Highly Progressive Approach to Deficit

For all the Republicans and right-wing commentators accusing President Obama of socialism, let me lay out a truly progressive approach to the deficit:

Taxes

The average OCED tax share of GDP is around the mid-thirties. The US taxation averages 18% historically. Recently it's been as low as 15%. This absurdly low rate has only gotten lower and lower over the years. I would phase in rates that give us a share ten percentage points higher. Using a GDP of $15.09 trillion, that would give us around $1.509 trillion more in revenue every year. This would wipe out our $1 trillion deficit and give us an immediate $500 billion surplus.

You could achieve this from a combination of tax increases on the wealthy, estate tax hikes, and implementing a carbon tax or higher gas taxes.

Defense Spending

As we wind down the war in Afghanistan it is time to withdraw some troops from European bases and finish our pivot to Asia. We can easily afford to cut $100 billion from our annual defense budget by reducing troop levels from attrition and cutting some costly weapon systems that are not paying off. We've already cut around half of this with little reduction in capability. We still seriously outmatch any other military on Earth in a spectacular fashion with these cuts.

Domestic Spending

We need to reform the Executive branch. It is bloated with duplicitive programs and overhead that could be consolidated. Commerce, Labor, Small Business Administration, and perhaps even Transportation should be consolidated into one Department. The federal workforce could also be slightly reduced through attrition. I would support cutting $50 billion from domestic programs by making them more efficient. Similar cuts have already been achieved and that barely scratches the surface of what we could do. $50 billion is a lowball estimate.

Health Costs

Other nations using a single-payer healthcare system have massively less expenditures. If our spending matched their levels relative to GDP, we'd cut between $2 trillion and $3 trillion over ten years. Since I'm sure full single-payer would be difficult, I'll use the low end of $2 trillion and further reduce that by an extra $500 billion to be safe. Annually, that's $150 billion less.

Total Savings:The deficit wiped out with a surplus of $800 billion annually, or roughly $8 trillion over ten years. This is enough to cut the national debt in half. Of course, this isn't necessary. the debt isn't a threat, it's the rate at which the debt is growing that is a threat. Now that it's been put in its place, I recommend capping it at $16 trillion and growing our economy to minimize this debt along with some reductions in it. This still allows it to be a powerful investment vehicle while minimizing the danger.

The expenditure of this extra $800 billion would look something like this:

1. $150 billion for massive overhaul of education system including updated schools/technology, higher pay for teachers (and also much higher qualifications), and smaller classrooms. This would involve serious infrastructure modifications and create millions of jobs in education and construction.
2. Increase scientific research and development by an additional $50 billion per year.
3. $200 billion per year for infrastructure upgrades, especially green tech upgrades.
4. $100 billion in tax credits for companies upgrading their tech to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and for consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles.
5. $150 billion expansion of Pell Grants. This would significantly boost the program making upper education accessible to nearly all Americans.
6. $50 billion to improve Veteran Affairs services.
7. $100 billion to pay down the debt. This would trim $1 trillion off the debt in ten years.


So, now, THAT is a progressive proposal that would cut our deficit and grow our economy. Obama is center-of-right compared to that.

 

US taxation is not 18% of GDP.


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

"Government Revenue in the United States has steadily increased from 7 percent of GDP in 1902 to over 35 percent today."

2011 spending was 41% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_2011USpt_13ps5n

 

That is simply not correct.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

We're at about 16% this year.

And from your own source:

This is precisely the case. I believe you have misread your source.

 

The average obese African-American and hispanic not only pays zero in taxes but receives an income from the USA taxpayer. How do you adjust for such negative income-earners in your fantasy world?

 

1) Not factually correct. If it is, please provide a source.

2) What fantasy world are you talking about? This is a policy proposal. I made recommendations about actions that can be taken. That has nothing to do with a fantasy world. If you have a legitimate criticism, go ahead. If you want to talk about how to end poverty, go ahead. I think that's what you're getting at, anyways.

 

Criticisms are straightforward. My counter offer:
Eliminate public housing
Eliminate food stamps
Eliminate Earned Income Tax Credit
Eliminate welfare
Eliminate Medicaid

Balanced budget and then some. QED.

 

Unfortunately, you can eliminate all of those and still not balance the budget. Eliminating Medicaid would save the most money, but the others listed cost us barely anything. Furthermore, you'd do severe harm to the economy and hurt tens of millions of people in the process. That isn't worth it, especially if you haven't balanced the budget in the first place!

Counteroffer: everything I've already listed, but some cuts to entitlement programs. Raise the ages a couple of years and remove the cap for SS.

 

Have you really done the arithmetic? One trillion dollar annual deficit. Count up all of the programs with unbiased sources.

 

Yep, I'm very sure. In fact, you can cut ALL non-defense discretionary spending and still not balance the budget. And when I say all, I mean all. As in shuttering up the White House, disbanding the FBI, the CIA, every single federal department and agency except for the Department of Defense. You could close all that down and still not balance the budget. That's precisely why we need revenues. It's not a spending issue, it's a revenue-and-spending issue. We need to work on both.

 

After you are done with that and there are a few billion dollars left to balance, we can talk about:
1. A person never receiving more than 4 times their contributions to social security (i.e. their contribution and their employers plus a standard of living interest rate for taxing against one's will for retirement) and age modifications for life expectancy.
2. Eliminating Medicare fraud.
3. Universal healthcare for all and not just government-defined beneficiaries.

 

Haven't even begun there. I'm OK with a 20 % reduction in the military. Close Guantanomo. I would be an advocate of overturning the Patriot Act and severe reductions in the FBI and CIA. But then, these are working individuals. Fat stupid people that do not contribute to society and do not wake up at 8 am and do something other than crime should be off the payroll FIRST.

 

Like I said earlier, those aren't enough to come close to balancing the budget. Cutting every domestic nondefense program would reduce the deficit by only 65%. But that means the dissolution of the government, essentially, except for the Defense Department. So we need higher taxes for any reasonable deficit reduction.

1) I'm fine with raising the ages for those programs, though I'd try lifting the contribution cap first.
2) What specific ways do you propose eliminating Medicare fraud? I think everyone is fine with reduced medicare fraud.
3) I'm also onboard with universal healthcare. I prefer a Medicare-for-all style public option to achieve this. What do you recommend?

 

I'd definitely support a 20% reduction in military. I feel like the CIA and FBI probably run a tight ship, but I'd also run a review of every department and agency and have them cut administrative overhead and dead weight as much as possible.

 

I sat down and figured out the average cost per person of health care in Canada and they spend a bit more per person on health care than we do. It is the largest part of their budget just like it will become here and the only way they have to manage it is to deny expenditures at hospitals. A good example of what happens is the actress Natasha Richardson who died because they hospital they took her to did not have an MRI and no helicopter nearby to take her to another hospital so they had to drive her to the closest hospital in another town that had an MRI. Of course she died. Wait times are the first order of business in the legislature. In no way is single payer either cost effective or less costly.

 

First point of agreement. I kind of liked Jill Stein's proposal of "Medicare for all" somewhat in line with point 3. With regard to the CIA, I find it repulsive that they use drones twice a week to kill people in countries that the USA is not formally at war with. Either put it into a formal military organizations jurisdiction or prove its value beyond fear-mongering and the boogeyman will kill all Americans if we (i.e. the CIA) don't exist.

 

Obama's plan calls for 1.6 trillion of revenue over 10 years. That works out to 160 million a year. Deficits are projected to be over a trillion a year for much longer than that. His plan won't even pay for the deficit, never mind the debt. The problem is not revenue, it's spending. there is no evidence that increased government revenue results in decreased government spending.

 

Are we sure that she died because of Canada's healthcare system or, perhaps, did it have to do with them being in a very rural area and rural hospitals not always being the most well equipped?

Americans already spend far more on healthcare than Canadians do, I'm not sure what you mean by your statement that we'll eventually pay as much as they do. We have some of the most expensive healthcare in the world and don't see much for the extra money.

Excellent. I was a huge fun of some of Stein's proposals, especially Medicare for all. I think that's what Obama should have done in 2010. Instead of fighting to barely pass ACA, he should have reformed entitlements to make them solvent. In that process, he could have put a public option in to make Medicare solvent (more people paying in) and achieved universal healthcare and a more balanced budget all at the same time. And I definitely support a review of drone procedures.

 

Drop the Tax increase by a bit, add in Tariff revenue to compensate. That makes foreign product cost more domestically, which you can offset the burden on consumers by raising the Standard Tax Deduction.
Add in a Standard Tax Deduction for capital gains to encourage middle income Americans to invest.

 

I could be alright with getting some of that revenue from tariffs. I definitely like lowering the barrier for middle income Americans to invest.

 

The typical barrier for middle americans to invest is how the tax system works for capital gains. If you make money, you get taxed, if your investment takes a dive, you still are required to pay those taxes even if you have nothing to show for it. It adds an extra level of risk, especially to those who have little disposable income. That's the traditional system. Programs like kickstarter are an amazing example of where Crowdsource capital can do.

 

Canada spends MORE on health care per person than we do. With government taking over more of the HC system the budget for HC will eventually dwarf all spending like it does in Canada.

Under Budget Pressure, Canada Slowly Rethinks Health Care Model

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...sure-canada-slowly-rethinks-health-care-model

 

C'mon, man, the private insurers have a god-given right to 30% administrative mark-ups.

 

That's simply not true. Health spending in the US accounts for 17.6% of GDP. In Canada it accounts for 11.4%. The US spends $8233 per capita. Canada spends $4445, almost half as much.

Sources: OCED

Links:

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/BriefingNoteUSA2012.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/BriefingNoteCANADA2012.pdf

 

"Canadian healthcare dwarfs all other spending." That is such BS that I can't even speak to your ignorance. "Total spending in 2007 was equivalent to 10.1% of the gross domestic product which was slightly above the average for OECD countries, and below the 16.0% of GDP spent on health care in the United States. The proportion spent on hospitals and physicians has declined between 1975 and 2009 while the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased."

Be aware of the fact that Canadian healthcare can negotiate the pharmaceutical costs. The US has an open ticket for pharmaceutical corporations. As a result, the US must enforce a ban on imports of Canadian pharmaceutics, much of which is American pharmaceuticals imported to Canada, and in spite of the markup and added shipping expenses, is often half the cost of our drugs. That alone would save us a great portion of our extravagant healthcare expense. But we don't want American pharma to suffer. We want our citizens to bear the brunt of corporate greed. It's the capitalistic system gone wild. Show us your tits, at least.

 

There is no need for a deal of any kind. There is nothing to be gained by discussing these matters further as between congressional republicans and democrats. Let the chips fall where they may. The result will be a recession. Only an economic downturn can take the wind out of obama's sails.