Proposed budget gets a surplus without cutting entitlements

Post Reply New Topic

The Republicans, of course, promptly voted it down. It didn't get a lot of media attention, so unfortunately I can only link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and their own description of the plan.

Basically, they cut military spending, restored nominal tax rates to their Clinton-era levels (which still represents a historically low tax rate in the post-WWII world) and cut out some loopholes. It cuts the deficit more than Ryan's budget does. And it still manages to increase funding for infrastructure investment, education, and social programs which are broadly popular among the American public.

[sarcasm on]Damn pinkos! They're sooo irresponsible!! ! If aliens from the fifth dimension invade, America is DOOMED!! !![/sarcasm off]

Well, the sanest proposal is also the most swiftly rejected. I think we can blame the right as well as the moronic "middle" of American politics for this.

That's too easy of a solution. What the hell is Fox News going to scare people with if there isn't a constant air of uncertainty?

It's certainly not a perfect proposal. My ideal budget would include more cuts (including cuts to social programs) and lower taxes than this one proposes. But, this is the only proposal that actually manages to balance the budget and reach a surplus in a reasonable timeframe, so it beats out Ryan's and Obama's plans.

There are far too many social tensions in America to disinvest in social policy and social capital to immediately balance a budget worsened by a cyclical deficit.

(modest proposal mode: on)

Ballots are breaking our budget. They cost a fortune and we are in crisis! We are broke, people. And paper ballots are expensive, and those Sharpie pens... who are we kidding?

My proposal is that we must eliminate voting until the budget situation is resolved.

Of course, the functioning of the state must be maintained. To facilitate that, the governor will appoint an "emergency administrative coordinator" who will to appoint "emergency administrative experts" into the positions held by all elected officials, in order to to carry out the functions of those offices until this awful budget crisis is resolved.

We really have no choice. And remember it's all about the budget. Oh, and we must also end Social Security. It's killing the budget, too, and sucks and stuff.

(MP mode: off)

Well, I would prefer carefully targeted cuts, rather than the outright gutting of social programs that Ryan proposes. The Democrats will typically refuse to make any cuts, but, for example, does Warren Buffet really need to collect Social Security checks? Means testing on Social Security so that the ultra-rich don't draw from a program they have no need of, and elimination of the ridiculous cap on Social Security tax withholding that makes it a regressive tax, would go a long way to restoring the solvency of a program that has been repeatedly looted by both parties for over a decade. There are ways to decrease spending in Medicare without actually impacting the amount/quality of care provided. And a detailed sweep through the budget could undoubtedly find several places to cut without causing serious problems.

The Roman's used a similar idea of an "emergency administrative coordinator" in the past they called this person a Dictator (lex de dictatore creando).

I don't think the Democrats would support allowing the bottom tax brackets to revert back to higher rates, anymore than the Republicans would support the tax increases, close to 50% on millionaires and billionaires.

But, if one really intends to balance the budget, this is the kind of action that is needed.

Unfortunately, I don't think the American people would agree to this sacrifice to balance the budget, and the politicians would not give up their jobs, to balance the budget.

We were fortunate that some of the politicians in the last term were willing to give up their jobs to pass the healthcare reform act.

If the cut the military budget (that is far long overdue) AND cut entitlements, the country could be debt free in 20 years.

ruveyn

Don't hold your breath.

If the powers that be cut entitlements, they would definitely need to hold on to their military.

I can almost imagine them heading over to Moscow and asking them to please, please, restore the 'evil' Soviet Empire? Life was way more fun for them back in those days

This budget relies on extremely unrealistic economic assumptions. They not only raise income taxes - to considerably higher than the Clinton level due to how they change the treatment of itemized deductions - but also raise social security taxes, yet assume that will have no impact on the economy. That's not a realistic assumption when tax rates start exceeding 60%, as they would in Pelosi's own home state of California under her plan.

As has been illustrated in the past few months, extension of the Bush tax cuts did result in a significant reduction in unemployment rates. If you want unemployment to shoot up into the teens, Pelosi's budget is the way to go.

Cut entitlements and grow the military at the same time by selling those entitlements to people who join up.

Proof?