see to that.

[2] I don't know that there is a cap. You keep saying there is, but I think I've read that there isn't.

[3] Won't be brought up, wouldn't pass if it were... but yes.

[4-5] I oppose means-testing.

[6-7] Yes.

[8] The retirement age should be LOWERED. People aren't living longer. Rich people are living longer.

[9] No. Lift the cap entirely.

[10] Not enough.

[11] Not a good idea. Not necessary.

[12] No.

[13] Foreign aid should be INCREASED. The US gives the least (as a percentage of GDP) of all the OECD nations.

[14] Yes, I think I agree.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The point was, if I were king for a day. Kings don't have to deal with Republicans OR Democrats.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're wrong about life expectancy. Poor people today are living much longer than poor did when SS was started. Truth is, we'll probably have raise it MORE than 6 months. Lifting the cap entirely would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history and I would vociferously oppose such as redistributionist/Robin Hood approach to governing. Keep your paws off of other people's fortunes and strive to create your own.

Marcus said...

Actually Will, You cut back on a little on what we originally talked about...we had our cuts up @377Billion and we hadnt tapped education or transportation. Even so, this is a sensible path or so I believe anyway...

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

What this particular Progressive Liberal would do if he were king for a day...

[1] Institute Robert Reich's tax plan (the one that includes a 70 percent top tax rate). Eliminate loopholes and subsidies. Lower taxes on Middle class and low income individuals.

[2] End military operations in Libya.

[3] Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as feasible.

[4] Drastically cut military spending by closing foreign bases we don't need (a majority of them) and canceling contracts for military hardware we don't need.

[5] Decrease the Social Security Retirement age to 60.

[6] Eliminate the Social Security income tax cap.

[7] Increase non-military foreign aid.

[8] Pass card-check and abolish all right-to-work laws.

[9] Withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO.

[10] Institute a protectionist trade policy.

[11] Institute Single-Payer and mandate private insurers must be not-for-profit. Do what it takes to insure 100 percent of Americans are covered. Negotiate with drug companies for lower prices.

[12] Make college free for anyone who qualifies.

[13] Go after corporations who use PO boxes in the Camen Islands (for example) to avoid US taxes.

[14] Establish a government-owned oil company that drills for oil on federal lands. Kick BP out of the US.

[15] Tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income.

[16] Legalize gay marriage.

John Myste said...

Look, Dervish, I am as liberal as they come, mostly, and I have written extensively about the unfair tax policy that favors the rich and everyone else be damned. However, both removing all loopholes AND raising top marginal rates to 70% is ridiculously un-capitalistic and is also foolish. No one would do business in America unless they could ensure small returns. They would be foolish to. Additionally, the incentive to succeed and cause America to grow would be abolished with this tax plan. When top marginal rates were at and above 70%, that was only on paper. The effective tax rates were much lower because people were not paying the official tax rate. Once you close loopholes, which I think should happen, remove most incentive programs, which I think should be done, then you cannot tax earnings at 70%, which is tantamount to theft perpetrated by the state. The government would be very wealthy for the first few years until businessmen could move operations to a capitalist nation. The democratic American Dream would be dead and you would be beheaded by your own people.

Jerry Critter said...

Business taxes are on profits, so taxes do not eliminate profits nor do the cause companies to lose money. They simply reduce profit, not necessarily a bad thing.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jerry,why is it "not necessarily a bad thing" for company profits being reduced?
This answer should be a doozy.

Jerry Critter said...

Rusty,
Are you suggesting that business should pay no taxes? That would maximum business profits from a tax point of view.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Consumer spending in June the lowest in 20 months.Consumer spending,the most powerful economic engine our economy has stalls during a summer vacation month? That is really bad news,an uptick in unemployment is sure to follow.F@#kin Bush...its all that pricks fault.
The dow falls off the table today,a credit downgrade from Moodys and the S&P is right around the corner.Its friggin Bush's fault.Where is that SOB,all this shit going on and he's hiding.
I sure hope our "fearless leader" goes on TV to make a flowery speech....maybe he will wear a cardigan sweater,sit at his desk and talk about the malaise the country is in.

Rusty Shackelford said...

No Jerry I never said businesses should'nt pay taxes.I'm asking why you think it a good idea american companies had lower profits.

Jerry Critter said...

Will,
Life expectancy has gone up a lot since SS was started, but so has the amount of money being withheld. I think it is better to look at life expectancy increase since the last big increase is SS withholding which was instituted by Reagan in the early 80s. Also, we should look at the increase in life expectancy of people 65 and older, since people who die younger than 65 never collect SS. (Actually the age to start collecting SS is 66 now.)

The average life expectancy of a 65 year old in 1980 was 81.4 years. The life expectancy of a 65 year old in 2007 was 83.6, so life expectancy of SS recipients has only increased 2.2 years in the last (roughly) 30 years, not all the much of an increase.

Jerry Critter said...

Rusty,
Since we are in agreement that businesses should pay taxes, and since whatever taxes they pay reduces their profits, our only disagreement is probably on what level of taxation they should be paying.

For example, GE paid no federal taxes in 2010. A change in the tax laws that makes GE pay taxes and hence lower their profits is "not necessarily a bad thing".

Rusty Shackelford said...

Has it occured to you Jerry that most times a business is saddled with higher cost,be it taxes or say an increase in the minimum wage or a new regulation the cost will be passed on to the consumer.

Jerry Critter said...

Only if DEMAND for their product will allow it. And if DEMAND for the product will allow it, they would probably increase their price anyway to increase their profit. DEMAND sets the price, not COST.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Rusty: Has it occurred to you Jerry that most times a business is saddled with higher cost... the cost will be passed on to the consumer.

Jerry is right about demand setting the price.

Personally I know that if my costs increase I can't charge more. I can only charge as much my competitors are charging for the same product.

I'd like to pass along all my costs so that I'm always guaranteed a minimum profit... but that's not the way it works.

Mordechai said...

One thing you left out will;

End the oil corp subsidies, and make them pay for all the oil they pump off federal land, or water. Oil corps shouldn't be making profits off free oil they got tax payer money to pump off land or water owned by all the American people.

That might bring in tens of billions more to the treasury.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Of course if you are making buggy wips there is'nt much demand.
On the other hand if you are collecting the trash,making beer,own a McDonalds,make 737's,make iPods you most certainly push any additional cost to the consumer.Then again if you're selling CD's you're on the same level as the buggy wip guy.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jesus guys,open your eyes.Consumer spending is a true and real reflection of what you call "demand." There will be no "demand" for anything if people dont have money or jobs.It does'nt matter if a widget cost five bucks or two,if the consumer is out of a job or worried about losing his job and the choice is paying his rent or buy the widget you know what he will do.
I think the report today that has consumer spending at its lowest in 20 months is a direct result of this administrations policies.

Jerry Critter said...

I suppose you also believe that giving tax cuts to the rich creates jobs.

Rusty Shackelford said...

You guys need to click your heels together and return from OZ.This economy is on the brink of not only a double dip but a deep depression.These policies of tax this guy,tax that guy,tax businesses,more regulations,raise capital gains,tax the rich is scaring the crap out of american businesses.
This shit going on now has nothing to do with George Bush....this is Obie and his crew and quite frankly they are clueless.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jerry,who exactly are these rich you want to tax? At what number is an american considered rich in your eyes.

Jerry Critter said...

Sorry, Rusty, but no one has been raising taxes. The Democrats could not even close tax loopholes, let alone increase taxes. It is all the talk about spending cuts that is scaring business. Cuts mean job losses which mean economic downturn. And it is the republicans doing all the cut talking.

Jerry Critter said...

If you are earning more than 98% of the wage earners in America I say you are rich.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Explain how spending cuts will cause a rise in unemployment?
And forget that 98%,what dollar per year do you consider an american rich.

Rusty Shackelford said...

You're correct Jerry,taxes have'nt been raised....yet,but the constant whining from the left about punishing "the rich" which includes small businesses has everyone pulling back.Why the hell do you think corporations are sitting on mountains of cash?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Spending cuts are scaring businesses? You actually believe that? Reducing the national debt will scare businesses.I'm gonna make a guess here and say you've never run a business.

Jerry Critter said...

Rusty,
I have already explained it to you. I am sorry you don't understand it.

Rusty Shackelford said...

No Jerry,you did'nt explain anything.Typical lib talk...make a statement and you deem it a fact.
Once again....how does reducing federal spending cause job loss?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I agree with the numerical one on eliminating special tax breaks for the oil companies. I apologize for not including that one up front.

Jerry Critter said...

1.8 million jobs to be loss in 2012.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Well Jerry,that seals the deal.You got your talking point from Think Progress and the renouned Economic Policy Institute.Any time someone calls themselves an "Institute" you know their working from their basement.
So Jerry,looks like Rusty is gonna have some sleepless nights due to Think Progress and the "Institute." What happened did'nt Media Matters or Move On have something to say on the subject.Oh christ,the friggin article also quoted ferret faced Paul Krugman...when the last time that fool has been correct about anything.Thats the idiot who's still touting a 100 zillion dollar stimulus...what a baffoon.

Jerry Critter said...

Very good, Rusty. Since you can't dispute the facts, you attack the source. Way to go!

Since you don't think we will lose any jobs, where are your sources that tell us how many jobs will be created because of the debt ceiling agreement? It has got to be one or the other. Which is it? More jobs or less jobs?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jerry,the article you linked to at Think Progress was opinions,not facts...you know there is quite a difference.
You can have your own opinion...you cant have your own facts.
Rusty does'nt come here linking the readers to conservative sites.Rusty brings facts....the fact I started with today was that consumer spending in June was the lowest in 20 months.Jerry,that is a fact,not an opinion from Paul Krugman or the "Institute."
Another fact Jerry,is the Dow dumped over 200 points today,the 8th losing day in a row,the biggest continued drop since Oct.2008.
Those Jerry are facts....not opinions from Think Progress,Media Matters or MoveOn.

Jerry Critter said...

Rusty,
Why do you "Dow dumped over 200 points today,the 8th losing day in a row"?

Maybe because this deal is a job killer, and hence an economy killer? Huh?!?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Nooooooo Jerry,its because,in my humble opinion,the american people and american businesses are scared shitless of this administrations progressive policies.You cannot spend your way to prosperity.The failed stimulus showed that.The Dow began dropping well before the plan was announced.

Jerry Critter said...

It started dropping in anticipation of what was to come, and it dropped off the cliff today because of what did come.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

John Myste, THANK YOU. Thank you for adding some sanity to the discussion. A 70% top rate with no deductions AND a removal of the SS cap would put that top rate at an absolute 77.65%. That would be totally insane.............Look, I'm all for the rich paying more and I do not like the fact that this agreement has zero revenues in it. But we can also go seriously too far in the opposite direction, too. I mean, even the top rate in the progressive caucus was only 49%.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I think its because Moodys and the S&P are still threatening to reduce americas credit rating due mainly to our high debt load and the rest of the world sees us becoming similar to Greece.
Hell,even Putin was running his mouth the other day saying america is living beyond its means and was sucking off the world economy.

Jerry Critter said...

Wait a minute, Will. Remember a "70%" rate would be only on income ABOVE a certain amount. Income below that amount would be taxed the same as everyone else's income. We all pay the same rate on the same taxable income.

Rusty Shackelford said...

So Jerry,what you're saying is that an american who through perseverance and hard work became successful should be made to pay 70% of their income to finance progressive social programs.

You're saying that in america,a country that has always prided itself on rewarding the entrepreneurial spirt of its people.People who perhaps worked their way through school,put in the 80 hour weeks,maybe created a successful business,maybe they created jobs for other folks...you know the american success story....you feel it fine to demand these people give the government 70% of their earnings for the government to spend as they see fit.

Is that what you are really saying? You really feel that way?

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Also, nobody (or very few people) would actually pay 70 percent. They wouldn't take the high salaries; instead they would leave the money in (and grow) the business. The 70 percent rate would be an incentive for businesses to change their behavior.

Pay a high salary, 70 percent of which would have to be turned over to the government... OR use that money to grow the business. I think most would choose the later. And as a result that money would go back into the economy instead of stashed in a bank account.

Businesses would leave the country because it wouldn't make sense to pay their CEOs ridiculously high salaries any longer? That makes zero sense.

If they did leave then we slap a tariff on their products when they seek to bring them into the US. It's really simple.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Rusty: ...what you're saying is that an american who through perseverance and hard work became successful should be made to pay 70% of their income to finance progressive social programs.

No, the 70 percent rate only applies to income over 15 million. Also, nobody can work hard enough to "earn" 15 million dollars. At that level the person "earning" that much money is being overpaid. There is nothing anyone can do that is worth that much.

Also, a lot of these high income individuals are hedge fund managers. That's more akin to gambling than "hard work".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I understand, Jerry, the 70% (77.65%, actually) would only apply to money over a certain amount. I would still oppose it; a) on grounds that it would harm incentive, b) on grounds that it would probably result in LESS revenue (people wouldn't even try to make that amount), c) on grounds that it incentivizes bad behavior (tax avoidance/evasion), and d) on grounds that it just has a confiscatory ring to it. The way that I see it, if the government can't get by on 40% (or 39.6 or 42.5) of a person's income, then the government really needs to prioritize more efficiently.

Rusty Shackelford said...

So,let me get this straight....Bill Gates,Steve Jobs,Mark Cuban,Steve Wynn...guys like that dont or did'nt work hard?

Hedge fund managers? Just how many successful hedge fund managers to you think there are.

And,no one can work hard enough to make 15 mil.Christ a dimwit like Johnny Depp gets 20 mil a picture.

WD,you need to get out more...there are a hell of a lot of people making over 15 mil a year.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, America's brand new arbiter of worth and effort.

Jerry Critter said...

Rusty,
It worked in the past. Hell, the top marginal rate was 90% for quite a while. The economy was pretty good, and we still had rich people. We also built a strong middle class. A segment of the economy that is now disappearing.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jerry,I tink you'll find when the top rate was 90% there were far more loopholes and tax dodges then there are today.Hell,during that period the wind farms you now see in Altamont Ca. were tax write offs.So was building a winery in Napa so was owning a racehorse.
I'd guess,truth be known the actual rate then do to loopholes and write offs was well under 50%

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, it isn't just the fact that people are living longer. An even greater concern is the demographic nightmare (i.e., the baby-boomers aging) that is rapidly approaching. We have to make some modifications eventially, or the entire system will implode. And, me - I would much rather means-test rich people after they retire than tax them to death during their productive years.

Jerry Critter said...

No, the entire system will not implode. At worst, if nothing is done, SS will still be able to pay about 75% of scheduled benefits at it minimum. SS is self-funded. 75% payment while not good for those existing on SS only, it is not implosion.

Jerry Critter said...

And a modest increase in withholding percentage, or raising or doing away with the cap is hardly taxing "them to death during their productive years".

Hyperbole is not becoming you.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have no problem at all raising the cap. Doing away with it completely I do. And, yes, a 70% top rate coupled with an additional 7.65% on top of that, O.K., maybe not taxing them do death, but it is in fact highly draconian, I believe.

Jerry Critter said...

70% top rate? Not in this world. The current top rate is half that.

If, at some time in the future we have a top rate of 70% it will probably be on income much higher than the current top bracket. So, I suspect that anyone paying that mythical 70% will have a lot of income below that top bracket taxed at lower rates like everyone else.

Remember, a person in the 70% bracket is NOT paying 70% tax on their total taxable income. They pay 70% only on income over that bracket bottom.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I know what the current rate is, Jerry. And, again, I understand that the proposed 70% rate applies to a high figure. But whichever way you slice it, a 77.65% rate is an absolutely chilling act by a government that seemingly cannot get its act together.............And I know a lot of people just barely scraping by who would think that a 25% reduction in their SS checks would represent an implosion to them.