What should we cut to reduce the deficit?

[windoggi]

[jp5]

[coboardhead]

Without going into to much personal info....
It has been difficult in recent years to switch insurance plans when you do not qualify for a group plan.

With the pending changes, it appears some insurance companies are competing for low claim history clients and offering reasonable rates for high deductible HSA policies. This was our experience...I wonder if this will be common.

The reason I brought this up is that I am part of the statistic of "dropped insurance" as a result of the health care plan. But it really is not the case.

[mac]

coboardhead--thanks for thoughtful replies. Largely missing from the right members here--with magical thinking, you can still believe that there is some magic politician who can find all that waste. Too bad they didn't elect the witch, she probably had a spell.

Here's some of my cuts, relying on the web site I cited above. First, I think that a 5% off the top cut is almost painless, so I would impose a 7% cut across all Federal agencies and programs. that's not chump change. Second, I would allocate a 15% cut to the military and tell them they should cut the Osprey, the Arleigh Burke destroyers, the CVN-8- aircraft carriers, adn the littoral combat ships. I would tell them that they have to find the rest of the cuts, but not in Afghanistan. I would tell them that they need to take the heat for the cuts for their little stunt last night of fuming when Obama praised an end to discrimination against gays. We spent several hundred million dollars exercising the Chief of Staff's homophobia, meanwhile they got rid of people with unique skills important to the war efforts. I would not cut funds for Afghanistan, although I disagree with Obama, because he is doing exactly what he said he would do, and he was elected with a bigger margin than Reagan. Right now his approval rate is higher too. Politically, he is getting sandbagged already by the generals and the Re-thugs, and I want to give them no new ammunition that Dems are weak on defense. About $100 billion cut here.

Third, I would eliminate half of Federal agricultural subsidies. This would save about $8 billion, and was the worst moment of Pelosi's tenure. She caved into agriculture, and I don't think she saved a single seat. These programs have been around since the 1930's, they need to end. Next, tax deductions for business meals and entertainment. $10 billion dollars worth of titty bars and champagne? Can this really be a priority. Gone. Next, all subsidies for non-renewable energy. Nespaper said that was $4 billion. Half cut, the other half put into subsidies for renewable energy; net savings.

It's getting pretty hard; if you look down the list of programs, most of them are under a billion and have a friend or two in Congress. I would look at mortgage deductions, but only for second homes, refinancing to buy something else, and homes worth say more than a million. I'd make the limit for lifetime, and a maximum of $800,000. That allows you to buy a pretty nice home everywhere but New York City, and if you're thinking about buying a home in NYC, I have no sympathy for you.

Transportation. Cutting 75% of highway building funds would only be $17 billion, and is probably too much. I'd cut half of it, target it for congestion relief in urban areas where there is an air quality problem, and say "set priorities. I'd cut all funding for high speed rail, put half of it back into light rail for commuters, and half into deficit reduction.

Education. I think that NCLB has failed for a number of reasons, chiefly a lack of emphasis on curriculum and an over-emphasis on top-down management and testing. I'd give all the money back to the State's in block grants by population, with sweeteners for poorly performing schools. If Texas wants to have the weakest curriculum in the Country, have high school majors in football, creationism, and cheerleading, let them be dumb. Maybe there should be a Federal curriculum developed, but not required. What we tried hasn't worked, resoundingly, despite the best instincts of George Bush and help by George Miller. When it isn't working, stop.

I think reorganization is a great idea. Pretty hard to do, but I would put performance criteria and priority setting up front, and expect an additional 5-7% savings there. It can be done by Executive Order, so the Re-thugs will have to deal if they want to save a program or agency reporting relationship.

It's a start. Some programs definitely have to go--but we should worry about how fast, because those are real jobs, even if the government pays the wages.

[swchandler]

Bravo mac! You know, I have no disagreement with anything you've just said above and earlier, except raising the eligibility age for Social Security. I would guess that it's not all that important in your retirement strategy. Nevertheless, I can tell you're serious in your recommendations, and they appear to be both practical and reasonable in concept.

I don't think that conservatives can find a lot of excess fat in what you suggest, particularly defense cuts, but I could be wrong. I wonder whether they can overcome their hot desire for control of government and find cooperation with all the Americans out there that don't consider themselves Republicans, or Tea Partiers.

[coboardhead]

Mac - Excellent! Do you have an estimated total?

I keep coming back to some rough numbers for 2011 estimated budget.
Total Budget $3.8 T
Mandatory Spending $2.4 T
Discretionary spending $ 1.4 T
Deficit $ 1.3 T

So, if we cut all of the discretionary spending we barely cover the deficit?
As I see it. All of your proposed cuts come from discretionary spending. Mandatory spending cuts(SS, Govt Pensions,Medicare,Interest Payments) require both houses and the pres. to accomplish.

I like your thoughts with education. In Colorado, our new governor is saying education is a priority to attract industry. Why not let the states fund it and run it themselves. See who gets the good jobs and industry!

With highway funds, return most funds based on gas taxes and income taxes prorated for each state. Some special federal projects for interstate system excepted. Small rural states such as Wyo, ND and SD have excellent roads. CA's suck - doesn't seem fair. Maybe if these "net winners" in the Federal tax lottery see what their share really is, they won't be so anti tax.

I disagree on the mortgage deduction. I think it really should be eventually phased out completely. It contributed to the housing bubble and encourages over consumption. Don't leave folks hanging, but start to reduce the cap. If you want to encourage home ownership, provide low interest, insured loans to first time homeowners.

I also believe hidden costs (urban sprawl, pollution, wars) of petroleum need to be offset. I think the easiest way to do this is with a gas tax. Use this tax to reduce the deficit/debt. If this lowers demand, great, maybe prices will drop some.

[coboardhead]

"16500 IRS agents running health care?"

Not according to fact check

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/[/url]

[mac]

coboardhead--on mortgage insurance deduction, I'm trying to be fair and trying to be able to get something passed. I agree that it fueled the bubble, but not like the un-regulated practices of the banks that were looking only at loan fees, not payback. I've paid off my house, but it was a major way of sheltering income for me for 30 years. I probably wrote off $10,000/year in interest, or sheltered about $300,000 in income. That's a tax deduction available to the middle and upper class, not the lower class. Once you get into housing for the super-rich, it becomes really regressive. So it is really a tax on the non-home owners spread to the higher incomes. But with that said, it is a great cushion against economic downturns, and has changed the nature of home ownership since the 1930's when most of us rented. The construction industry is a big industry, and unlike churning loans, is value added and involves American jobs. So I'd change slowly. Haven't tried to calculate the total, but it is quite a bit, and not really politically feasible.

I think the current polling in California for a mixture shows that the moderates need to prevail if anything is going to be done about structural deficits. Everyone needs a haircut. I think voters will support modest tax increases if they see real reform on structural spending. Not sure the politicians will. Jerry Brown as a person is much creepier than Arnold, but is much more skilled politically. Arnold's reform package that failed was heavier in punishment for Democrats than Republicans, wasn't that much real reform, and it wasn't well sold. So even if his instincts were good, he couldn't sell it. In California, it will take a Democrat to get the Democratic side of the benefit slate to take their medicine. Will any Republicans step up?

[mac]

chandler--you are right that I am not now relying on Social Security. It may be that this makes me callous to the impact on those that do, but I think I have a different concern. I think we need to arm ourselves against an effort by the Re-thugs again to privatize social security. It is fueled in part by better performance by some elements of the stock market than government investment strategies, abhorrence of government (and maybe of the poor?), but in substantial part in response to the financial industry lobbying the Republicans to privatize social security so they get many more clients. Hmmm--sounds like one of the flaws in the political setting for Obama-care. My concern here is for sustainability, in both Social Security and government pensions--as part of the strategize to defeat privitization efforts.

It is richly ironic that the right has blessed what is essentially a wholesale socialization of retirement. Nobody on the right has complained while corporations have dropped retirement from the package of benefits. That has transferred essentially all of the risk of retirement to the public sector--to increase profits. If it were creating more jobs and making American workers more competitive in an international manufacturing market there might be a point. Is this lost on the right?

[isobars]