http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/federal-budget-statistics-1110
This was produced by the Esquire Commission (Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, John Danforth, and Bob Packwood). I will sum this up:
the goal is to balance the federal budget by 2020, with fed spending and revenue to both equal 20% of the GDP, and to stabilize the national debt at 60% in 2020 - while guaranteeing the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 yrs, restructuring the military, and keeping individual tax rates near their current level. All projected savings & revenue are for 2020 and all amounts are in 2020 dollars.
the key proposals are:
A. Social Security
gradually raise the retirement age to 70 -- $49Bill saved
use an alternate measure of inflation to calculate cost-of-living adjustments -- $23Bill saved
B Defense
restructure the military along strategic lines (and away from the old cold war approaches) -- $169Bill saved
assume the cost of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq will decline -- $126Bill saved
C Healthcare
enact medical malpractice reform by establishing medical courts -- $10Bill saved
D Other Spending
cut the federal workforce by 5% -- $26Bill saved
reform farm subsidies -- $13Bill saved
eliminate all earmarks -- $18Bill saved
E Total Projected Savings on Debt Service in 2020 -- $142Bill saved
F Revenue
keep tax rates low for the next decade -- $273 loss of revenue
repeal employer healthcare tax exclusion and offer a refundable healthcare tax credit -- $63Bill gain in revenue
increase the gas tax by $1.00-per-gallon -- $130Bill gain in revenue
limit itemized deductions for high earners -- $57Bill gain in revenue
include all new state & local govt workers in Social Security -- $21Bill gain in revenue
Total projected Savings from spending cuts $618Bill
Total projected net Revenue increase $26Bill
total projected revenues in 2020 - $4.69 Trill (20.8% of GDP)
total projected spending in 2020 - $4.68 Trill (20.8% of GDP)
projected Debt-to-GDP Ratio in 2020: 52%
Naturally, it took four senators who are no longer in office to come up with a specific proposal. This is the sort of thing I'd like to see candidates in office now to put forth. Then we could have a debate on the specific elements of the proposal and find something that a good majority of the voters can accept. Lots of hard choices here -- but we CAN balance the budget.
My one major criticism is that rapidly rising healthcare costs still need to be addressed. Malpractice reform isn't enough. But this proposal seems like a good starting point.
No decrease in Defence Spending is possible - indeed it should be increased - because, besides making Americans the safest people in the world, it supports patriotic military families who are living in poverty and sustains many towns and cities and thus stimulates the economy. Social Security should be phased out altogether as it is simply a subsidy for culture-rotting dependency, unproductivity and is like a lead weight around the economy's kneck.
Originally posted by John W BoothBroken window fallacy.
No decrease in Defence Spending is possible - indeed it should be increased - because, besides making Americans the safest people in the world, it supports patriotic military families who are living in poverty and sustains many towns and cities and thus stimulates the economy. Social Security should be phased out altogether as it is simply a subsidy fo ...[text shortened]... ulture-rotting dependency, unproductivity and is like a lead weight around the economy's kneck.
Originally posted by John W BoothYou make the point that I've made a number of times -- that the defense system has become a de facto welfare system. Surely there are more efficient and less expensive ways of helping families living in poverty and sustaining towns & cities and stimulating the economy.
No decrease in Defence Spending is possible - indeed it should be increased - because, besides making Americans the safest people in the world, it supports patriotic military families who are living in poverty and sustains many towns and cities and thus stimulates the economy. Social Security should be phased out altogether as it is simply a subsidy fo ...[text shortened]... ulture-rotting dependency, unproductivity and is like a lead weight around the economy's kneck.
No one is arguing that the US should eliminate essential defense programs -- just that we should look at reducing programs that made only sense back when the Soviet bloc was the main threat -- and that we should consider alternative ways of ensuring national security that don't involve getting entangled in long-term nation-building operations halfway around the world.
As for completely phasing out Social Security -- right now, it would be politically impossible to do. The idea is for everyone to put aside their Utopian wish lists and propose ideas for balancing the budget that are conceivably do-able right now.
Once that has been done, the Great Debate can then begin on Grand Ideas such as whether or not Social Security should be fundmentally changed beyond incremental things like raising the retirement age. And most importantly, the debate could then be carried out without the distractions of people complaining about the national debt being out of control or the current Social Security system being "insolvent". Maybe at that time, someone will come up with a truly Excellent and Popular Policy to replace the current approach.
Originally posted by John W BoothHow about bringing the troops home for starters?
No decrease in Defence Spending is possible - indeed it should be increased - because, besides making Americans the safest people in the world, it supports patriotic military families who are living in poverty and sustains many towns and cities and thus stimulates the economy. Social Security should be phased out altogether as it is simply a subsidy fo ...[text shortened]... ulture-rotting dependency, unproductivity and is like a lead weight around the economy's kneck.
Originally posted by John W BoothAre you going to make any legitimate proposals regarding the Esquire Commission's plan to balance the budget? Are there any specific changes you'd like to see made to it that have a chance of being implemented sometime within this decade. So that when the new "Reconstruction" commences, all of the rebels might have something to offer besides empty slogans?
Reconstruction commences in November 2010
Originally posted by Melanerpes"Down With Big Brother" is specific enough for me and millions of Americans.
Are you going to make any legitimate proposals regarding the Esquire Commission's plan to balance the budget? Are there any specific changes you'd like to see made to it that have a chance of being implemented sometime within this decade. So that when the new "Reconstruction" commences, all of the rebels might have something to offer besides empty slogans?
Originally posted by John W BoothGreat, that way Big Brother can force other countries to do its bidding.
If the troops are overseas at least they are not able to do Big Brother's bidding (Executive Orders) with regard to the 2012 election.
Like I said, bring the troops home and make them gaurd the border where they belong!! ðŸ˜