Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A close look at the 3 plans to cut budget deficits on the backs of working people and the elderly

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 06:01 PM
Original message
A close look at the 3 plans to cut budget deficits on the backs of working people and the elderly
Washington Post
November 22, 2010

A debate is raging over the changes needed to decrease the deficit, and different committees have been formed to come up with plans for cost reductions. Here are the actions suggested by the three committees:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/11/22/ST2010112200716.html?sid=ST2010112200716
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm intrigued by the use of hyphens in the first two plans, and a slash in the third.
Beyond that and other typos, they're all equally frustrating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. thanks for the chart. groper-gate seems to have overshadowed the forthcoming austerity threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's how to eliminate the debt in 6 years with no cuts to any services:
Eliminating the Bush tax cut (4% increase) will raise 700 billion in revenues in 10 years, according to the President.

Which means a 40% increase on the top tax rate to a rate similar to the pre-Reagan rate of 79.6% would yield 7 trillion in 10 years.

A 58% increase to 94% would yield over 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

So our deficit of 1.3 trillion would be gone in a little over a year and our DEBT would be gone in under 10 years (as we pay it down).

Simple! Done and done - and we haven't added the critical taxes to investment income yet!

2010 Y1: 14T - 3T (2T normal revenues plus additional 1T from tax on ultra-rich) = 11T debt
2011 Y2: 11T(debt) + 1T(deficit) - 3T = 9T debt
2012 Y3: 9T(debt) + 600B(deficit) - 3T = 6.6T debt
2013 Y4: 6.6T(debt) + 700T(deficit) - 3T = 4.3T debt
2014 Y4: 4.3T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = 2.1T debt
2015 Y5: 2.1T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = .1T debt
2016 Y6: .1T(debt) + 900T(deficit) - 3T = +2 Trillion SURPLUS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Nice "off-the-cuff" plan
But let's be more practical--there could be a set of progressively higher federal marginal tax rate brackets added. Your jump by 40 percent on the top tax bracket might be extreme.

Nevertheless, notably absent from ALL the plans is a set of such new progressive brackets. THAT'S the problem--new brackets are missing from each and every plan. As if nobody dare propose them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Ed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. And a close look at the reason it won't reduce the deficit:
All of it - ALL of it - will be quickly absorbed by the uber-rich, and by the corporate interests that are so well-represented by their legions of K Street lobbyists. They'll plunder the treasury anew through tax cuts, subsidies, sweetheart deals, no-bid contracts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, most of our federal tax revenue depends on non-corporate income taxes
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 09:47 PM by OlympicBrian
You're right.

Our budget projections assume most of our federal tax revenue come from non-corporate income taxes (i.e. individual income taxes)...and so many people are out of work...and companies won't hire in the US--as they prefer China, India, and Brazil.

Well, we're stuck!

What's needed is an increased corporate tax on those companies which are selling abroad, and those that are offshoring. And increased taxes on the rich as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Where the hell is Jan Schakowsky plan?!?
WASHINGTON, DC (November 16, 2010) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class. In unveiling her proposal, Schakowsky made the following statement:

“The President’s Fiscal Commission has been given a concrete goal: to achieve primary budget balance in 2015, ensuring that all spending is paid for except for interest on the national debt. Last week, co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson laid out their plan, which they presented to the Commission and to the public. Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it."

“I am releasing my own plan today because I believe that there is a better way to achieve our goal – one that protects the poor and the middle-class."

“Lower and middle class Americans did not cause the deficit."

“Just ten years ago the federal budget was generating a surplus as far as the eye could see. That surplus was turned into a deficit due to massive tax cuts – mainly to wealthy Americans; two wars paid for by borrowed money; and a major recession caused by the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks."

“Over the last decade the incomes of middle class Americans have actually shrunk, while those of the wealthiest two percent of the population have exploded."

“The middle class did not benefit from the Republican economic policies that led to the current deficit – they were the victims – they should not be called upon to pick up the tab."

“Fixing the Federal deficit is not an end in itself. The goal of budget policy should be to assure long-term, widely shared economic growth. Economic growth is not just good for businesses and families – it will reduce the deficit. Sustained, long-term economic growth requires that we end the trend of concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the rich and less and less in the hands of a middle class that can then afford to buy the products and services that will sustain economic growth."

“The proposals included in this plan are aimed at bringing the federal deficit under control using policies that will put Americans back to work and strengthen middle class incomes: the foundation of long-term economic growth."

The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:

1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure.

· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing

2) Smart, targeted spending cuts

· Non-Defense Discretionary – $7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.

· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.

3) Mandatory spending cuts

Health Care – at least $31.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of health care to the federal government and lower health care inflation overall.
Other – $7.7 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4) Reductions in tax expenditures

Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5) Increases in revenues

Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.

On Social Security

Schakowsky:

“There is a better way than the Simpson-Bowles proposal – which relies heavily on benefit cuts instead of revenue increases."

“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking Iraq to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks – there is simply no relationship between the two and attempting to conflate them does a grave disservice to America’s seniors."

"Taking money from Social Security retirees whose average total income is $18,000 per year and average benefit is $14,000 ($12,000 for women) is simply wrong. It places them at fiscal risk and hurts the economy because they will be unable to purchase the goods they need. Americans in poll after poll have indicated their opposition to benefit cuts – particularly at a time when Wall Street bankers are making record bonuses."

The Schakowsky alternative does not contain any cuts to Social Security.

It ensures long-term solvency to Social Security by eliminating the wage cap on the employer side and raising it to 90% on the employee side, applying FICA to all wage income below the cap, and establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.
Surplus funding that can be used to improve the extremely-modest benefits that are now provided.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=122070
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-23-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Because it's a liberal plan that doesn't pander to the rich it's dead on arrival and

the Obama administration certainly won't support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC