Tag Archives: National Debt

National Debt / Deficit Meltdown — Maybe kicking the can down the road is the better path + an idea

The smell of financial meltdown is in the air.

We stand at the threshold of maxing out our national credit card and there is absolutely no plan that has been presented to the public that seems to really make economic sense — mostly because no one wants their sacred cows touched.

>> A tax deduction for the interest on your home is not much different than helping someone that lives in subsidized housing. Welfare is welfare.

I almost agree at this point that kicking the can down the road could be a desirable outcome.

My logic is that it really is too late now for there to be any comprehensive plan. A short term bandaid plan that drops the need for decision prior to the 2012 elections only serves political purposes, it doesn’t matter what party you support.

Kicking the can down the road has the beneficial effect of guaranteeing that bad things will happen to good people. Hopefully it will sober them up enough that they will empty their heads of all the partisan crap. Then perhaps they will try to think a bit more critically about the situation and to think a bit more objectively.

Whether Left or Right, reality is that neither side is anywhere near agreement — not even among themselves — as to what should be done.

Politics are just economics draped over other issues. It is always about power.

All or nothing works no better at one end of the fringe than the other.

If we respected the average taxpayer we would ask them to choose the plan that they believe we should pursue. Let’s hold six months of public debate, critiqued by both citizens and academics, and then let’s hold a referendum.

Let’s let Americans choose by line item vote in a referendum what goes and what stays or what changes.

If we truly believe in ‘We the People’ then let’s let Americans decide their future and their fate.

What say ye?

5 Comments

Filed under Deficit Spending, Economics, National Debt

Taxes — The Bigger Picture

The following was provided to me by Bill Case, a fellow traveller that insists upon researching and digging deeper into the data … the rest of the story that is seldom ever discussed in the public.

Source for the info below:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstat​s/indtaxstats/article/0,,i​d=133521,00.html

If you are calling Federal Income Tax “taxes” then they only make up 27.6% of government revenue. The other 72% is already spread fairly evenly amongst everybody. As for the Federal Income Tax portion of the tax bill:

Total Tax Revenue for all levels of government in 2009: $4,353 Billion

Federal Income tax:

At or Below the Poverty Line (Individual Annual Income less than $16,000)
Number of Returns 11,592,357 10.4%
Taxable Income $37 Billion 0.7%
Tax Generated $3.6 Billion 0.34%

Middle Income (Individual Annual Income more than $16,000 but less than $200,000)
Number of Returns 92,026,036 85.2%
Taxable Income $3,555 Billion 62.9%
Tax Generated $546 Billion 50.5%

Wealthy (Individual Annual Income more than $200,000)
Number of Returns 4,359,936 4%
Taxable Income $2,061 Billion 36.5%
Tax Generated $531 Billion 49.1%

Effective Tax Rate:
Poverty Line: 10%
Middle income: 15%
Wealthy: 26%

Total Federal Income Tax Generated: $1,081 Billion (2010)

Tax Generated by Wealthiest: $531 Billion or 49.1% of Total Federal Taxes and 24% to 27% of total tax revenue.

Total Number of returns for 2010: 108 million.

$4,353 Billion Total Taxes
$1,081 Billion Federal Income Taxes

$3,272 Billion generated by Other taxes (non-Fed Income Tax)
$30,296 of non-Fed Income Tax paid per return.

Effective Taxes per return
Poverty Line: ($30,296+/-)+ 310 = $30,606
Middle income: ($30,296+/-) + 5,934 = $36,230
Wealthy: ($30,296+/-)13,000 + 12,349 = $42,645

==================
==================

Notes by Bill4DogCatcher:

A tax return filing is only required for those that exceed:

Self-employed, any age: $400
Children and Teens classified as a dependent: $5,700
Single, under 65: $9,350
Single, over 65: $10,750
Married, filing jointly, both spouses under 65: $18,700
Married, filing jointly, one spouse over 65: $19,850
Married, filing jointly, both spouses over 65: $20,900
Married, filing separately, any age: $3,650

The current wrapped-around-the-axle argument by both sides:

Left: The rich aren’t paying their fair share. Doesn’t exactly seem to be the case, or anywhere close to it.

Right: The few are carrying the many and all taxes are robbery of the efforts that a person puts into their work. Hardly.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Taxes & Taxation

So I’m thinking … about August 2nd and the Debt Ceiling … I blame …

I do not expect a deal. Not a meaningful deal. Not anything that fixes or changes the course of our national deficit or debt and the path that it is on to gobbling up 106 percent of our GDP by 2020 if the CBO is correct.

My disappointment leans heavily towards the Republicans. While no one knows the details of debt negotiations except the negotiators themselves, there are enough leaked details that I am ever so glad that I am not Speaker Boehner.

Whether Speaker Boehner likes to have a few hardy drinks, or drinks hardy, I’m sure that he is looking forward to all of this being over.

Two people are coming out of this looking good, at least in my book: President Obama and Speaker Boehner.

I want a balanced budget; defense included. Yes, a constitutional amendment as part of a grand deal would be good.

I want taxes to be more fair and always lower. But we should pay for those things that we have obligated debt towards.

Let’s eliminate debt by making smart cuts or placing ceilings on program expenses. Let’s make it so that Congress must vote to increase funding for any program that exceeds its projected expense by 5% — whether it is a social program or a defense program.

Let’s … do many things.

But we won’t.

President Obama is in some ways in a great position at the moment. No doubt every day is challenging but he is poised to come out of the Debt Ceiling negotiations looking like the man that was willing to roast his own sacred cows to move the country in the right direction.

Except if he did he would lose the support of much of his own party.

There are no worries about President Obama having to sacrifice himself for the grand deal, however. Speaker Boehner is the one that I worry for. He leads a party that wants no deal and that will try to sabotage anything that looks like a deal. My worry is that the Republicans are being held hostage by their own ideals gone amok. The challenge for Speaker Boehner is ‘who do you trust’ on the Republican side? His majority whip Eric Cantor has pretty much made it known that no deal is the best deal.

So if there is no deal and the economy does well then the Republicans will come off smart looking and will stand a good chance to take it all in 2012.

If there is no deal and the economy crumbles, stumbles or just plain bad happens to us all then Americans will come back on the Republicans with a vengeance that makes 2008 look like just a warmup.

President Obama’s biggest challenge is that he has Democrats on his side.

Speaker Boehner’s biggest challenge is that he leads a party in the midst of a hostile takeover and those that wish to acquire the party have no problem taking out those that can’t adhere to the doctrine of ‘No’.

Chances are that on August 2nd there will be no deal. Or nothing worthy of that name. This is a probability not a possibility in my estimation. While I believe that President Obama is playing at triangulation (and maybe, just maybe hoping for no deal), I will hold the Republicans responsible for anything bad that happens to America as a result.

How we got to this point is one discussion. How we could have gone forward is what we are talking about.

If the economy does not go down in absence of a deal it helps the Right. If the economy becomes even more toxic then so will the Republican Party and it will go down to hard-earned, deserved defeat.

4 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, Economics, National Debt

Zen – Politics 24/7 and the Debt Ceiling Debate

Back in 2006 when the last major debt ceiling vote was being held:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure” … “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. . . . Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.”
Sen. Barrack Obama, March 16, 2006

Almost every Democrat voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2006.

Almost every Republican voted FOR raising the debt ceiling in 2006.

Almost every Republican AGAINST raising the debt ceiling now voted FOR raising it when a Republican was in the White House in 2006.

With a Democrat in the White House guess who is FOR and who is AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2011?

Same story, and mostly the same faces. Musical chairs 24/7. Some sit in red chairs. Some sit in blue chairs. All the chairs are probably made in China.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economics, Lies and Tall Tales, National Debt

CBO 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook – Flatline or Out of Control after 2015?

The nation’s budget outlook is daunting.

Without significant policy changes, an aging population and rising per capita health care costs will lead to surging federal debt, according to Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest Long-Term Budget Outlook.

If revenues remain at their historical average share of gross domestic product (GDP), such spending growth would cause federal debt to grow to unsustainable levels.

CBO Charter 2011 Long-term budget outlook

Options – If policymakers are to put the federal government on a sustainable budgetary path:

  • Revenues will need to increase substantially as a percentage of GDP; or
  • Spending will need to decrease significantly from projected levels;
  • there will need to be some combination of those two approaches.

In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, its report makes no recommendations.

The CBO however does not talk around what it believes to be some major concerns and/or aspects of our fiscal situation that needs to be taking into consideration.

Some highlights from the report:

  • At the end of 2008, federal debt equaled 40 percent of GDP (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). By the end of 2011, debt will reach roughly 70 percent of GDP—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.
  • The sharp rise in debt is partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the recent severe recession—however, growing debt is also due to an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated the recession.
  • The budget outlook for the coming decade and beyond is daunting with the retirement of the baby-boom generation bringing a significant and sustained increase in costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  • The most positive outlook
    If there is no major changes in law — the Extended-Baseline Scenario — activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II. Debt would continue to rise however due to the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt. Federal debt held by the public would grow from an estimated 69 percent of GDP in 2011 to 84 percent by 2035.
  • Bleak and Sudden Crisis
    The alternative fiscal scenario incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur. These include 2001′s tax cuts being extended; the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) restrained to stay close to its historical extent; Medicare’s payment rates for physicians staying at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law); and tax law changing so that revenues remain near an average of 18 percent of GDP. Under those policies, federal debt would grow much more rapidly than under the extended-baseline scenario. With debt held by the public exceeding 100 percent of GDP by 2021.The real danger in the CBO’s assessment: “… the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2023 and would approach 190 percent in 2035.”

Rising levels of debt also have other negative consequences that are not incorporated in those estimated effects on output:

“Growing debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. Such a crisis would confront policymakers with extremely difficult choices. To restore investors’ confidence, policymakers would probably need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner.”

Read the CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook for yourself.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economics, National Debt, Taxes & Taxation

Reaching national default – the bankrupting of America

Default is default. Debt is debt.

No, President Obama doesn’t have a plan. Not a real one.

While the Republicans do have a plan, their plan effectively pushes the U.S. into financial default while claiming that it does the exact opposite. The claim is that $300B will flow into the government via taxes so therefore it has money. It just needs to prioritize.

Fail.

It is fail because once you fund defense, security and other favorite sacred cows then there is little left to run the country on.

Without some better projected outcome than that the U.S. must immediately curtail approximately 44% of spending just in August.

We should cut. We should adjust. We should do many things — would be glad to give you my list.

Do we need major cuts and spending realignments? Yes!

Yet, cuts must be accompanied by some tax increases for it all to balance. We need to eliminate loopholes. We need to say that deductions on your tax computation still means that you will pay a minimal amount — no matter how many deductions you have. (You can carry unused deductions forward. Use or lose.)

The president needs to stand firm on insisting on some revenue increases but he needs a real plan of his own. Show us the math. So far, President Obama and the Democrats are seriously malfeasant in being leaders.

As for the Republicans: shame, shame, shame.  Constantly wrapping yourself in the flag while pushing the U.S. into default is not a plan. Your plan to ‘starve the beast’ has now reached its zenith. You might have my support if you weren’t so busy worshiping at the alter of profit and being hard hearted about the effects and the empty promises of your policies. What are you really going to do for the average American other than empty their pockets and kill minimum wage given the chance?

4 Comments

Filed under Economics

National Debt – Could a tax of just 1% eliminate our national debt?

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) has offered a national debt reduction plan: 1% of every transaction (or 1 cent on the dollar) — aka H.R. 1125, the Debt Free America Act.

Fine print: those earning under $250,000 get a rebate.

Fattah claims that his plan retires the national debt within 10 years and shows the way to overhauling our tax system.

So, Fattah has been drinking from the same water fountain as the wishful thinking Republicans that would cut taxes in order to pay off the debt — because we would all run out and magically buy so much stuff that the new less tax revenue would multiple like voracious rabbits and overwhelm Washington with hundreds of billions of new little tax rabblets.

I don’t think so.

For Fattah’s plan to make sense it would need to be closer to 5-6% WITH NO EXEMPTIONS for anyone.

In 2010, the interest alone on our national debt  was $413,954,825,362.17 billion.

A 1% tax would require a $40.2 trillion GDP just to handle the annual interest payment.

Since our GDP is $14.4 trillion then the tax would have to be at least 3% just to handle the interest payment.

A 6% tax would pay off the annual interest and reduce the debt by roughly $400 billion per year.

And for any of this to make sense we need to factor in that much of the wealth within that $14.4 trillion GDP escapes taxation — such as the rebate for those earning $250,000 or less per year, and less not forget all those folks with expensive CPAs and software programs to maximize their deductions for other things.

Calculators and calculations should be required of all solutions. Representative Fattah shows absolutely no fiscal calculations on his website announcing his plan. Fail, but an idea in the right direction.

2 Comments

Filed under National Debt, Taxes & Taxation

Conservative schism in the fight over tax sharia and corporate welfare

“For anti-tax purists, including many in the Republican Party, … measures that roll back corporate subsidies, individual deductions or loopholes of any sort without comparable tax cuts elsewhere are considered tax increases.”
Washington Post, 2011.04.15

Conservatives are beginning to divide into pragmatists and dogmatists as they move to quickly address the impending debt ceiling reaching its limit at some time in May 2011 and to begin negotiations over the 2012 budget which should be relatively complete by late July 2011.

Some tried and true conservatives believe that corporate welfare — the subsidization of business operations, or discounting of taxes due — must be eliminated if we are to move towards a balanced budget and reduced deficits and national debt.

Willingness to sacrifice corporate welfare includes Saxby Cham­bliss (R-Ga.), Sen Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK) as well as support from such conservative-movement fixtures as the Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

After Reagan agreed to raise taxes to offset huge growth in government defense spending, Grover Norquist of ‘Americans for Tax Reform’ gave us the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in the mid-1980s, which asks Republican lawmakers to take an absolute oath that they will not vote for any tax increase of any kind.

Norquist’s pledge has become dogmatic doctrine for the Republican Party.

Norquist now finds this dogma being challenged and he is personally being branded with the conservative buzzword of the year: sharia — Norquist is now being publicly called the “chief cleric of sharia tax law.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-tax-hike-pledge-creates-republican-rift-potential-roadblock-to-deficit-deal/2011/04/13/AFgWFdfD_story.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Corporate Welfare, Economic Recovery, Republican Party

NATIONAL DEBT – The End Run: S.163 and H.R. 142, aka ‘Full Faith and Credit Act’ or ‘Pay China First’

NATIONAL DEBT – The End Run – Within 6 weeks the U.S. government will run out of money. There are two bills being pushed by Republicans that require close watch: S.163 (Senate) and H.R.421 (House). If these pass then we should expect Republicans to vote not to raise the national debt.

These bills are called the ‘Full Faith and Credit Act’; passage requires that the government pay our creditors first (China et al) and then adjust satisfaction (payments) to all other federal debts: national budget, social security, medicare, wars, etc.

As a conservative I believe in balanced budgets, although balanced budgets are not uniquely a conservative concept.

What successful passage of these bills would do, prior to any national debate on bringing our debt under control, would be to force the federal government to radically slash federal programs. The real question is whether programs would be slashed equally — all priorities being of equal priority to someone else — or whether certain programs would be exempted, like defense.

If defense is included, an across the board expenditure reduction may be 20-22%. Without defense included then all non-defense programs would probably face almost 40% cuts.

The short version explanation of what these bills do: allows Republicans to vote not to raise the national debt level and then force the government to pay our creditors first (China et al) and then to slash any remaining expenses (social programs) so that the expenses match taxes collected.

It does not say that defense will be spared, but that is the Republican way, and Republican leadership have declared that defense will not be touched. To the Tea Party’s credit many Tea Partyers have been vocal that defense must be on the table.

I support the concept of both bills if it were implicit that ALL federal expenses were to be cut equally. But that is most unlikely.

It is also most unlikely that Republicans would engage in any real dialogue or negotiation of federal budget and national debt reduction discussions if these bills pass without there being an agreed upon federal expense reduction agreement in place first.

The Democrats would be fools to allow these bills to pass just so the Republicans could pillory them on being weak on defense by cutting defense equal to other federal programs. Yet the majority of the debt and discretionary spending causing our massive national deficits is directly attributable to defense and to security which represents $2 out of every $3 of discretionary spending.

Text of Senate Bill S.163
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112%3AS.163:

Text of House Bill H.R. 421
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.421:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economics

DEBT & DEFICITS | Cut Your Stuff Not Mine — Republicans Most Resistant To Cuts. Go Figure.

NBC and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) conducted a poll to see who supports what from the Deficit Commission’s preliminary list of recommendations.

One amazing survey finding: Republicans were more negative than Democrats on the plan, which cut just about everything.

Nearly half of Republicans called it a “bad idea”. Only one-third of Democrats saw it that way.

Republicans have been hot to trot on making cuts … but if they don’t like what the commission proposed and they can’t name any specific cuts that they would make on their own … then what is the plan?

Read Story http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703688704575620891838063332.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economics, National Debt