The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

[Tundra]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Plus if the federal budget was on a four year cycle and debated / passed one year post-presidential election (so the next budget would be debated / passed in 2013), we wouldn't have to worry about "election year" politicking. If there's concern over Congress failing to pass a new budget, a rule could be put in place that dictates the current budget's spending and taxation levels continue until the next one passes (thus eliminating the need to pass stupid continuing resolutions and sparing us needless drama).

I like it. But you've to wonder what mischief congress will get into with all that free time.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I like it. But you've to wonder what mischief congress will get into with all that free time.

That will free them up to do important things, like name Post Offices and rename French Fries.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

For comparison, the Obama budget puts us at 77% of GDP and Ryan's proposal puts us at 68% in 2021.

Under Ryan’s plan, debt would rise slightly from about 69 percent of GDP this year to 75 percent in 2013 before falling to 68 percent in 2021. After 2021, debt would continue on a downward trajectory, falling to 64 percent by 2030, 48 percent in 2040, and 10 percent by 2050.

The president of CRFB is Maya MacGuineas.

"All parts of the budget, including defense and revenues, will have to be part of a budget deal,” added MacGuineas. “Given the need to put a budget fix in place as quickly as possible, we need to turn our attention to developing a comprehensive plan that can garner broad-based support. Time is not on our side here."

So, to put the question out there, should the repeal of all tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 be allowed to expire (less the AMT patch) which will immediately start us off with $3trillion in savings?

What about the four-year budget proposal from Bakunin? Any opposition to that?

I like Almington's tax proposals but have not found a way to score them so I don't know how much they will cost/save.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

What about the four-year budget proposal from Bakunin? Any opposition to that?

I think that it should be done on a 2 year process, so that each and every congress gets to pass a budget and the voters can either support or reject it at the next election.

This year they would pass a 2012/13 budget, then the next congress (elected in 2012) would be able to pass the 2014/15 budget in 2013.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I think that it should be done on a 2 year process, so that each and every congress gets to pass a budget and the voters can either support or reject it at the next election.

I prefer a longer process because I think many of our problems stem from a lack of stability with our policies. Someone mentioned it in another thread and it bears repeating: while businesses and individuals want the lowest rates possible, they also want predictable policies.

Does anyone else think the 2-year election cycle of the House has become counterproductive in modern times (with perpetual campaigning now)? How much support would there be for changing the House term to four years?

 

[UMDbulldogs#1]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

According to The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget eliminating all the Bush tax cuts but leaving in the patches for the AMT will shave $3T off the budget deficit.



Cutting taxes on everyone but the top two brackets would only save $700B.

Using the calculator at this site I was able to get the budget to 59% of GDP by 2018 (their goal is 60%). To do this I:

1. Lowered troop levels in Afghanistan to 30K by 2013 ($1.3T)
2. Allow all tax cuts to expire, except AMT ($3T)
3. Chose the president's growth rate for discretionary spending rather than inflation ($600B)
4. Cut missile defense ($50B)
5. Reversed the "Grow the Army" initiative ($90B)
6. Canceled remaining ARRA funds ($190B)
7. Freeze Average Unemployment Benefits at 2009 Levels ($50B)
8. Raise the Normal Retirement Age to 68 ($110B)
9. Use An Alternate Measure of Inflation for COLA ($100B)
10. Increase Years Used to Calculate Benefits ($40B)
11. Increase Cost-Sharing for Medicare ($100B)
12. Establish a Public Option in the Health Exchange ($40B)
13. Enact Medical Malpractice Reform ($50B)
14. Increase the Medicare Retirement Age to 67 ($80B)
    among other things. We won't be going back to the Moon anytime soon, but we did restore some fiscal sanity.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    And I did all this without raising taxes above the 1990's era levels.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Congratulations. You have just eliminated yourself from ever holding political office. The above could only be accomplished by someone with an IQ above 100. I believe the maximum allowable IQ for a politician is 85. Better luck next time.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Does anyone else think the 2-year election cycle of the House has become counterproductive in modern times (with perpetual campaigning now)? How much support would there be for changing the House term to four years?

Baby steps. We're not going to rewrite the Constitution on this go-around.

Congratulations. You have just eliminated yourself from ever holding political office. The above could only be accomplished by someone with an IQ above 100. I believe the maximum allowable IQ for a politician is 85. Better luck next time.

That's been the philosophy for too long. I'm unabashedly a liberal but even I recognize the need to cut spending programs, and some of those cuts are going to be painful. And I'm not willing to do it in a vacuum. The other side is going to have to sacrifice something, too. The idea that we can get out of this hole without letting the tax cuts expire is laughable. Liberals aren't even proposing new taxes (there's no VAT, carbon or any other tax in my plan) just restoring tax levels to what they were in 2000 (You know, when the budget was balanced). I'm not crazy about Tundra's idea of drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but if it's part of a broad national plan it should be on the table.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I think there should be a carbon tax - it's a much better approach than regulation via the EPA, *and* it would generate revenue. It would also give companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I think there should be a carbon tax - it's a much better approach than regulation via the EPA, *and* it would generate revenue. It would also give companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

Any carbon tax on industry would almost require to be offset by some type of carbon credit to the consumer to make the whole system fiscally neutral (or at least nearly so).

I'd have no problem with having carbon credits auctioned off with the proceeds distributed to Americans in the form of a retirement account; as a privatized supplement to social security. Basically all Americans are given a TSP (with conservative investment option), that can either be invested in the government plans or rolled over into a private IRA, the individual decision is left to the taxpayer. I would also add the option of depositing your federal tax refund into the account and getting a ~10%-15% bonus contribution. Basically anything that helps the typical American start saving SOMETHING for retirement is a good option. I would also have an opt-out for people who wanted their money right now could have it.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

The main problems with carbon taxes aren't economic - they're political. Taxes are political poison.

Anyone remember GHWB and "voluntary export restraints" by Japanese automakers? Those make no economic sense. They limit supply,raising prices, but instead of raising revenue, they simply increased marginal profits per unit for Japanese manufacturers. And everyone knew it. But it was the most politically palatable way to do it.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I went to the NYT simulator and turned the projected budget deficit of $418B into a surplus of $370B; and flipped a projected 1.345T deficit in 2030 into a $791B surplus. Not only do we have a budget well past balanced, we've paid down almost the entire debt of $13.2T. This really isn't rocket science.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I went to the NYT simulator and turned the projected budget deficit of $418B into a surplus of $370B; and flipped a projected 1.345T deficit in 2030 into a $791B surplus. Not only do we have a budget well past balanced, we've paid down almost the entire debt of $13.2T. This really isn't rocket science.

It isn't, but it never has been a question of inteligence. It has always been a question of politics. No democrat wants to have to try and win a general election after supporting tax increases (no republican who did that would survive a primary), no one really want to face the rath of being one who cuts into social security or medicare for those who already have those entitlements. It is completely a question of political will and not a question of economic intelligence.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I think there should be a carbon tax - it's a much better approach than regulation via the EPA, *and* it would generate revenue. It would also give companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

I dislike a carbon tax for a host of reasons. A primary reason is that economies, growing and established rely on energy such as coal and oil so no 'global agreement' will be reached on a taxation of carbon emissions. Likewise, you won't see agreement stateside as certain industries will be unfairly punished by virtue that they rely more on energy products. Why should land freight companies, for example, bear the burden of double dipping of high gas prices and carbon taxes? That doesn't help an already struggling economy.

I went to the NYT simulator and turned the projected budget deficit of $418B into a surplus of $370B; and flipped a projected 1.345T deficit in 2030 into a $791B surplus. Not only do we have a budget well past balanced, we've paid down almost the entire debt of $13.2T. This really isn't rocket science.


The big spenders include entitlement, DOD, and health. We also have costly regulators that have given rise to globalization ( thanks EPA) that could just get the axe. What I am trying to get at is that I agree that we could trim a lot of fat and potentially make this work if leadership was truly dedicated to that cause. Lets cut pointless subsidies. Lets cut back on military. Lets revamp our medical system which is in dire need of an enima ( highest % of GDP, pretty bad quality...hmm). It seems to me as a layperson that there is a lot we can do.

*Note, asking for DOD cut from a guy who might get hired on a navy site. See, im not that biased *

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

It isn't, but it never has been a question of inteligence. It has always been a question of politics. No democrat wants to have to try and win a general election after supporting tax increases (no republican who did that would survive a primary), no one really want to face the rath of being one who cuts into social security or medicare for those who already have those entitlements. It is completely a question of political will and not a question of economic intelligence.

People who already have those entitlements aren't going to have them touched. People who would have them in the future would be impacted. I get the political posturing, but it's clear there is a deal to be made here (removal of tax cuts vs reduced entitlements). You know, if we'd had this Congress in 1820 the country would still be stuck at 22 states with a bunch of territories.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

People who already have those entitlements aren't going to have them touched. People who would have them in the future would be impacted. I get the political posturing, but it's clear there is a deal to be made here (removal of tax cuts vs reduced entitlements). You know, if we'd had this Congress in 1820 the country would still be stuck at 22 states with a bunch of territories.

Yah, it's still political suicide to cut stuff for people who are currently getting stuff, so they put in a bunch of reductions for future generations. Which needs to be done, but will do little in the short term to keep the currently exploding deficit from dragging this nation down. People will have to accept and experience some pain now the meaningfully deal with this stuff in the near term, or we'll crater the country.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I went to the NYT simulator and turned the projected budget deficit of $418B into a surplus of $370B; and flipped a projected 1.345T deficit in 2030 into a $791B surplus. Not only do we have a budget well past balanced, we've paid down almost the entire debt of $13.2T. This really isn't rocket science.

Me too. And according to Bob I'm the psycho liberal who supports everything Obama does and would never cut any entitlements.

The plan is simple. Make logical defense cuts, stop policing the world. Raise retirement age on folks 55 or younger to 68 for SS and Medicare and bring back the Clinton era tax rates.

Boom, done.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

People who already have those entitlements aren't going to have them touched. People who would have them in the future would be impacted. I get the political posturing, but it's clear there is a deal to be made here (removal of tax cuts vs reduced entitlements). You know, if we'd had this Congress in 1820 the country would still be stuck at 22 states with a bunch of territories.

I agree, but compromise is a dirty word in politics today. To many people (both on the left and the right) view their ideology as the one and only "true" ideology and that compromising is corrupting their view with something that is impure.

I'm beginning to wonder how many Americans are still in the middle, because give the volume of rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum they clearly don't have a voice anymore.

As for complaints about the EPA and the cost of regulation, I personally enjoy clean air and water and wouldn't want to give them up just to save a few dollars on a pile of things when odds are that I'll spend at least that amount on increased health care costs over my life.

The towns of Donora and Webster, Pennsylvania, along the Monongahela River southwest of Pittsburgh, were the site of a lethal air pollution disaster in late October 1948 that convinced members of the scientific and medical communities, as well as the public, that air pollution could kill people, as well as cause serious damage to health.... Almost half of the area's 14,000 residents reported becoming ill and about two dozen deaths were attributed to the badly polluted air.

Link to information

I find people who complain about health care costs rising at the same time proclaim that we need to do away with environmental regulation as being penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Me too. And according to Bob I'm the psycho liberal who supports everything Obama does and would never cut any entitlements.

The plan is simple. Make logical defense cuts, stop policing the world. Raise retirement age on folks 55 or younger to 68 for SS and Medicare and bring back the Clinton era tax rates.

Boom, done.

Not all the time, just most of the time. You have your occasional bouts of reasonableness. I sincerely hope that they appear more regularly.

On paper it's easy to make those, or other moves and balance the budget. I run those simulators and can create nice surpluses, with spending cuts and revenue increases. But, every sizable cut or revenue increase is going to have constituencies that are directly impacted, jobs that are lost, etc. and it's long been a case in this country that a vocal minority who have a direct stake in seeing federal spending continue in a given area will prevail over the greater good of cutting that area. We talk great talk, but don't walk the walk as a country.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

As for complaints about the EPA and the cost of regulation, I personally enjoy clean air and water and wouldn't want to give them up just to save a few dollars on a pile of things when odds are that I'll spend at least that amount on increased health care costs over my life.

Link to information
Have you been to LA, or north eastern NJ? How about cleveland? Ever see the crap some of the munitions pour into the water? I am honestly not sure if it makes much of a difference.

It also doesn't help I am biased aginst the EPA since they won't allow my beloved Subaru Legacy Diesel to come stateside 50 highway MPG is pretty sick. However, particulate emissions don't pass standards especially in NY and CA.

I find people who complain about health care costs rising at the same time proclaim that we need to do away with environmental regulation as being penny wise and pound foolish.

Have you heard my outcry against QE1, QE2, Bailouts, DOD spending? the EPA is one of many. I also rail out against corn ethanol which consumes roughly 7 billion annually. I fail to see how concerning my self with EPA spending whilst mentioning health care costs are in any way mutually exclusive and hense, penny wise and dollar dumb. Both need to have costs cut, end of story.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I'm guessing by the smiley that you already know the counterargument.

One vintage diesel = no problem. Eliminating particulate pollution controls =