Completely Irresponsible

[packsaddle]

BadenP, I think Simpson and Bowles would disagree and I think that while they weren't perfect, they offered the best approach so far. And everyone ignored them. Alan Simpson has expressed his disgust in many interviews since they completed their work and he's right to feel that way. We paid for a bipartisan plan and got one that could actually help. In rejecting their work we have agreed that we aren't really interested in a solution. We have agreed to do nothing instead.

[vol_scouter]

BadenP,

 

The Tea Party is not a moronic group. The were elected for the reasons that you just elaborated - people are fed up with politicians who ignore the will of the people. They were elected to bring financial sense back to the country by reducing spending. They did compromise since the actual cuts in spending are only a few tens of billions ($21 billion I believe). The other 'spending' cuts were in increases in spending not in current spending. This is not what they were elected to do and so they compromised.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I agree with you. I think that the group of 12 should meet once and adopt the Simpson-Bowles plan which then makes it a strict up or down vote. If the committee would do that quickly and the congress were to pass it quickly, the economy might be recovering by the election. That would likely ensure re-election for Obama which to me would be a terrible side-effect. However, I believe that passing the Simpson-Bowles plan would be the best for the country from what I know of the plan.

[scoutingagain]

Yes, there are solutions. There have been several that have been proposed, and most resemble the Simpson and Bowles approach. None are painless but the reasonable ones all spread the pain out and include both increases in revenue as well as modest cuts in spending to all the sacred cows including defense, Soc. Security and Medicare.

 

The problem is gridlock in Washington and the lack of political will. In particular the intransience of one side that refuses to compromise. They want their sacred cows saved and expect everyone else to double down on theirs. Until this situation changes, and there's no reason to believe it will anytime soon,we're in the soup.

 

The Tea Party is not representative of most Americans. Poll after poll indicate the majority of Americans support a compromise solution, including raising taxes and tax reform. The big difference is the Tea Party votes. Not just in national elections but in primaries and local elections. Until those that respond to polls actually begin voting for leaders that reflect their views and participate in the process a politically active minority will be setting the agenda.

 

SA

 

[SSScout]

Real cuts in SPENDING, not in less of an increase. Ten percent cut in paper clips,F35s, walnut desks, Ospreys, EVERYTHING. Ten percent raise in federal income, thru graduated tax, better tracking of tariffs and elimination of many "loopholes" (no need to list any here) and exemptions and deductions.

Apply savings to debt, NOT to other programs

[vol_scouter]

Neither party garners a majority of Americans so neither the Republicans, Democrats, or Tea Party can claim to represent most Americans. That said, the polls also showed more support for cutting spending than for raising taxes. The Tea Party movement is grass roots and made a large change in the political scene. The Tea Party only got ~$21 billion in real cuts and promises for cuts in future increases in spending. Such promises are historically seldom respected. So this is just nonsense that the Tea Party forced these enormous changes. If the democrat party had agreed to large cuts to current spending, then they could have rightfully expected tax increases. However, the democrat party only gave minuscule actual spending cuts and promises for cuts in the increase in spending. Also, it should be pointed out that the same percentage of the public was opposed to Obamacare when it passed.

[Beavah]

Yah, vol_scouter, yeh seem to be an intelligent fellow, despite tarrin' the Democrats and not acknowledging that the Republicans resist cuts to their favorite programs just as much. So maybe you can answer da question that nobody in the Tea Party movement seems to be able to answer.

 

What cuts?

 

Yah, yah, I get that they don't want any taxes, and think it's just great if Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does. And I get that they want a balanced budget. What I haven't yet heard from any of 'em is what they would cut to get a balanced budget in this economic environment.

 

You're not allowed just to wave your hands and say "waste", now. And yeh can't just cut NPR and cheer and say you're done. They have to be identified, and they have to add up. Remember, every single Republican candidate has said they wouldn't increase revenues even if they got 10 times as much in cuts.

 

So how 'bout it, eh? What cuts?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

That is a difficult question indeed. My work is government related and so proposing cuts may well entail the loss of my own job but if they are not made, then it will not matter with my position survives or not. NPR is actually a primary source of my news and I believe that it would be worthwhile if it were to be balanced in the coverage and selection of stories. I really doubt that to be possible so cut it. The department of education is not the province of the federal government so I would faze it out over 6-8 years and return education strictly to the states. Note that the US test scores fall is approximately inversely proportion to the involvement of the federal government. The waste from what I see is due to over regulation. The government makes new regulations that make everything take longer, cost more, and require new bureaucrats to oversee it. So I would try to decrease regulations and duplicative programs. To stimulate the economy, regulations need to be decreased on the private sector as well. It is hard to know what is waste and what spending on security that is hidden in the budget.

 

I would decrease overseas aid that seems to cause more problems in the long run than help. DoD will have savings if we get out of our 3 wars. However, considering the threats, I would increase the defense spending on R&D and the intelligence community. Not sure whether that would be a modest net savings or not. The issues of illegal migrants to the country needs to be addressed and either make them pay all taxes as a citizen must or remove all federal welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. services.

 

Most of the money (~80%) spent in medicare and medicaid is spent in the first and last days of life. I would cut funding in these times by increasing the ability of attending physicians to withdraw medical interventions in hopeless situations (I see this all of the time). I would decrease the regulations in healthcare to decrease costs. Health insurance should be like other insurance - it should only cover the expenses that people cannot be expected to pay. Homeowner's insurance mainly covers large losses and will not pay for routine maintenance. So medicare and medicaid should be primarily a hospitalization plan. They should be changed to indemnity plans to bring the free market into the plan which has not been the case since the 1970's. REPEAL Obamacare!!!!

 

I would change the taxation system to the fair tax and have slight increase in tax revenues from what is being collected. The Sarbane_Oxley (sp?) accounting needs to be repealed. The congressional mandate for Freddie and Fannie to make loans to folks that are not good risks. Get rid of "green energy" initiatives, tax breaks, etc., Decrease the EPA.

 

For social security, review all that get benefits that were not part of the original intent (help at retirement). From the little that I know, enact Ryan's plan but make the age of changing it to 50 at the time it is signed which gives 25 years to prepare for an alternative funding mechanism.

 

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. Nothing is so telling that the democrat party is not concerned with the longterm viability of the Republic than their intransigence to pass a balanced budget amendment.

 

So there are my armchair quarterback changes. I do not have a CBO to score it but I believe that it would bring spending under control, not significantly impact most citizens, and revitalize heavy industry and business in the country.

[SSScout]

The comment comparing Mr. Buffet's tax percentage to his secretary's reminded me of a conversation I had with my mom-in- law (no jokes, now, she's a lovely lady). She said the AARP folks come to her retirement community and do their tax returns for free. She has had an ongoing relationship with the same woman who does her taxes for several years now. MiL noticed that her tax this year was noticably lower than last year and asked why. Taxlady told her it was because the Capital Gains this versus last were so much higher, being a greater share of the income. Made more money , differrent category, less tax.

 

?

[packsaddle]

Look at it like this: your MiL was rewarded with lower taxes because instead of doing actual work for an income, her investments which gave her even more money also created more jobs....in India, China, Malaysia.....

[BrentAllen]

Article out today...

 

Spending Cuts Preferred Over Tax Increases By Economists: Survey

 

NEW YORK -- The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html

[Beavah]

Yah, well, we can score vol-scouters proposal pretty well, eh? My scores are below. So far, he's got savings of $337 billion on a deficit of over $1 trillion. So youre about a third of the way there. That's not figurin' in the loss of revenues that would result from this kind of contraction, of course. In reality, we're probably only a bit over a quarter of the way there.

 

So what do we cut next?

 

Or are yeh just leaving it to the courts to decide? Yeh do realize thats what a balanced budget amendment means, right? Da courts get to step in and dictate cuts and revenue increases. Why any conservative would want that is beyond me.

 

So what goes next?

 

B

-------

 

Cut NPR. Da federal government provides 2% of NPRs operating expenses, through things like the Department of Education which pays for childrens education programming. They also provide some direct funding to keep rural stations on the air where communities arent well served by other radio. If yeh cut both (cutting off news radio to many U.S. communities), total savings is about $95 million. If yeh just cut education programming, its a million or two.

 

Cut department of education, $68 billion. Yeh do realize that about half of da departments grant programs affect college funding, not K-12, right? Pell grants, student loans, work study, also civil rights enforcement in schools (like the Boy Scout equal access act, Family Education Rights & Privacy Act, etc.). Most of da rest is Title I funding for high-poverty districts, which would probably bankrupt most urban and poor rural school districts in da U.S.

 

Cut and run in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, but increase defense spending on weapons development and deployment and intelligence. $170 billion in savings. Dont know how much youre allocating to R&D, but one weapons program like da F22 cost about $30 billion in development and a bit more for procurement, call it $65 billion or so over 10 years. So lets say yeh do 3 F-22 sized programs (one for each branch) and some additional smaller stuff. Might get net savings of $130 billion. Of course, thats not allowing for da cost of instability in the region and resulting indirect costs from a cut-and-run, and it requires some military downsizing.

 

Cutting all foreign aid gets yeh $47 billion, but that includes things that affect security, intelligence gathering, counterinsurgency and such. Lets be aggressive and cut most of those, too. $37 billion in savings, with a huge loss of U.S. prestige and a big opportunity for China to expand its influence.

 

Yeh do realize that most illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes but are never able to collect on those services or file for refunds, right? They definitely pay excise taxes as well. So cracking down on illegal immigrants is an estimated $9 billion loss to social security per year, and about $11 billion loss on income taxes. Now they do receive some back indirectly through dept. of education and such, but yeh cut that already.

 

Medicare estimated cost savings from introducing death panels like you suggest is about $17 billion. Thats cutting treatment that had no meaningful impact during last two months of life. If yeh just cut all end of life care, call it $50 billion. Its hard to say because yeh could probably get more savings by just restructuring the billing system so as not to incentivize procedures across the board.

 

Cut Medicare funding for exams, routine procedures, immunization. As far as I know, most public health professionals project that this would cause an increase in costs as people waited and relied on emergency departments for care. Take back $10 billion of savings.

 

Repeal Obamacare. Obamacare is back-loaded in terms of demographic risk, but up front it brings in more low-risk payers. So a repeal of Obamacare at least for the first 10 years will, on the face of things increase the deficit a bit. However, the whole bill is such a mess that makin predictions is very hard. Net savings: zero, but da repeal would reduce long-term risks to the government while increasing costs to employers.

 

Cut all social security supplements (social security paid to disabled workers, disabled children, etc.). Savings $80 billion. But youre puttin a lot of families on da street, eh?

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

 

Yah, as funny as I find BrentAllen readin' the Huffington Post (does anyone really read that?), the report is just a special interest piece, eh? NABE is an association for "economists" that work mostly in da business field as corporate advisors and support that view. It's not a cross-section of general economists or economists who specialize in government effects and monetary policy.

 

Besides, I've always wondered at the wisdom of takin' the average of a bunch of folks. If yeh have cancer, do yeh take the average of a bunch of general physicians about what to do, or should yeh listen to the top expert in that particular field? Consensus is one thing, if almost everybody agrees. But average only gets yeh mediocrity at best.

 

Beavah

 

[BS-87]

I trust you have sources Beavah, too many numbers to be tossing around without citations.

 

Overall it may be accurate, but a tad too dramatic.

 

We're Scouters, and understand better than most the obligation of each and every person to help their neighbors and communities in times of need.

 

If the federal government got entirely out of the business of warmaking and entitlements and got into the business of defense and empowering communities, would there be a deficit at all?

 

I'm not saying cut the entitlements tomorrow, I'm saying set the gears in motion to faze out the programs in the near future (within 10 years) and instead of spending on individual entitlement checks, provide a much smaller "Goodwill" grants program which allows non-profit and faith-based organizations some matching funds ($1 Grant for every $3 donated to the cause or something similar and probably more lenient for communities of tremendous need) for their own outreach programs for people that would have otherwise been completely dependent on the entitlement programs. Let people help people.

 

What should be cut tomorrow is the American warmachine. Bringing the troops home immediately, especially from bases we've been sitting in from wars that happened decades ago like Germany and Korea, would cut our deficit dramatically. There's enough action for our troops to maintain order here in America on the border and in the larger cities.

 

Also, this allows our troops to spend their DoD paycheck here in America instead of in the foreign nation their base is located. Those countries love our bases because it's like we're showering them with money and a permanent economic boost.

 

Think we can make up for a $1 Trillion+ deficit by tackling these two big elephants in the room first?

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

So the medicare savings would be larger since if you cut half of the costs in the first and last months of life, the savings would be ~$320 billion (1/2 of 80% of $800 billion). I did not say cut public he alt programs which provide the most health benefits but rather make everyone pay for their routine visits. Preventive medicine does not work except for a very few things like immunizations. After a quarter of a century preaching weight loss, smoking cessation, and exercise,; I have few success stories. The cost of routine visits would soon drop because the expensive reporting and billing would be removed. There would be no death panels because the government would only provide an indemnity plan and would no longer be involved in dictating care. The savings come from enabling physicians to say that this medical situation will result in death and withdraw or not provide expensive care with no risk of lawsuits.

 

You also failed to take into account the increased revenues as business ramps up and more people go back to work. The folks who are here illegally can be replaced by displaced Americans and folks currently on welfare. Welfare reform needs to copy our European friends who do not have a cliff for their welfare benefits (at least not Denmark where I lived for a while) but support is gradually withdrawn as folks earn a living. It can be done to reward working. The democrat party has kept people on welfare by making essentially all benefits expire if one has a minimum wage job. They then pander to this voting block - it is disgusting. Rep. West said it best.

 

So I believe that I have met the requirements with reasonable cuts, modest tax increases which you did not consider, fewer people on welfare (and paying taxes), and the improvement in the economy. It is not that hard to solve if the two parties want to actually help fulfill their constitutional duties. The democrat party would never allow their voting block to get off of public programs so that any reasonable solutions will not be allowed. Compromise to the left means agreeing with them. The Tea Party did compromise and was then accused of being the problem. The democrats/liberals/progressives are the irresponsible ones and are successfully destroying the country.

[vol_scouter]

Forgot to add, stop paying off people's mortgages. Most of us who have bought homes were responsible and bought within our means. We get punished for doing so because we end up paying off the irresponsible people who borrowed more than they could afford.