It's no secret that our nation is deep in debt. Enormous annual budget deficits are projected to continue for...well, pretty much forever, unless something rather drastic is done, and soon.
Well, everyone can relax. I just solved all our problems.
Thanks to this handy tool from the New York Times, I was able to turn a projected $418 billion shortfall in 2015 into a $58 billion surplus. I was also able to turn a projected $1.345 trillion dollar deficit in 2030 into a $161 billion surplus.
Here's how I did it:
- Cut foreign aid in half - Sorry, Israel. We're broke!
- Eliminate earmarks - John McCain would have been proud. Oh, wait...he's still alive. Never mind!
- Eliminate farm subsidies - Although we may need to develop National Pitchfork Defense to prevent an uprising in Nebraska...
- Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent - Take that, public sector unions!
- Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent - This can be done mostly through attrition.
- Cut 250,000 government contractors - There are simply too many of them at present.
- Assorted other cuts to the federal government - NPR and the NEA are gone!
- Cut aid to states by 5 percent - Force states to cut the fat from their budgets.
- Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead - Healthcare premiums would have to rise for the first time in a decade.
- Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 - Surely this is doable, right? I mean, if it's not, then we are really and truly screwed...
- Enact medical malpractice reform - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I read that somewhere.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
That's a cool tool. The problem is that the options are so limited. I wanted to cut some of the suggested items far more than it allowed. Nonetheless I had no problem solving the budget problem with no real harm done to anyone. Maybe Congress needs a tool like this.
Dave
2 - Dr Dreadful
RJ, if you were able to turn the deficit into a surplus without eliminating Obamacare, then what, pray, is so objectionable about it?
3 - island
Stop paying foreign so called refugees to come to the US. Stop borrowing money from China, and taxing me and my children to Pay foreigners to come and live in the US. We pay people to come to the US and live from Pakistan, Somalia, and many other countries. We borrow money from China and Give them food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education. Then many go back to their countries to learn jihad. Then as soon as they become US citizens they bomb Times Square. This would save billions of dollars.
And then there are the million and a half legal foreigners that "support themselves" the government imports each and every each year, enough people to replace the entire native born American population of 3 states each and every year, to compete with Americans for jobs. Why import foreigners to take to take American jobs?
4 - Doug Hunter
#2 It's a little something called individual freedom, you probably wouldn't understand. As an analogy I'll give you retirement. What is so bad about Social Security and having the government handle your retirement? Well, let's see just from this list.
- Raise the Social Security retirement age to 68 - Just one year higher than already planned.
- Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes - Means test it.
In other words you have zero control over it. I have felt ever since I can remember feeling that the social security retirement money I put in was just being stolen and I would never receive any tangible benefit from it and I still believe that. They will decide that because I wasn't a consumerist jackass who spent every dime I made and depended on the government to bail me out that I deserve to receive nothing or barring that they'll simply continue to raise the age to the point where I'll never see it.
Let's contrast that with saving your own money in a private plan. With my own money, If I want to start eating into my capital at 68 I can, or 62 or 35. I don't need a 'means test' to decide if I can use the money I worked for. I understand, as always, the price of freedom is responsibility and generally people do not handle that well. Some people will never save for retirement and those people are the same people who likely won't earn enough in there lifetime to fund their retirement even with mandatory taxes. I understand I must work twice as much and be twice as creative in my life so that the excess I create can be redistributed to someone who contributes nothing but a mouth to feed. I understand it, I just don't like it.
5 - Baronius
I can get two-thirds of the way there (and a greater percentage in the long run) with only two tax hikes: a millionaire's tax and the Bowles-Simpson plan for eliminating loopholes and lowering rates. And I'm still uncomfortable with the millionaire's tax. The problem with all these tax increases is that the estimates of their impact are based on static modelling. Under static modelling,
change in tax rate -> direct change in tax revenue
In dynamic modelling,
change in tax rate -> direct change in tax revenue
(and)-------------------> change in national income -> indirect change in tax revenue
In other words, the whole notion of economic incentives is ignored with static modelling.
6 - Arch Conservative
Cutting the deficit is only one third of the battle.
We as a nation need to be debt free.
The third element is manufacturing. We don't do it anymore. That's a big problem.
We've got a long, long way to go from playing with ridiculous budget calculators from the NYT.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius!
Hey, whaddaya know - a conservative who sees the benefit of tax hikes for the wealthy (who do NOT need them to begin with) and closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations like Exxon to get away with paying less in taxes than any BC blogger does!
There's hope for you yet!
(P.S. tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue only ONE time...and that happened to be the SAME year (under JFK) that taxpayer identification numbers first went into effect for ensuring that everyone paid their taxes. If high taxes for the wealthy were that bad, then why didn't they go broke when the top tax rate was 90% for ten years and 70% for twenty years after that? (1950-1980))
8 - Baronius
Arch, we don't need to be debt-free. Nations, families, and companies can take on some debt to get through hard times or to pay for a major expense. But if you're borrowing to make everyday purchaces, you're in trouble.
As for manufacturing, yeah, we could be better. We manufacture 25% less than China, which has 4x our population. We manufacture a little less than India, Japan, Germany, and Russia combined. In terms of manufacturing, we're about 80% of NAFTA. And keep in mind that the service industries aren't "burger flipping" jobs. They're in education, finance, health care, entertainment, and telecom (among other industries). The US is doing a lot of cutting-edge stuff in those fields.
9 - Baronius
Glenn, that's not true. Federal revenue went up following the Bush tax cuts of 2003. In the early 1920's it's hard to track, because the tax cuts were phased in, but tax revenue was stable while tax rates were cut by 2/3.
As for your PS, I've noticed that you point out the high maximum rates in the postwar years a lot. When Dave points out that those rates were applied to very few people, you never reply. It seems to me that the income level at which a certain rate kicks in is as important as the rate, because if it's high enough it won't affect anyone. But you never reply. I'd think this would be one of those opportunities for you to either seal an argument or admit to an error, two things you've said that you're always willing to do. I know that Dave has given you multiple chances.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Doug (@ #4):
Supposing someone embezzles away your retirement fund, or you get seriously ill and have to withdraw all of your savings to pay your medical bills?
Suddenly, you qualify for Social Security via a means test.
I don't plan on relying on Social Security for my retirement either, and I'm continuing to pay into an employer-provided health plan (actually my wife's, which sucks significantly less than my employer's does).
But it's nice to have a safety net.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Actually, total federal revenue went DOWN each year from 2001-2003. The federal revenue went UP in 2004...but bear in mind that 2004 was the beginning of the real estate bubble - and purchases of houses with greatly-inflated prices also included greatly-inflated tax revenue. The below are the federal revenue per year, in billions, in 2005 dollars:
1999 2106.33
2000 2284.86
2001 2196.84
2002 2012.00
2003 1894.29
2004 1943.02
2005 2153.86
So...what I said stands.
And as for your comment:
As for your PS, I've noticed that you point out the high maximum rates in the postwar years a lot. When Dave points out that those rates were applied to very few people, you never reply. It seems to me that the income level at which a certain rate kicks in is as important as the rate, because if it's high enough it won't affect anyone. But you never reply.
Baronius, you should know by now that I've no problem addressing any particular issue. I've shown by word and deed that I am grateful when someone proves me wrong on any particular issue. I honestly haven't seen Dave make such a claim (which is not to say that he hasn't, but that I can't check BC every single day (or week))...and I'd wholeheartedly agree with the high taxes being applied to only the very wealthiest, say, less than 2% of the taxpaying population - you know, sorta like what Obama's been saying about keeping the tax cuts for all Americans except for those who make a quarter million or so every year.
Exactly why it is that Republicans want to keep Reaganomics (too-low taxes and too much deregulation) with the crises and recessions it's brought ('82 recession, '88 S&L crisis, '91 recession, '01 dot-com bubble, '07 real estate bubble, and the '08 Great Recession)...when the nation's fiscal policies in place from WWII until 1980 obviously worked quite well and brought us VERY few such recessions...
...is beyond me. They don't want to do what American history proves works just fine, but they want to keep doing what American history proves to not work nearly so well.
Baronius, I just wish that y'all would make your decisions based on what has and has not worked before.
12 - Clavos
closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations like Exxon to get away with paying less in taxes than any BC blogger does!
BC bloggers and all citizens who buy Exxon products and services pay Exxon's taxes, which, in accordance with standard business practice, are incorporated in the prices of their products and services; as are the taxes of all US corporations that "pay" taxes (None do -- they collect them for the gummint, then pass them on to their customers).
The only taxpayers are the private citizens; the consumers.
13 - roger nowosielski
That's a radical statement, Clavos.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
So...you think that businesses should pay no taxes at all. Is that what you believe? And do you really, truly believe that if all of a sudden there were no more business taxes, that the CEO's - the kind, gracious, big-hearted Real Americans that they surely are - would drop their prices one whit?
And you call me naive!
You do realize, of course, that if businesses don't pay any taxes, then the tax rates of all Americans will have to be raised - and an even greater burden will be placed on the middle- and lower-class population since the rich can afford accountants to 'adjust' their earnings so that they pay as little as possible.
Ah, but I forget! Not only do you think that businesses shouldn't be taxed at all, but that it's okay that rich people pay proportionally less of their income than the middle class does.
Clavos, you've been sticking a wee bit too close to the grape Kool-Aid dispenser....
15 - Baronius
Tax cuts became law in May 2003. Revenue went up in 2004.
16 - roger nowosielski
He ain't saying that, Glenn. The import is that you're being shafted and you don't even know it.
17 - Clavos
So...you think that businesses should pay no taxes at all. Is that what you believe?
Your reading comprehension,never very good ,seems to be deteriorating as you age, Glenn.
I didn't say that. What I said was that you fool yourself if you think that businesses pay taxes -- they don't, their customers pay their taxes as part of the price of their goods and services -- taxes are part of the businesses' costs and as such are added into their prices.
As a result, the ultimate taxpayer in this country is the consumer -- we pay ALL the taxes.
You do realize, of course, that if businesses don't pay any taxes, then the tax rates of all Americans will have to be raised...
They already are Glenn, in the prices we pay for what we buy -- everything we buy!
If you don't realize that, you're not only naive, you don't know anything about business.
18 - Clavos
@# 13:
But true, Roger...
19 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, I see the logic of your position just as clearly as you see Clavos' intemperate suggestion that corporations pay no taxes at all. Shame on him, so blinded by rightist dogma that he can't see the truth!
Obviously corporations, wicked money grubbing creatures that they are, raking in scads of undeserved profits from the brows of the enslaved working poor, should pay all the taxes and not be permitted to pass any of them through to their foolish but untaxed customers. If that results in killing off the corporations, good; then the benign government must take over all production of goods and services. It will then be unnecessary to go through the legal entanglements of expropriation. The world will be a far better place for it.
Dan (Miller) on behalf of Hugo Chavez
20 - Clavos
Let me give you a concrete example, Glenn. I own some rental properties. On those properties I "pay" property tax, and on the profit from the rent, I "pay" income tax.
But in reality,I'm not paying those taxes, because I include them in the rents I receive for those properties, so in effect, I'm merely collecting the taxes for the government from the consumers, my tenants, and passing them on to the governments who charge them.
ALL businesses do that, Glenn, because if they didn't do that, not only with their taxes but with ALL their expenses incurred in the production of the widgets they sell, they wouldn't have a profit, and would be out of business in very short order.
21 - roger nowosielski
Wow, Clavos, you're a little capitalist pig. I thought you just sell yachts but in effect, you're also a landlord, which makes you a little feudal pig.
No wonder we hate your guts.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Research a bit more about the tax laws. The 2003 law passed simply accelerated some facets of the 2001 tax cut. The 2001 tax cut had been completely implemented for everyone in the bottom two tax brackets...but not for anyone in the other four tax brackets whose taxes were retroactively lowered in the 2003 tax cut.
Again, the increase in federal revenue in 2004 is largely due to the real estate bubble that began after the end of the dot-com bubble crashed. Nearly every one of those real estate transactions with inflated prices yielded higher property taxes than would otherwise be expected. I really don't think you can disagree with this since real estate is one of the single biggest sectors - if not THE biggest sector - of the American economy.
Furthermore, Baronius, look what the Bush tax cuts really cost the American taxpayer:
The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 TRILLION over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
And while we're at it, Baronius, how'd the unemployment stats change when Dubya's tax cuts took effect? After all, if conservative dogma held true, then those tax cuts should have resulted in MASSIVE gains in employment and good times for all and sundry, right?
But what happened to those massive gains in employment? They went the way of the dodo bird and the federal budget surplus that Dubya was handed when he took the oath of office.
Baronius, the rich got much richer under Dubya...but there was almost ZERO growth in income among the middle class. The tax cuts didn't help you or me or Clavos or Roger. It helped the rich...and golly-gee-whiz, their great good fortune did NOT trickle down to the rest of us.
'Trickle-down' economics doesn't work, Baronius. That's why Dubya's dad called it 'voodoo economics'...and he was right.
23 - Clavos
Gee, Rog, and I thought you were a fan!
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
No, I do understand very well what you're saying...but what you're forgetting is the influence of the 'magic of the marketplace'.
If you have a really, really good income coming in from all your businesses, does that mean you raise or lower your prices? No, of course it doesn't. Your prices are determined by the market. Yes, you DO pass much of the cost of the taxes applied by the local/state/federal government...but not all of it, because you still have to keep your prices somewhere close to those of your competitors.
Furthermore, your competitors are rarely equal to you. Some are smarter, some are dumber. Some have better accountants, some have hacks who think they know accounting. And some have tax breaks that you do NOT have.
Life is rarely fair...and the same goes for business. It's like a sensible quote (gasp!) I heard from a Tea Party speaker: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." If anything, I'd have to say that if you're allowing taxes to hinder you as much as those taxes hinder your competitor, it's because your tactics suck.
So while all businesses at least to some extent pass on the cost of taxes to the customers, very few of them pass on ALL of that cost to the customers, but instead take a little less home than they might otherwise.
25 - roger nowosielski
For the life of me, Glenn, I really don't understand your point. Do you?