Kerry and Edwards Need Real Plans for the Deficit

[Zynx]

John Kerry says he wants to reduce the budget by half during his term(2005-2009) if he is elected. This is precisely the same forecast that Bush has provided for the same period. Quite frankly, this is woefully inadequate. In that period of time we would run a cummulative deficit of nearly 1.3 trillion which will add new debt service cost and expand the ratio of federal debt to GDP to around 82% or thereabouts if not higher. This new debt will also add nearly seventy billion in new debt service cost assuming perfectly reasonable interest rates. At the same time Kerry is proposing to add new programs to the federal budget without raising taxes in any significant way.

I know this is for political expediency to get elected, but I doubt he would take much of a different stance if elected for fear of losing seats in the 2006 mid-terms. Simply put, we can not be proposing new programs that will escalate federal expenditures drastically at the same time we are promising tax reductions. The math does not add up. Simply repealing some of the tax cuts on the top bracket does not pay for such costly new programs. In addition, running such deficits into a time when expenditures on entitlement programs(Social Security and Medicare) are going to be increasing at an exponential rate only dooms us to monsterous deficits into the future starting in the late 2010s. If all but the tax cuts on the top income bracket are kept in place, we will have nearly $150 billion per year in the early 2010s to deal with without having any siginificant new programs. If no serious measures are taken, we will be running deficits right up to the years(2010-2017) when the Social Security surplus will first shrink drastically and then turn into a deficit.

I know they feel like we can do President Clinton's trajectory for fixing the budget in which he halved it between 1993 and 1997, but we didn't have the entitlement crisis approaching in which we must have surpluses to fend off massive deficits and we won't have the '90s economy again. Quite simply, Kerry's math does not work.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for John Edwards who is proposing far more in spending and retention of the tax cuts than we can afford.

We must make a choice. We can have the deficit eliminated without huge tax increases and spending restraint without any new programs or we can eliminate the deficit with large tax increases and have some new programs.

Tell me what you think without using the spun numbers from the candidates' webpages which are not accurate.

[Zynx]

1. *Shameless self-kick*

[DjTj]

2. This WaPost article says Kerry will run a deficit while Edwards is okay

Kerry's Spending, Tax Plans Fall Short

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15415-2004Feb28.html

Kerry has more spending and fewer tax increases than Edwards, but nobody seems to be calling him on it. I expect that very little of it would make it through a Republican Congress anyways so perhaps it is a moot point.

[Zynx]

3. I think Edwards is closer, but not close enough.

I would like to see fewer promises and more honesty. I hold our candidates to a high standard.;)

Edwards will still run a deficit, but smaller. Kerry will run an even larger deficit than he says he will.

[papau]

4. The Wash post is a bit in error on Kerry projection - but as to larger

question of cutting the deficit - I think Kerry can achieve a bit better than Reagan's 3.4% growth - say 3.5%, which while less than Clinton, will indeed allow the programs he wants and an end to the "deficit" - I do not believe to achieves lockbox status the way Clinton was able to do so - for that Defense Department weapon and other Halliburton/Carlye contracts must be ended

[Zynx]

5. There is no way that the deficit can be eliminated under his plan.

What you are saying is Kerry spin. If you actually run the numbers in an OBJECTIVE fashion, they don't look significantly better than Bush's. Look at the numbers carefully and honestly tell me if this can be done. I made my post based upon days of research of the budget projections and longer term projections.

[Zynx]

6. Also, one other point.

When you say 3.5% growth, do you mean economic growth or spending growth?

I don't think we can achieve 3.5% economic growth and even if we do its not good enough because that is the current projection in Bush's budget and we never come close to getting rid of the deficit and we won't with all the new spending programs either.

[papau]

16. You are correct - I am using Kerry projections - but I do not have yearly

estimates for the Kerry proposals.

On the "income" side we have

1.repeal special tax breaks that go to only those earning more than $200,000.

2. end corporate welfare as we know it and tax giveaways to special interests (this is code to restore the corporate tax take to the Clinton 96-97 level - about twice the current level.

3. End the dividend tax cuts in the 2003 tax bill for those making more than the "middle class".

4.Cut size of gov - under Bush Administrations the size of government has actually gotten bigger – and Kerry will reduce the size of the Federal government by: bringing spending down to the level of GDP it was under Clinton, requiring federal agencies to submit annual plans to reduce energy costs by 20 percent by 2020; cut the Federal government’s administrative costs by five percent; cut the number of political appointees and ban providing bonuses for political appointees; cut fraud and abuse in government programs – fraud and abuse is estimated to cost $12 billion in Medicare alone and end rules that prevent the Federal government from having the same purchasing authority as the private sector.

5. make real the Bush pretend future budget cuts by reversing the new budget rules Republicans in Congress have established that make it easier to spend into deficits with fewer votes. Then Kerry would demand Congress give him a Constitutional Line-Item Veto to Reduce Corporate Welfare and Excessive Spending where he would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion.



Then on new spend side we have the two year's of stimulus programs that include:
1. ‘State Tax Relief and Education Fund’. help states with an additional $25 billion a year for two years to stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax and fee raising that are inhibiting our economic growth and causing layoffs (and said 25B includes Kerry’s proposed $5 billion to stop state cuts in health care that hurt workers and patients, $5 billion for homeland security to stem layoffs of police officers and fire fighters, and his commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind education law).

2. Tax Breaks to Expand Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. which do not seem to have cost estimates -

a. Get the Crane-Rangel-Hollings legislation enacted, which provides a corporate rate reduction to manufacturers who produce goods in the United States;

b. When a manufacturing company creates jobs above their 12 month average, the payroll taxes of the new employees will be refunded for two years.

c. Immediately restore and double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that President Bush slashed by 80%.

d. Control Rising Health Care Costs by helping pay for catastrophic care cases.(about $250 billion is my guess - national health would be cheaper and better)

e. goals with no real cost estimate -investing in the new energy opportunities of the future such as: producing 20 percent of all our electricity from renewable sources by 2020; giving tax credits to manufacturers to develop the next generation of automobiles; new energy efficient appliances for homes and businesses; and investing in projects like building the Alaska National Pipeline.

f.“College Opportunity Tax Credit”. a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable for those who receive other credits - and Pay the cost of four years at a public college to young people in exchange for Two Years of serving their communities and country in national service.

All this cuts the Deficit in Half over his first 4 years while moving on health, jobs, and fairness.

[Zynx]

20. However, even if he can cut it in half in four years, its not good enough.

That is the same plan Bush is using and it doesn't work. Also, any numbers coming out of a presidential campaign must be suspect.

[papau]

22. I'd prefer more - but the track downward MUST start - and Bush has no cred

credibilty given the silly 1% yearly increase assumption.

[OHdem10]

7. If as Republicans do, jyou

consider rescinding taxcuts on person eadrning 200,000 dollars
and up a tax increase--there will be tax increases. According to which economist you listen to, the SS situations is not the "skyis falling" it has been made out to be. Yes it will be serious if not attended to. Robert Rubin has advised Kerry on fiscal issues. He devised Clinton on plan. I may have Kerry's 220,000 mixed up . One starts at 200,00 and the other at 300,000 for rescinding taxcuts. WP supports Bush and do not ever forget it.

[Zynx]

8. I support raising taxes. Those are tax increases and I have worked them

into my projections. They do not come close to raising sufficient revenue for the elimination of the deficit before the crisis years hit us because of all the new spending plans. If you look at my blog, my post is an amended blog post that I made well before the WP article.

Also, with SS, it is as bad as they say. The economists who say it isn't are not being realistic. By all estimates the SS surplus will peak in 2010 at around $260 billion and go into deficit by 2018. There is no "lockbox" as it were because all the Social Security revenues over the years have been spent since 1969. There is no wad of cash waiting for us.

[bushwakker]

9. The first step is to have rational people in charge

The current crew is so driven by their fanatical adherence to ideology that there is no hope of fiscal reponsibilty under AWOL. It will take A Donkey to once again clean up the mess that the Jumbos have made.

[Zynx]

10. Yes, but I would like a real plan presented before I vote.

I will vote for the Democrats regardless, but I want to feel good about my vote.

[bushwakker]

11. Clinton campaigned on one plan - governed w/ another

He had not intended to be adefecit hawk but that's the way it turned out. I think you should expect a general outline of priorities not necessarily a plan that will be enacted in it's entirety.

[Zynx]

12. Clinton did campaign on cutting the deficit in half.

However, the same thing this go around is no good and Kerry can't possibly pull it off under his spending program. I also see it as unlikely he will take the bold steps necessary for risk that the Dems will lose badly in the midterms in 2006. Am I wrong?

[revcarol]

13. As along as the OFFENSE budget remains almost untouchable

and as long as we intend to remain as the army of occupation of Iraq, how could Kerry or Edwards EVER hope to reduce the deficit?

The defense budget has seen HUGE increases under Bush, and don't try to tell me this is for "security!!" The occupation of Iraq is a HUGE drain on the budget and will be more so.

Turning back some of the tax cuts for the wealthy is great; it probably would bring in, in a year, what we spend in Iraq in a month.Their programs to grow the economy seem stale and insufficient.

Tinkering around the edges ain't gonna hack it. Gotta attack the issues.

[Zynx]

14. I agree the defense budget must be cut by atleast 30 billion.

Tax increases of a rather large order are needed with removing caps on Social Security and the top two rates of tax cuts. Those could be phased in over five years to prevent a shock to the system and only then could we have enough extra revenue for some new programs.

[revcarol]

15. Neither Kerry nor Edwards agree with you, that one must cut "defense."

When they're in the mood, they offer,"Oh, we'll cut Bush's missile defense," but go right ahead and keep voting the money for it, whether research or otherwise.

They both want to stay in Iraq, believing somehow, that without turning over the power to the UN or NATO, or anyone else, and without getting the corrupt contractors out, that nations are going to magically sign up to help us when they told us to get lost before.

Without cutting these two things that are causing that giant sucking sound, any "plan" to cut the deficit is so much hot air.

Am I discouraged? You bet. I don't want to have to vote for more smoke and mirrors.

[papau]

17. Kerry will undo the definition change that Bush has done - under

Bush all items he wants become defense and those he doesn't hate become homeland security - and the rest are evil and will get after inflation cuts via increase limit of 1% per year increases in inflated dollars.

[shivaji]

18. My take on repug modus operandi on budgets....................

Ray-Gun started it, his budget director Darman confirmed it.
The idea is to do taxcuts after taxcuts until the budget
becomes a sea of red ink. Then the congress is forced to
cut spending to keep the country from going broke.

BushCo is following Mr. communicator's foot-steps. This way
they escape the wrath of voters from cutting out benefits and
get votes from the cold hearted right wing extremists.

[flaminbats]

19. but Edwards and Kerry would halfway-stimulate the economy....

It's called voo economics, dump the doo but endeavor to keep the woo :wow:

Or would they dump some of the tax-cuts, because deficit spending has put the economy into even more of a spin? Surely it is logical that half a loaf is more filling than an entire loaf..which may lead to starvation! On the other hand..why simply offer half a loaf of thoroughly moldy, green bread when the entire loaf would be more nutritious? :puke:

[Zynx]

21. What the hell are you talking about?