Fun little exercise -- You fix the US budget

[palemale]

If I am reading the chart correctly, I would produce a $250 billion surplus by 2015, but a $107 billion shortfall by 2030, without cutting social security, but changing the method of indexing for inflation, and without cutting medicare, federal employee or military salaries and benefits, or aid to states. Of course, if given the choice, I would cut the military much more than the chart allowed.

 

[Spiff]

I just rejected every proposal and left the budget as it is. Wow, I never realized until now how easy it is by following the current republican strategy!

 

[CowboyBob]

That's an interesting exercise. By cutting the bloated military budget and making the wealthiest and the corporations pay taxes & closing loopholes, the budget is balanced. There's a surplus for 2015 & 2030. It won't be on the backs of the elderly or middle class.

 

[swerveNY]

Although military spending is bloated, it does provide hundreds of American jobs because it can't be outsourced and a good middle class living in place that otherwise would have no work. Elected officials also hate closing bases because it is usually a big loss to the local economy and their constituents so there is a lot of opposition to cutting military spending.

 

[mbamike]

Maybe I should run for Congress.

You solved the deficit!
Raised $426 billion for 2015 when $418 billion is needed.
Raised $1,539 billion for 2030 when $1,355 billion is needed.
52% savings from tax increases
48% savings from spending cuts

• Cut foreign aid in half

• Cut civilan federal worker pay

• Enact Medicare malpractice reform

• Raise SS retirement to 70

• Return Estate Tax to Clinton-era

• Cap Medicare growth

• Return tax rates to Clinton-era

• Eliminate tax loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher

• Allow expiration of Bush tax cuts for those making above $250K

• Bank Tax

 

[bankside]

The States leaves a lot of tax money sitting on the table. I balanced your budget 61% from new taxes, or old taxes. The rest is mostly military cuts, and getting rid of those ridiculous farm subsidies and earmarks.

 

[torontoboy92]

The only one I was happy about cutting was spending on the military, and tax breaks for the Rich. This is what I did:

Eliminate earmarks

Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent

Cut 250,000 government contractors

Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe

Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets

Cancel or delay some weapons programs

Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance

Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels

Return rates to Clinton-era levels

Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year

Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher

Reduce mortgage-interest deduction by converting to credit

Carbon tax

Bank Tax

 

[MystikWizard]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=u26kd0jl

 

[JayHawk]

I cut everything and raised taxes on everything....


I get a almost 200 billion surplus by 2015 and almost a TRILLION by 2030.

Lets get it all rolling now....

 

[Kulindahr]

I came up with only $532 billion in 2015 ($114b surplus) and $1589 billion by 2030 ($234b surplus).

I find that insufficient, but then the exercise wouldn't let me do some things that are just sensible: end the farm subsidies except for family farmers, who they were intended to help to begin with. That would give me another ten billion at each end.

Nor would it let me do what I'd like with taxes: go with that surtax on million-plus incomes, but for above two million go to WWII rates.

If I'm estimating right, I now have a surplus of over $700 billion in 2015, and almost a full trillion in 2030. Of course I wouldn't run it that long; half a trillion per year would go to pay down the debt, starting with foreign lenders, and the rest into infrastructure, until infrastructure was saturated.

 

[JayHawk]

DOMESTIC PROGRAMS AND FOREIGN AID

• Cut foreign aid in half
• Eliminate earmarks
• Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent
• Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent
• Other cuts to the federal government:

• eliminating some agencies
• cutting research funds for fossil fuels
• reducing funds for the Smithsonian and the National Park Service
• eliminating certain regional subsidies
• eliminating the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

• Cut aid to states by 5 percent

MILITARY

• Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending
• Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets

FOREIGN TROOP LEVELS:

• Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015

HEALTH CARE

• Enact medical malpractice reform

MEDICARE COSTS:

• Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70
• Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013

SOCIAL SECURITY
CHANGING THE RETIREMENT AGE:

• Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70
• Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes

MODIFYING ESTATE TAXES:

• The Lincoln-Kyl proposal

INVESTMENT TAXES:

NONE

THE BUSH TAX CUTS

NONE

NEW TAXES AND TAX REFORM

• Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million

CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES:

• Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan)
• Reduce mortgage-interest deduction by converting to credit

This is a good start and a non starter because of our leaders to be honest but it is what i would do if i were King for a day.

Works out to a surplus in 2015 of a mere 13 billion but results sans any more entitlements coming out of Washington (which wont happen of course) but if it did by 2030 I will have a whopping 315 Billion surplus.

This is cool they should collect the results and then post what the 'people' wanna do....

 

[Lostlover]

I really gave it to middle income families. They're the majority of the teabaggers. I raised taxes for the rich and the middle income in 2015, hopefully we'll be out of this funk by then.

Now if they gave us the option of stiffing the Medicare and SS recipients now, this would be the perfect simulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=bpkmh9qp

It's simple folks. Higher taxes and cuts in government services.

$~300B surplus by 2015
$1.2T surplus by 2030

 

[LoveIsNow]

I balanced it with 70% from tax increases and 30% from cuts. Unfortunately, there weren't as many options as I would have liked: most lamentably, none for raising tariffs, which would help solve a lot of problems, just one of which is the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=l11jk5qm

As Kulndahr, mentioned, there was no way to keep farm subsidies for small farmers, or to customize your tax structure, and as much as I would like to eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, I don't know what the "some agencies" are that would be cut in "other cuts to the federal government" are; they might be something I think is important, so I don't want to sign off on something I don't know what it is.

But, for what it is it's a neat little exercise, and I got to make some interesting decisions.

 

[Jack Springer]

If only Congress and Dumbo would take the test.

 

[palemale]

I find that insufficient, but then the exercise wouldn't let me do some things that are just sensible: end the farm subsidies except for family farmers, who they were intended to help to begin with.

Why should family farms get subsidies? That's not a very libertarian idea, is it?

 

[Kulindahr]

As Kulndahr, mentioned, there was no way to keep farm subsidies for small farmers, or to customize your tax structure, and as much as I would like to eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, I don't know what the "some agencies" are that would be cut in "other cuts to the federal government" are; they might be something I think is important, so I don't want to sign off on something I don't know what it is.

I had the same hesitation there. It would be superb if someone would put one of these together where you could break something down and re-arrange it -- like on that one, click and get a list of the hundreds of little agencies we've never heard about (some of which, according to the original Grace Commission, sat there writing reports about nothing, to be read by no one, and filed where they'd never be seen).

Why should family farms get subsidies? That's not a very libertarian idea, is it?

Keeping family farms alive in the face of giant corporations enhances and preserves liberty.

If we actually had a libertarian country, those giant agricorps would be dead in the water, anyway -- a little principle called "chemical trespass" would kill them.
Family farms take better care of the land. That goes hand in hand with taking care of one's neighbor's, which is an outgrowth of respect for others, which is an immediate adjunct of self-ownership.

So, yes, it's libertarian, because it preserves liberty and helps adjust things to where they would be in a libertarian world.

People who aren't really libertarians but propertarians would disagree here, but it also upholds a principle: no one can own the earth. Corollary to that is that residents have an obligation to care for the earth -- and agribusinesses don't; they poison the land and the aquifers below.

 

[rareboy]

I did really well on these exercises.

I just used Canada's budget as a guide.

 

[hotatlboi]

cool link

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=11bk00ql

I did 48% tax increases and 52% spending cuts.

-reduce federal workforce by 10% (government is too large in general)
-reduce military to pre-Iraq war size (military is too large)
-delay some weapons programs (we're already overwhelmingly more advanced than everyone else)
-reduce troops in Iraq/Afghansitan to 60,000 by 2013
-enact medical malpractice reform
-cap medicare growth
-allow tax rates to expire for income above 250k
-payroll tax on greater than 106k
-eliminate loopholes but keep taxes slightly higher
-carbon tax (needed anyway)

 

[bankside]

I did really well on these exercises.

I just used Canada's budget as a guide.

LOL. I would like to think of myself as the Sanctimonious Canadian around here, but that was pretty good. My hat is off to you, eh. Erm....toque that is.


PS. Is it sanctimony when your country is actually doing it right?

 

[Kulindahr]

Only problem with that argument is that it's not government's job to do that.
Why should taxpayers have to support private businesses?

If you don't want government doing it,then you design for me a private-sector system whereby corporations destroying the land will be disciplined and penalized, where they will be required to repair the poisoning of field and aquifer, where their use of the shared aquifer can be regulated so they don't draw it down but build it up.....

I don't look at it as supporting private businesses, I look at it as paying them to keep doing a job that benefits us all -- taking care of the land, and serving as a piece of the foundation of liberty.

If an alternative to giant corporations is so important, why don't we have government-managed farms?

You can't be that clueless.

The best foil for giant agricorps is competition, even if it is from other giant agricorps. Bring back strong antitrust laws and enforce those laws.
Get rid of farm subsidies.

And get rid of oil co. subsidies.

Okay -- get rid of farm subsidies, and slam the agribusinesses with fines equivalent to what it would cost to clean up their messes -- you know, the cost of purging the poisons from the soil, and from the aquifers.

It would probably bankrupt most of them.


It's the function of government to uphold liberty. When there is a simple, basic institution that helps do so, and it faces a battle against giants that don't even know the concept, government can step in and add a correction.