The New York Times has a story today, “A Dirty Secret Lurks in the Struggle Over a Fiscal ‘Grand Bargain’”, suggesting that there are really two reasons why the House-Senate Budget Conference Committee, chaired by Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, is unlikely to accomplish very much. The simple reason is that the Republicans will not support tax increases, on which the Democrats insist, and the Democrats will not support major changes to entitlement programs, on which the Republicans insist.
But the “dirty secret” (according to the NYT) is that Republicans don’t really want to trim either Social Security or Medicare, which many Tea Partiers receive, and Democrats don’t really want to raise taxes on the upper income individuals who support them. Furthermore, the deficit for 2013 was “only” $680 billion, and is expected to drop further in the next few years, while interest rates are so low that borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars each year is not expensive. In other words, just kick the can down the road. Let somebody else worry about the problem in the future.
My previous post “Nowhere to Cut”, based on the report from the Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 – 2023”, picks 14 possible budget cuts or revenue enhancements out of a total of 103 such items listed. Just these 14 items alone amount to a savings of $566 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset half of the entire sequester amount.
For example, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 would save $23 billion (over 10 years), using the ‘chained’ CPI to measure inflation for all mandatory programs would save $162 billion, tightening eligibility for food stamps would save $50 billion, taxing carried interest as ordinary income would save $17 billion, limiting highway funding to expected highway revenues would save $65 billion, reducing the size of the federal workforce through attrition would save $43 billion, limiting medical malpractice torts would save $57 billion, and modifying Tricare fees for working-age military retirees would save $71 billion. Just these eight savings total $456 billion and would offset almost half of the entire sequester.
What is so difficult about making a tradeoff deal like this? Isn’t this what we send people to Washington to do?
Category Archives: rich
Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems by Taxing the Rich? II. Robert Reich’s View
One of America’s foremost liberal writers, Robert Reich, a Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, argues in his latest book, “Beyond Outrage”, that “America’s economy and democracy are working for the benefit of ever-fewer privileged and powerful people.” He presents “a plan for action for everyone who cares about the future of America.” Mr. Reich’s tax policy:
- Raise the tax rate on the rich to what it was before 1981
“Sixty years ago Americans earning over $1 million in today’s dollars paid 55.2 percent of it in income taxes, after taking all deductions and credits. If they were taxed at that rate now, they’d be paying at least $80 billion more annually.”
- Put a two percent surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of one percent
“The richest on-half of one percent of Americans, each with over $7.2 million of assets, own 28 percent of the nation’s total wealth. Given this almost unprecedented concentration, and considering what the nation needs to do to rebuild our schools and infrastructure, as well as tame the budget deficit, a surtax is warranted. It would generate another $70 billion a year.”
- Put a one-half of one percent tax on all financial transactions
“This would bring in more than $25 billion per year.”
These new tax provisions would together raise tax revenue by $175 billion per year. But our deficit this fiscal year, ending September 30, 2013, is about $700 billion. In a few years, without significant changes in either discretionary or entitlement spending, annual deficits will be back up over a trillion dollars per year and climbing. Mr. Reich’s steep taxes on wealth and wealth creation are not enough to seriously tame deficit spending, let alone end it.
Let’s be honest and admit that some new tax revenue is probably going to be necessary in the future if we are ever going to be able to eliminate the deficit. But it makes no sense to start out with a tax increase which will be strongly opposed anyway. It is far more sensible to first wring out the hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful federal spending which now exists. After this is done there likely will still be a big deficit. Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to generate significant new revenue by raising taxes.
Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems by Taxing the Rich? I. The Third Way
“I enjoy your blogs and always look forward to the next one.”
“I am amazed when listening to my liberal friends, who could care less about any of the arguments you are making. Their basic belief is that any deficit can be solved in short order by simply raising taxes on the rich. One of these friends just bought a home in Palm Springs and came back declaring, ” Jerry Brown solved the financial problem in California. He raised taxes on the rich and the deficit is gone. California no longer has a financial problem.” He then went on to say that with 40 million people, California will set a good example for the country. After listening to this, I think you should address the issue of why simply increasing taxes will never work. I would start with Simpson Bowles and then go on to more recent findings. I think this argument has to be made over and over again. There are precious few Democrats who think we have a serious or fundamental financial problem that cannot be solved by simply raising taxes on the rich. I believe Obama is leading the charge.”
One response to this argument is provided by the President, Jon Cowan, and the Senior Vice President for Policy, Jim Kessler, of the Third Way, a center-left think tank, in a June 2013 memo, “The Four Fiscal Fantasies” .
- Fantasy #1: Taxing the rich solves our problems.
Mr. Cowan and Mr. Kessler look at a plan that “completely soaks the rich.” They stipulate that the top tax rate increases ten points to 49.6%. They impose the Buffett Rule requiring all millionaires to pay at least 30% in taxes (after deductions). They raise the estate tax to allow a $3.5 million exemption with a 45% rate. “If we leave entitlements on auto-pilot in this scenario, our deficit in 2030 will be close to a stunning $1.3 trillion in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars.”
The authors then show that to keep our finances even roughly in check, a middle income family with a $65,000 income, for example, would have to pay several thousand dollars a year in new taxes.
Conclusion: We cannot keep entitlements on auto-pilot. Something has to give!