So why is the deficit such a big deal? Benjamin Graham wrote in The Intelligent Investor (a great book by the way) that he feels it is unwise to invest in a company that has a debt load of over 50%. In other words, if a company has $5 million in assets, but owes $3.15 million to its creditors, Benjamin Graham would likely turn his nose up to it. China, the United State's largest "investor", has made grumblings to this effect. It's possible that they're beginning to feel that the US is "over-leveraged" and may not be a good investment. Not a good thing.
Some argue that the US shouldn't worry about it's current deficit as it only has to pay the interest payment to its debt holders. The current T-bond yield is about 3%, so in essence, these guys claim that as long as the US can afford to pay $416 billion (and growing) each year in interest on its loans, we can continue to get loans. That's akin to somebody saying it's fine to keep racking up their credit card debt because they can afford the minimum payment. That's all well and good until your creditor changes the rate (something China has threatened to do), or until you don't make as much money as you expected for some reason.
Regardless of what degree of threat you think our deficit poses to our national solvency, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Earlier this year, President Obama had a budget deficit reduction committee created with the sole purpose of finding ways to reduce our country's soaring deficit. They brainstormed and think-tanked their socks off and came up with a handful of solutions.
The primary fixes are as follows:
1. Collapse today’s five income tax rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%) into three brackets (12%, 22% and 28%).
2. Eliminate itemized deductions
3. Tax capital gains at ordinary income rates
4. Eliminate and simplify a bunch of tax credits (mortgage, charitable giving, etc)
5. Gradually eliminate the exclusion for health coverage premiums
6. Change the corporate tax bracket to 28%
7. Increase the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon.
8. Raise the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075.
9. Require the president to propose annual limits on war spending.
10. Gradually reduce the government’s civilian work force by 10 percent
11. Freeze pay for federal workers and members of Congress for three years
12. Eliminate all congressional earmarks
13. Change Medicare physician payment formula to reward quality instead of quantity
14. Cut congressional and White House budgets by 15%
There was a lot of fuss about the commission's results immediately after the report was released, but, as is always so apparent, our politicians are more worried about being re-elected that actually solving a budget crisis, so instead of addressing said crisis by instituting some of the commission's suggestions, they again extended unemployment benefits. Speaking of budgets, let's remember that our government doesn't even have one right now. Another political move by the democrats as that causes the republicans to spearhead the effort and be the bad guy who cuts spending, thereby enabling democrats to return to congress on campaigns that shout, "Republicans want grandma to eat catfood!" All at the expense of our national solvency.
Sorry, got sidetracked.
Anyway, as I was saying, I'm sorely disappointed in a government that, when it gets reminded of it's infrugality (somebody tell Webster I just made up a word!), instead of looking itself in the mirror and admitting it's a spending addict, it runs off and spends some more.
So, in my own passive aggressive form of protest, I propose my own deficit cutting measures:
1. Flat tax. 22% tax on everybody. If you're on welfare, you get 22% of your welfare check taken back by Uncle Sam. I'm serious. Right now nearly half of Americans (including me thanks to a myriad of deductions) pay ZERO federal income tax. That's sick. Everybody needs some skin in the game. That way, next time we decide to give people in Atlanta a heat bill subsidy to fight a 50 degree cold front, we might think twice.
2. Eliminate nearly all tax deductions and definitely all credits. The IRS should never owe you money come April. I want to say no deductions at all, but I am tempted to believe that we can allow charitable contributions to be tax deductible (thanks a lot Dad).
3. Eliminate the capital gains tax. That's a tax on money that's already been taxed. I'll refer you to Nate here.
4. Set the corporate tax rate at 22%. A flat tax is a flat tax.
5. Change the social security eligibility age to 70 by 2020. In 2012 its 66; in 2014 it's 67 and so on. Frankly, I think we should phase it out entirely or at least return it to what it was initially (assistance to the elderly needy and widows).
6. Reduce the federal workforce by 15%. That's just over a 5% reduction of the size the federal workforce was in 2009.
7. Freeze pay for all federal workers and congress for 5 years then allow the maximum of an inflation matching increase each year thereafter.
8. Eliminate all earmarks. That should have been done ages ago.
9. Cut the federal budget by 15%. Not impossible.
10. Repeal the health care bill. The bill is bringing with it immense federal spending that will only further inflate the deficit. Once the bill is repealed, we can start over with real health care reform. The last bill only changed how we paid for health care and who paid for it rather than actually making health care more affordable.
I'm sure there are many additional things we can do to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
While both my suggestions and those of the actual committee could be seen as "drastic", real action is necessary. I have serious doubts that anything genuine will be done. As we've already seen, it's more likely that we'll only see some token efforts and the can will keep getting kicked down the road. So, hopefully, we can get somebody who has real power to get this ball rolling. Somebody tell John Boehner, "YES WE CAN get the deficit under control."
5 comments:
Ya we need to let the bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy in order to offset the debt we have incurred not just under Obama but under Bush as well. Warren Buffett has explained many times that the ONLY way we are going to pay off the debt is if we raise the taxes on the top 2-5% of the richest Americans.
No one has been worried about the deficit since Bill Clinton. Even Vice President Cheney when asked about soaring deficits due to two wars and the Bush tax cuts stated: "Reagan proved that deficits dont matter," in order to defend the blank check they gave to the government to do as they wished.
While the two wars are no doubt expensive (about $709 billion according to the CBO), we have spent more than that in new spending this year alone. For example, the new tax deal will cost more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, the stimulus bill will cost $814 billion over the next 10 years, and the health care legislation will run us over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. In other words, this year we have new spending that totals over $2.6 trillion in 10 years - 3 times that of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush was definitely a spendaholic. He did, after all, increase the budget by 54% over his 8 years (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/10/Federal-Budgets1.jpg). However, the government has only thrown the spending into hyperdrive since President Obama came in. The budget has grown again by over 20% already. If they [Washington] keep the pace up, we'll have nearly doubled the budget by the end of President Obama's term. Simply put it's out of control. It's not a republican or democrat problem. It's a national problem that needs some serious action.
First of all, the commission did not agree on anything. The two commissioners - one democrat and one republican - realized that the committee would most likely not come to an agreement, and so they released this paper without involving the rest the committee. Sure enough, five members (two republican, two democrat, one union) said they would vote against it. If the bipartisan panel appointed to find some way to reduce the deficit couldn't even agree on a way to do it, it's a definite long shot that the entire Congress will agree to it, knowing that each person’s next election opponent will wave every compromise they made to the public in the most negative manner possible. I’m sure you know that, I’m just picking at details
I am nervous about eliminating deductions. Many of these are for investment in society, whether through charitable donations, mortgage to support housing industry, etc. If you add this to the elimination of employer-based health care before a new system is implemented, it pretty much encourages us all to withdraw into our little financial shells. I need to research this some more to see if there is anything in place to still stimulate investment in society, but if there isn’t, I think it would lead to another increase in the personal savings rate, which many economists agree is not a good thing. I think something like this needs to wait until consumer confidence increases – people are already skittish with their money as it is, and any tax overhaul will convince them to save it until they see how things go.
Flat tax – in a perfect world, I’m all for it. In our world, I am not. The tax law is complex, but a large part of it tries to protect low income taxpayers from paying too high a percentage of their total disposable income in taxes (seeing that some have no disposable income), or to close loopholes the rich find with their multi-million dollar investments in the best lawyers. I don’t think anyone should make money off the government – there are certain situations where I think a person might get credits for a very short period (higher education and starting a business are the only things that come to mind), but they should be temporary. But to avoid double-taxation on the self employed, you would either need to rewrite the Small Business/Self Employed laws for a flat tax and thus introduce new loopholes, or you would have to go to a straight flat tax on sales. With all the multi-national corporations out there, a flat tax on sales would also be rather easy to avoid. Money is easily transferred, goods are easily transported from other countries without a high flat tax rate, etc. You would need a very strong enforcement section within the IRS just to monitor this activity and audit potential fraud, which goes against the whole principle of a small government – promoting flat tax.
As far as federal workers - I'm obviously biased here, as I am a federal worker. But you get what you pay for. My money and your money goes to pay for federal workers, so we definitely should have a vested interest in their performance. If you cut wages and halt hiring of new people, you will be stuck with an aging workforce untrained in recent technologies. The best and brightest - who we need in these positions, since our money is paying for whoever fills that desk - will go to the private sector. In addition, the areas that will be cut are areas such as the enforcement branch of the IRS. When this area is reduced, tax income is reduced by a far greater amount than what the missing employees would have cost. This still applies even if we implement a flat tax, as discussed above. This has to do with the cost-benefit analysis a company might make if they are considering using a tax shelter.
I think there needs to be much tighter standards on the performance of these workers. We need to be able to hire successful executives to step in and eliminate the bureaucracy, get rid of poorly performing employees, and implement new strategies. The Federal Unions need to take a hike, unless they can be neutralized by a taxpayer commission that can override any potential Union rules. Currently in the computer programming area, we have to do two distinct forms of program documentation that overlap in many areas, and every programming change has to be approved by management five levels higher than the actual programmer. It is quite obvious that the only knowledge this executive has of the program is what they were told by lower fish on the chain, but we’re stuck with the original gut reaction of an executive years who would rather answer to the taxpayers for massive overspending instead of small potential mistakes. I can’t say if this is a nationwide trend or not, but the number of managers in my building has doubled over the past five years to handle all the extra bureaucracy that’s come into the picture since 9/11. Someone needs to step in with the primary goal of making a more efficient operation, rather than minimizing the effect of potential errors. They both are important, but we need efficiency right now. I believe that if more efficient operation practices are implemented, and federal employees are held to a higher standard or are sent packing, it would easily save 10% across the board.
Anyway, it’s midnight, and I’ve written way too much already…
And of course all my supporting links were lost...
Five members of tax commission say they will vote against it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/bowles-simpson-deficit-cutting-proposal-is-within-one-vote-of-rejection.html
Economic repercussions of increasing saving rates during a recession:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/05/savings-and-moan.html
Tax Shelters:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/tax-enforcement-for-gamers-high-penalties-or-strict-disclosure-rules
Post a Comment