Solution to the Federal Deficit

[MrFun]

Relocate all Iraqis to other countries, and turn Iraq into a vacant, gigantic sandbox.

[Victor Galis]

The problem with Social Security is that advances in medical sciences mean there are more old people now, than when Social Security was implemented (IIRC, the avg. life expectancy in those days was 65). This means more and more seniors must be supported by fewer and fewer workers. This is the only unsustainable part, and to fix this, the retirement age needs to be bumped up. Face it, a 65 year old these days is in much better shape than a 65 year old when SS was first started.

[mrmitchell]

Yes, VG. Something like "Benefit age will be 85% of the standard life expectancy average recorded at the previous Census" would be nice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why tax marijuana? There's plenty of money to be saved simply by ending the War on Drugs - investigations, busts, raids, court costs, DEA salaries, prison costs, etc. No need for a silly, punitive tax.

Well what about other drugs? In order to save money, you'd have to deal with Medicare and other costs for drug rehabilitation. Having the political power to end the War on Drugs doesn't necessarily lead to the power to end Medicare spending, etc.

In the end the savings are less than you'd expect, I'd imagine.

--

I'd end the NEA, and slash all federal spending by 10% except SS (the McCain plan as Oerdin said). And somehow try to keep spending down (just about impossible, I know). Stop pork projects (even harder).

[David Floyd]

The other budget leaks are not charitable or generous, thus they go first.

Actually, charitable and generous federal programs should go first. I can see the value and benefit of a highway system, even if I don't agree with the federal government being involved in it. I think the highway system is more valuable than some charity program. Let's leave the charity where it belongs - with individuals.

Let's face it, though, the only reason anyone panders to the old people is because old people vote. If enough 20 year olds voted, I bet they could push through a program redirecting SS to college students.

Imran,

Well what about other drugs?

I don't think any drugs should be taxed. Including heroin and cocaine.

In order to save money, you'd have to deal with Medicare and other costs for drug rehabilitation.

I have a solution - end federal funding for both.

In the end the savings are less than you'd expect, I'd imagine.

Sure, this is possible, unless we do what I suggest and COMPLETELY turn off the funding spigot to these programs in every way, shape, and form.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have a solution - end federal funding for both.

Can I have a practical solution please?

[David Floyd]

You think cutting federal spending by a significant amount is practical to begin with?

[MrFun]

I still say my sand box idea tops everyone else's ideas.

[Skanky Burns]

So you admit that the tax would simply be punitive in nature? And, I might add, an encouragement to greater federal spending, something that by definition we want to avoid if we are serious about cutting the deficit.

No. I specifically remember saying that "More money is its own reward" - which made no comment in regards to whether such a tax would be punitive or not. I am curious, though, on how a new revenue source would lead to a greater deficit as you seem to imply.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think cutting federal spending by a significant amount is practical to begin with?

Yep... if Reagan could come in and cut taxes so significantly in 1981, I think a candidate can sweep in under a platform of cutting federal spending by 10% (like McCain).

[DanS]

While the deficit looks impressive, it's not that large, if the general magnitude is temporary. Further, we are no worse off on our total debt than most large industrialized nations. And much better off than several.

[David Floyd]

Skanky,

I am curious, though, on how a new revenue source would lead to a greater deficit as you seem to imply.

What's the point of getting new revenue, if not to simply spend it? When it comes to governments, there is no point. And spending inevitably leads to more spending.

Imran,

Yep... if Reagan could come in and cut taxes so significantly in 1981, I think a candidate can sweep in under a platform of cutting federal spending by 10% (like McCain).

Maybe. But I think 2003 is different from 1981, too. In any case, every politician in Washington will support cutting spending, until it turns out that we'll have to close their pissant little military base, or axe their dam project back home.

[Skanky Burns]

What's the point of getting new revenue, if not to simply spend it? When it comes to governments, there is no point. And spending inevitably leads to more spending.

And here I was thinking the point of it was to decrease the deficit.

[David Floyd]

OK, but I don't think this will reduce the deficit, in the long term. Any plan that reduces spending also has to include a plan to get the money out of federal control. This means tax cuts.

[Case]

Originally posted by DanS
While the deficit looks impressive, it's not that large, if the general magnitude is temporary.

Actually, a lot of economists are freaking out in concern that it might not be temporary - Bush's tax cuts knocked something like 15% off the US government's revenue base, meaning that the government's long run ability to pay for it's spending is reduced. That's a permanent structural change, not a temporary one.

If the deficit was merely due to war and bad economic times no experts would be too worried. What is worrying people is that larger deficits seem set to continue after the economy recovers and the war ends.

[Oerdin]

Hmmm, 15%? Where'd that figure come from. It sounds much to high to me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Please get rid of Social Security, for the love of god. That'll solve all your budget problems in a single stroke.

[Rogan Josh]

You could close the DEA and tax drugs instead. Hell, it works for cigarettes.

[Case]

Hmmm, 15%? Where'd that figure come from. It sounds much to high to me.

The Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor. It sounds rather high to me as well, but wasn't Bush boasting about the tax cuts being the biggest in US History?

[CerberusIV]

First set a strict limit on the amount anyone can spend on getting themselves elected. That way the arguments will be about whose policies are actually going to work rather than decided by who can spend enough to convince the voters. It would also reduce corporate influence by reducing how far in debt to particular interest groups a politician gets.

Spend the Medicare money on preventative healthcare and health education. People need to understand that they should look after their own health, not expect a pharmaceutical company to come up with a pill to cure them.

Decide what the military is actually for and have the military budget set accordingly. Do you really need a carrier battle group and a heavy division and a strategic bomber?

Engage with the european countries about reforming agricultural subsidies (hint - not all the EU countries are happy with the CAP). Perhaps the USA and EU should pull the plug on the WTO and let things move to a small number of regional trade blocks around the world that can negotiate effective bilateral deals with each other.

Unquantifiable I know but the problem is one of vested interests and the solution requires long term structural changes.

[Drogue]

I think it's quite simple to reduce the deficit, if politically unfeasable. Cut defence spending considerably (pre-Bush levels or maybe eve slightly lower), reduce other spending a la McCain's idea, and remove the Bush tax cuts. The level of tax pre-Bush was low enough to keep the US prosperous, especially relative to other developed natins that have higher tax. Defence spending in the US is massively higher per capita than most developed nations, and so can be cut. Yes it means there will be less interference in other nations, and less peacekeeping, but it can pass some of that on to other nations. The US as a whole needs no more military spending than the EU as a whole IMHO. Admittedly I would leave education and welfare spending static, because I think it's far more improtant to keep those than military spending, and you can balance the budget without doing both. This should balance without the need for tax rises other than repealing the Bush tax cuts. But an extra sales tax, like the European VAT is another option to create revenue. I understand that people want results for their tax rises, but it is sad that they do not understand that thecurrent system is unfeasable, and that tax rises are needed to keep the same level of public services, or those public services need to be reduced. You cannot have tax cuts and better services, as people seem to want.

Edit: How did I manage to have a rant about reducing spending without mentioning the CAP and farm subsidies. Destroy them. It really is that simple. **** the French, let's remove the CAP and do the same with the US farm subsidies (although the latter are much less harmful). Hell, I'd agree to QMV on much of the EUs work if we could have it on CAP. Most nations don't want it, its just that the French (and a few others IIRC) won't agree. The CAP is evil. It's just us, putting money in the pcokets of farmers to overproduce. We're not just ****ing developing countries, who import our dumped goods and cannot export theirs, even though they produce it cheaper, we're harming ourselves.

Sorry for the rant, but it's the most stupid and ugly piece of legislation I've ever seen, and responsible for so much hardship. "The CAP, so evil it's almost Finnish"

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Relocate all Iraqis to other countries, and turn Iraq into a vacant, gigantic sandbox.

Skip the relocation and go right to the sandbox.

[Sava]

One issue that has been overlooked here is the privatization of the military and how it has increased costs. The government outsources a lot of jobs to private firms that once used military personel. This has lead to a for-profit element that has crept into our defense spending in a big way. There was some discussion about it on MSNBC last week, but I regret I don't have any sources or figures.

Overall, there is government waste in every sector of government spending, that needs to be dealt with in a big way. I would create a commission of accountants to look at the entire budget and find government waste. Cutting spending without cutting the waste is a big mistake. Massive spending cuts are only going to hurt America. Instead, I would get more for our money, and make cuts in pork-related and corporate welfare programs.

I would also repeal the Bush-gift-to-the-rich-cuts, as well as instituting a progressive shift in the tax code, closer to pre-Reagan era (maybe 1950's-1960's) levels when America had a true progressive tax system. The burden should be put back on America's elite and taken off of the shoulders of the poor and middle classes. America was on the right track in the 1960's, but somehow, the junta of corporate scoundrels hijacked our country. The average net income for average workers in America has remained stagnant over 40 years, while income for the rich has increased dramatically. Everyone should be able to prosper in America, not just corrupt business leaders and those with wicked jump shots.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by DanS
While the deficit looks impressive, it's not that large, if the general magnitude is temporary.

I agree but what indications are there that the magnitude is only temporary?

[DanS]

Actually, a lot of economists are freaking out in concern that it might not be temporary - Bush's tax cuts knocked something like 15% off the US government's revenue base, meaning that the government's long run ability to pay for it's spending is reduced. That's a permanent structural change, not a temporary one.

Consider that there is income tax bracket creep which will raise taxes continuously over the next decade. If Bush had not lowered taxes, we would have been on track for an increasingly higher federal share of the economy. At the end of his term, Clinton oversaw a federal government that took a share of the economy that was equal to the largest in the post-WWII era. And this was in peace time! So Bush did the right thing in stopping this trend in its tracks.

As for the 15% reduction figure, that sounds about right. But it's not nearly as much as it might seem to your average Euro or Aussie, considering that the federal share of the economy is much lower than in any of these countries. Really, the parameters of federal taxation and spending have not changed over the last 50 years. Both federal spending and taxation have been about 18%-23% of the economy.

The only thing that needs to be done is fiscal discipline needs to be reinstituted. 2% federal worker wage increases instead of 4%. A little less pork here and there. That sort of thing.

[Sava]

The only thing that needs to be done is fiscal discipline needs to be reinstituted. 2% federal worker wage increases instead of 4%. That sort of thing.

That's right... instead of taxing the super-rich, let's just cut worker wages!

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Please get rid of Social Security, for the love of god. That'll solve all your budget problems in a single stroke.

Those old people vote. In US politics Social security is called the 3rd rail (like the electric rail which powers street cars) because who ever touchs it is politically dead.

[DanS]

Please get rid of Social Security, for the love of god. That'll solve all your budget problems in a single stroke.

Actually, it would make them worse nowadays.

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, it would make them worse nowadays.

Really? Explain, please.

In US politics Social security is called the 3rd rail (like the electric rail which powers street cars) because who ever touchs it is politically dead.

Something even John McCain knows.

A man can dream, though, can't he?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by DanS
The only thing that needs to be done is fiscal discipline needs to be reinstituted. 2% federal worker wage increases instead of 4%. A little less pork here and there. That sort of thing.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one. We need cuts since social spending is going to have to massively increase over the coming years. We can't have the fiscal disipline your talking about if the rate of increase for social programs is always increasing. By all indications the worker per retiree ratio is going to keep getting worse for the next 30 years and social costs are just going to go up and up and up.