Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deficit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deficit

    Some harsh truths the right and left choose to deny.
    What They’re Not Telling YouThere is a lot of heated talk in Washington these days about the deficit, unfortunately little of it serious. Playing on Americans’ deep anxiety about the economy, Republican politicians have seized the deficit issue as their own — eagerly blaming the stimulus and even an extension of unemployment insurance for the problem — while denying their own culpability for helping dig this deep hole with years of irresponsible tax cuts.

    The Democrats in Congress have all but ceded the debate. The White House has pushed back some, but as the polls make clear, not nearly hard enough.

    The deficit’s size is alarming. In the 2010 fiscal year, the government is projected to collect $2.2 trillion in taxes and spend $3.6 trillion, leaving a gap of $1.4 trillion.

    If current tax and spending policies continue, deficits are estimated to remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade. After that they will explode — to twice the size of today’s deficit as a share of the economy by 2050 — as health costs rise and the population ages, and outlays for Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security continue to grow faster than revenues.

    We agree the situation is unsustainable. But cutting spending right now on relief and recovery efforts would worsen the economic slowdown and the suffering of millions of Americans, while making only a tiny dent in future deficits.

    Spending on the biggest items in the budget (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security make up about 40 percent) cannot be quickly cut back without unraveling the programs and inflicting deep and needless hardship on their beneficiaries. In the longer term, starting around middecade, Washington will have to begin wrestling the costs of these programs down, or the country will face an even bigger deficit crisis.

    When it comes to controlling the near-term problem — trillion-dollar deficits every year for the next 10 years — the biggest help will be a return to solid economic growth and, with that, increasing tax revenues.

    Growth will not be enough. There is no chance to put the budget on a sustainable path without significant tax increases, and not just on the wealthy. Few politicians, of either party, are willing to tell that truth.



    Americans are right to worry about the deficit. They must also demand that their elected representatives do more than rail about the problem and begin a serious debate about the policy choices ahead. Here are some of the key issues that must be considered:

    HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the government had run surpluses for three straight years. By the time President George W. Bush left the White House, the government had run deficits for seven straight years, and the Congressional Budget Office projected a 2009 deficit of over $1 trillion.

    Much of the deterioration resulted from huge Bush-era tax cuts, which left the nation chronically short of revenue, especially when it had to pay for two wars. And because the budget was already in bad shape when the financial crisis hit in late 2008, the necessary spending to rescue the system only deepened an already deep deficit. Unchastened, Republicans — joined by a few Democrats — are now determined to dig the hole even deeper by calling for all of the Bush tax cuts to be extended beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of this year.

    WHAT ABOUT THE STIMULUS? The deficit has risen further under President Obama, to about $1.4 trillion this year, as the White House has tried to contain the recession it inherited.

    The $862 billion economic stimulus, enacted by the Obama administration and Congress in 2009 along with subsequent aid, like extended jobless benefits, prevented a bad situation from becoming much worse, by supporting consumer demand at a time when private sector demand had collapsed. More help is needed. So far, stimulus accounts for an estimated 15 percent of the deficit in 2009, 28 percent in 2010 and 14 percent in 2011.

    DOES THE BUDGET HAVE TO BE BALANCED? An economically powerful country can prudently run some deficits. A reasonable budget goal would be to reduce annual deficits to the point where the debt — the sum total of annual deficits, now $9 trillion — is no longer growing faster than the economy. Once the debt is stable, the nation would most likely avoid the worst effects of persistent deficits, including sharply higher interest rates and slower growth.

    Under current projections, that would require cutting the deficit to about 3 percent of gross domestic product from 10 percent today. When he established a bipartisan deficit commission, Mr. Obama called for reaching such a goal by 2015. Given today’s weak economy, that is probably too rapid. The aim is sound, even if it takes closer to a decade to get there.

    WHERE ARE THE SAVINGS? The government needs to tighten its belt. Finding deep, near-term savings will not be easy for one basic fact: the largest chunk of the budget — the 40 percent going to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — is the most difficult to cut, politically and for sound policy reasons.

    Most plausible measures to slow the growth in Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade have already been spoken for in the health care reform legislation, and many of the research projects and pilot programs intended to slow the growth of medical costs will not yield results for several years. Congress and the White House will certainly have to keep pushing them forward. Any changes to Social Security would have to be phased in over decades, to protect Americans in or near retirement. A combination of modest benefit cuts and modest tax increases would fix the program.

    Another 6 percent of the budget is the interest on the national debt, which must be paid.

    So what can be cut now? Less than 20 percent of the budget is so-called nondefense, discretionary spending. That includes spending on important and popular programs, including education, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, food and drug safety, scientific research, diplomacy and basic infrastructure. Mr. Obama’s proposed three-year freeze on discretionary spending (defense and national security are excluded) would save $11 billion next year and modest amounts later.

    Once the economy recovers, more savings may be possible. But there is not as much fat there as the politicians may claim. In recent years, spending in most of these categories has been flat or barely rising.

    Defense spending — $690 billion in 2010, or 4.7 percent of G.D.P. — accounts for another 20 percent of the budget. That has traditionally been politically off limits but there will have to be some very hard thinking there.

    Another 14 percent of 2010 spending is for safety net programs, like unemployment benefits, food stamps and help for the working poor. Cutting back now would slow the recovery even further. Once things turn around, some of the costs will diminish, but additional cuts in the programs would harm the neediest Americans.
    WHERE IS THE REVENUE? There is no way to deal with the deficit without also raising taxes. As the economy improves, tax revenues could rise to $3.6 trillion in 2015 and $4.6 trillion in 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared with $2.2 trillion this year.

    That, however, assumes that all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of this year, and that is not going to happen. The Obama administration and Democratic Congressional leaders want to let the tax cuts on the richest Americans expire, while extending the so-called middle class tax cuts — generally, those for taxpayers making less than $250,000. That would cost an estimated $2.9 trillion over 10 years.

    One way to stanch that loss would be to make the middle class tax-cut extension temporary, and in the meantime, undertake tax reform to increase revenue by broadening the tax base and adding a value-added tax. Republicans, predictably, want to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, including for the richest taxpayers, permanently. If all of the tax cuts are extended, the revenue loss over the next 10 years will be some $3.7 trillion.



    When the deficit-reduction committee issues its report in December, we hope it will explain the tough truths about the causes of the deficit and the painful choices that will have to be made.

    President Obama cannot wait until then. In the fall campaign, there will be even more disinformation and demagoguing about the deficit. He needs to frame the debate. That means saying what the Republicans will not: there is no way to fix the nation’s fiscal crisis without higher taxes now and in the future — and cuts in entitlement programs down the road.
    From Ny Times
    Cuts and increases the parties over and now we need to take the hangover cure
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  • #2
    "[I]"Spending on the biggest items in the budget (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security make up about 40 percent) cannot be quickly cut back without unraveling the programs and inflicting deep and needless hardship on their beneficiaries. In the longer term, starting around middecade, Washington will have to begin wrestling the costs of these programs down, or the country will face an even bigger deficit crisis.[/ I]


    Some stats I didn't know until last year...
    This article is dated 1995 but I heard the same info on the radio last fall.
    Like the commercial population, most Medicare recipients are not intensive users of healthcare resources. A small percentage of total Medicare
    recipients accounts for a significant portion of Medicare expenditures:

    * 50 percent of all Medicare expenditures are generated by only five percent of Medicare recipients;

    * 70 percent of Medicare expenditures are generated by only 10 percent of Medicare recipients; and

    * 91 percent of Medicare expenditures are generated by only 25 percent of Medicare recipients.(a)

    Unlike the commercial population, a significant portion of health expenditures for the Medicare population occurs at the end of life. Approximately 40 percent of Medicare expenditures are for people who are in the last 30 days of their lives.(b) For the approximately 75 percent of Medicare recipients who use minimal healthcare resources, the same primary care physicians used for a commercial population may be appropriate. Alternatively, one could argue that because of the low level of resources required by this portion of the Medicare population, any gatekeeper may provide minimal benefit.

    http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-.../541046-1.html

    Comment


    • #3
      Index all government pension and social security to life span. Index all retirement age to life span.

      That's a start.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        maybe we should stop the global warming BS and make more nuclear and coal power plants. we can even get oil from the coal to so people wont b**** about drilling. hell maybe if the gov. dident tax companys in my state so much maybe they wouldent move to north or south dakota so much. will it happen? hell no

        Comment


        • #5
          Has no impact on deficit Wellman
          Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
          ~Ronald Reagan

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
            Index all government pension and social security to life span. Index all retirement age to life span.

            That's a start.
            What's that mean exactly? Pay out less per yr and raise the retirement age?
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #7
              it means change the SS payout start date every year according to lifespan increase.

              obama should offer a grand bargain to fellow democrats and republicans-- something along the lines of, immediately raise the retirement age by several years and then index to life span for SS/medicare. partially privatize SS.

              in return, move the US back on to the clinton-era tax bracket (probably increase them a bit, too; say +3% across each bracket), and push for job tax credits vice blanket tax cuts. in the future, move to a VAT instead of income tax system.

              in short, a more moderate version of rep paul ryan's "roadmap".
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                I would cheer for that. Now, the next sound you hear will be crickets because the right has become disengaged from reality
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #9
                  All government pensions, especially those of local and state government employees, will need to be raised from the current age to match that of social security payout. As of now, there are counties and states with public employees retiring at 50, start drawing the guaranteed pension, and then work another job. This 2nd job, sometimes is their old job. It's called double dipping and quite common in California. Change the rule so that people can retire at 50, but doesn't draw pension until 67.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    gunnut,

                    the local and state pensions will need to be done by their own respective cities/states. in any case, it's less of a worry on the state level because states are forced to remain deficit neutral.

                    even on the government level it's not a serious problem; the entire thing is perhaps the rounding error of a major weapons system purchase. ultimately, nice to have but the lynchpin is SS/medicare/tax reform.
                    Last edited by astralis; 02 Aug 10,, 18:39.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      gunnut,

                      the local and state pensions will need to be done by their own respective cities/states. in any case, it's less of a worry on the state level because states are forced to remain deficit neutral.

                      even on the government level it's not a serious problem; the entire thing is perhaps the rounding error of a major weapons system purchase. ultimately, nice to have but the lynchpin is SS/medicare/tax reform.
                      The problem is the local and state government will eventually run to the feds for help. California is about out of accounting tricks to keep the books balanced. The deficit this fiscal year is $20 billion. It's not much, like a rounding error in the defense budget, like you said. But the projected unfunded pension liability over the next 20 years (one study at Berkeley or something) is roughly $550 billion. That's not a small number.

                      Of course the disastrous Obamacare will compound the problem as more and more of it goes into effect. TARP was a one time thing. Obamacare is Social Security II.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Tax increases are anathema; defense spending is holy grail; cutting benefits is political suicide.


                        Whats left...Inflation?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          Index all government pension and social security to life span. Index all retirement age to life span.

                          That's a start.


                          Great ideas, also index government wages to the civilian job market. Open up government contracts to non-union bidders at normal not union wages, kick out the illegals, reduce corporate taxes and regulations and ditch all capitol gains taxes.

                          A growing economy will generate more taxes than higher taxes in a stagnant economy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What about making Halliburton and KBR actually bid for the government contracts they get. Oh, and non unions companies are free to bid on current projects, They just have to sign on the dotted line. On most construction projects the bids between the union and non union are close, the difference is that if the non union gets the bid more money goes to the company. If the union gets the bid the workers get a bigger share of the profit and they can spend more which helps the economy.
                            The most important thing that makes a strong economy is when the middle class is strong and has money. Keeping the money at the top may be great for the rich but it does nothing for the middle class and the economy. Proof of that is from our recent bail outs. Wall street is doing well now and other big companies are doing well but instead of sharing the wealth and hiring, they are just hoarding the money and stagnating the economy. It is also no secret that when construction/manufacturing unions are strong, that bodes well for the middle class and the economy is good. We have endured an 8 year anti union/labor slide under Bush and the economy tanked.
                            Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                              Some harsh truths the right and left choose to deny. From Ny Times
                              Link? Who wrote this?

                              Anyway, whoever wrote it is naive about politics and slanted to boot.

                              ...Playing on Americans’ deep anxiety about the economy, Republican politicians have seized the deficit issue as their own — eagerly blaming the stimulus and even an extension of unemployment insurance for the problem — while denying their own culpability for helping dig this deep hole with years of irresponsible tax cuts.
                              I've heard a lot of GOP officeholders concede that the deficit problem started under Bush's watch. But that aside, what's the implication here? That GOP politicians shouldn't harp on the deficit problem because they or their predecessors had a hand in creating it?
                              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X