Posted on 11/27/2010 8:16:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
SHOULD the government cut spending or raise taxes to deal with its long-term fiscal imbalance? As President Obama’s deficit commission rolls out its final report in the coming weeks, this issue will most likely divide the political right and left. But, in many ways, the question is the wrong one. The distinction between spending and taxation is often murky and sometimes meaningless.
Imagine that there is some activity — say, snipe hunting — that members of Congress want to encourage. Senator Porkbelly proposes a government subsidy. “America needs more snipe hunters,” he says. “I propose that every time an American bags a snipe, the federal government should pay him or her $100.”
“No, no,” says Congressman Blowhard. “The Porkbelly plan would increase the size of an already bloated government. Let’s instead reduce the burden of taxation. I propose that every time an American tracks down a snipe, the hunter should get a $100 credit to reduce his or her tax liabilities.”
To be sure, government accountants may treat the Porkbelly and Blowhard plans differently. They would likely deem the subsidy to be a spending increase and the credit to be a tax cut. Moreover, the rhetoric of the two politicians about spending and taxes may appeal to different political bases.
But it hardly takes an economic genius to see how little difference there is between the two plans. Both policies enrich the nation’s snipe hunters. And because the government must balance its books, at least in the long run, the gains of the snipe hunters must come at the cost of higher taxes or lower government benefits for the rest of us.
Economists call the Blowhard plan a “tax expenditure.” The tax code is filled with them — although not yet one for snipe hunting.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Solving the long-term fiscal problem won’t be easy. Everyone will have to give a little, and perhaps even more than a little. Are you willing to give up your favorite tax expenditure if everyone else is willing to give up theirs for the sake of SIMPLIFYING our tax code?
Why should the Gov’t (at any level) subsidize anything? (Not to mention there being no Constitutional authority to do it.)
Logical Answer: CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!
I am willing to give up “Earned Income Credits” where people who pay and owe no income taxes are sent “refund” checks.
As usual, the NYT over simplifies the point. They forget to ask the question, “Will the payouts to snipe hunters be offset by the reduction that the over abundance of snipes is now causing?” IOW, will a program’s costs help reduce costs somewhere else to the point of it being a net gain for reducing the cost of government?
Forget "simplifying the tax code" for now. Just zero out Dept/Education, Dept/ Energy and Dept/Commerce. There's your solution right there.
The author says Bowles-Simpson is a start.
It’s a start in the wrong direction. A start would be the elimination of the Departments of Education and Energy, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Then work on the systemic fraud and waste.
That’s a “start”.
I would start by eliminating the $1 T Obamacare and the other $1T of “stimulus” which has not worked.
There are plenty of government expenditures which are nothing but money thrown down the rathole.
The premise of the article and your post is FALSE — it is based on all government spending being useful and helpful.
I’m willing to give up EVERYTHING except “common defense” and protection of Constitutional rights (ie, negative rights - things the fedgov and state can’t do TO you, not positive “rights” to services and other people’s stuff). Also, certain Consitutionally mandated services, for example providing bankruptcy courts and protection for intellectual property, should be kept, but I could live without them!
“Here’s how much it costs...do you still want it?” is a good question.
1. Cut the budgets of the following Federal Departments/Agencies by 25%: Defense, VA, State, DHS, Justice, NASA, Treasury ($216.6Bn)
2. Eliminate the following Federal Departments/Agencies: DHHS, Transportation, HUD, Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Interior, EPA, SSA, National Science Foundation (WTF?), Corps of Engineers, National Infrastructure Bank (WTF?), Corporation for National Community Service (WTF?), Small Business Administration, General Services Administration, Other Agencies, Other ($501.3Bn)
3. Cut the following “Mandatory Spending” by 25%: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Other ($500.7Bn)
You now have a $834.4Bn surplus to pay down the debt and/or reduce taxes.
This is very hard to say and I understand how needed it is for the survival of us all and what it means to the future of our country but (gasp) the Department of Education for a start.
Oh the massive suffrage brought about by it but I am willing to bite the bullet and risk my children's future for the survival of our republic.
Courts, defense and infrastructure - roads bridges harbors tunnels - but I stop there.
(What favorite programs will you give up to simplify taxes?)
Dept. of Agriculture.
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Energy
National Endowment for the arts.
Any and all funding for PBS
Government/Religious programs
I would bring our troops home from anywhere that they are not actively engaged in combat.
I would cut foreign aid to zero.
Any and all fedzilla dollars for unemployment would cease to exist, that is a state issue.
Basically look at the constitution. If it is not spelled out in black and white as being a fedgov responsibility, then we ain’t paying for it.
Easy answer - make Social Security a WELFARE PROGRAM. And treat the elderly as children are treated. When someone comes in asking for money, instead of “finding the father” and hitting him up for up for child support, we “find the children” and hit them up for parental support.
If the children don’t exist, or are otherwise incapable of providing enough support, then look at the person’s assets. If they have a pension, 401k, etc., then make them use that. If not, then, and only then, have the state take care of them. That cuts the cost by probably two thirds. Similarly, the cost of Medicare premiums could be handled the same way - keep the program in some form (in my opinion), so that old people do get medical care, and are not on their own to find it - but pay from the family first, retirement second, and the state third.
As far as Social Security and Medicare being an entitlement, FORGET IT. That only applies when there is a trust fund...but the those same oldies collectively chose to spend that money, on things like The Great Society, the Big Dig, and many, many, other things.
Pretty much eliminate the deficit, and it gets those old guys driving the supersized campers to pay their share.
Harsh treatment, but, by far, the BEST WAY to deal with today’s deficit and tomorrow’s HUGE future obligations.
Great thread. Thanks to all posters.
Defund all collectives, foreign and domestic.
Want to present an un-earmarked spending bill? Put it on the internet 7 days prior to the vote. Listen to the people.
Transparency anyone? RINOS? “Conservatives”?
Why not start privatizing those things the government had no business constitutionally in implementing in the first place. Charity can fill in the gaps. The federal government should provide for the common defense (including securing our borders), deliver the mail on time, and allow for the free trade of goods and services across state boundaries.
We are retired military. It’s a moot issue since our promised health care has been taken away, but I would give up that benefit if we eliminated third-party payers, and legislated real tort reform. Of course, catastrophic health insurance, and health care for wounded, injured soldiers would never be infringed.
Yup. Basic math. Something they appear to have difficulty with.
Of course, the idea is to make everyone suffer equally even though it may not make a sense.
Implement a 10% flat tax, everyone pays. No deductions, no subsidies, no exceptions.
No more of this bullshit where half the country pays all the taxes and the other half mooches off us.
Either everyone has skin in the game towards the success of this country or not.
My plan's simple, it eliminates the IRS, gets rid of class warfare and would force the Federal Government to live within its means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.