Women and Children First!

Source: CBO. Click the chart to view more legible image.

by James A. Bacon

Boomergeddon is running right on schedule. The Congressional Budget Office released a report earlier this month disclosing that the federal budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2011, which closed September 31, was $1.3 trillion — equal to 8.6% of GDP. Two years into the economy recovery, the United States still racked up the third largest percentage deficit since the end of World War II. Meanwhile, economic recovery continues to drag. We’ll all consider it a triumph of economic policy simply to avoid a double-dip recession. One way or the other, the outlook is for chronic annual deficits above $1 trillion.

The response of President Obama to the nation’s fiscal challenge is so inadequate as to be contemptuous. As if $1.3 trillion in deficits weren’t sufficient counter-cyclical spending, he proposes to roll out a $450 billion Son of Stimulus. His plan: Keep the economy running on Keynesian crack, fight cuts in government programs, beat Republicans with the class warfare stick and raise taxes on job creators. If Obama were the captain of the Titanic, he’d be manning the helm and shouting, “Damn the iceberg, full speed ahead!”

But are the Republican candidates much better? To the extent that they don’t propose running up $450 billion in extra deficits, they would not accelerate the ruination of the country, as Obama would do. But to the extent to which their deficit cutting plans are weak-kneed and lily-livered, they won’t avert Boomergeddon. They will just put the economy on a slow glide path to catastrophe.

Mitt Romney, who represents the technocratic wing of the Elephant Clan, has called for initial cuts to non-security discretionary spending of $20 billion, reports the Wall Street Journal. But he won’t cut defense and hasn’t proposed serious entitlement reform. He would roll back corporate taxes and eliminate capital gains, dividends and interest for taxpayers earning less than $200,000. But even with dynamic scoring (recognizing that lower tax rates stimulate growth), the tax plan is not likely to pay for itself. Bottom line: The GOP front runner is the proverbial guy who wants to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I have taken a liking to the plain-talking ways of Herman Cain, and conceptually I like his 9-9-9 tax plan, which calls for a flat 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax and a 9% national sales tax. I do believe it would stimulate growth and create jobs — but it would be revenue neutral only if it delivered the promised growth and counted the tax revenue generated by that growth. So, even if it works as billed, Cain’s plan would create jobs but it wouldn’t cut the deficit. I have heard Cain say very little about how he would close that $1.3 trillion budget gap through spending cuts. If he were captain of the Titanic, he’d be saying, “Let’s poke around in the engine room and see what we can do.”

Only one candidate gets it, and that is Ron Paul. He laid out a plan yesterday that would cut federal spending by $1 trillion during his first year in office, achieved partly by eliminating the departments of Education, Commerce, Interior, Energy and Housing and Urban Development, as well as halting foreign aid, “ending foreign wars” and throwing in some tax cuts. Credit Paul for recognizing the magnitude of change that needs to be made. (As it happens, closing the budget gap by $1 trillion was the goal I set in Boomergeddon.)

Just two problems with Paul’s plan. First, it is an outlier. No one but a tiny fringe of the electorate will take it seriously. Most people will recoil at draconian nature of the cuts. Second, there is a legitimate economic criticism that can be leveled at the plan: Whacking $1 trillion in federal spending in a single year would cause massive economic dislocation and plunge the country back into a recession. Paul would save the Titanic from the iceberg by blasting a hole in the hull and preemptively sinking it.

Our only hope for averting fiscal catastrophe is to enact spending cuts on the $1 trillion scale that Paul proposes but easing into them over several years so as to temper the economic pain and minimize the political backlash that could lead two years later to the plan’s undoing. It wouldn’t hurt to throw in a dose of Herman Cain-style tax reform to energize the economy. U.S. businesses are sitting on $2 trillion or more in cash. If we can create the conditions to get corporations and entrepreneurs investing and hiring again — sorry, but protecting the jobs of teachers and fire fighters, as our president proposes, won’t do the trick — perhaps we can grow our way out of the doldrums.

But anyone who tells you can we achieve fiscal sustainability on the cheap and easy is a fool. And anyone who tells you we can kick the can down the road forever is a liar.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

8 responses to “Women and Children First!”

  1. For starters just add up the existing state/local sales taxes and then add in Cain’s nine ninety nine special. Don’t forget the pass through into the prices. Isn’t 20 percent more for a Big Mac a bit excessive?

    Especially when you…

    Break out last year’s tax return and figure out the increase you would be paying. I did, about 40 percent more. Which nearly wiped out the SS tax that you wouldn’t have to pay, because that plan along with Medicare was converted to a true general funded, yearly battle, welfare entitlement.

    You would need to revise your book. Boomergeddon would be coming much earlier that you thought

  2. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    If your goal is to open up the proverbial can of worms, I think this post is going to accomplish that goal.
    I agree with Jim on at least one thing. If Paul’s plan were to be implemented it would cause massive economic dislocation.

    “…eliminating the departments of Education, Commerce, Interior, Energy and Housing and Urban Development, as well as halting foreign aid, “ending foreign wars” and throwing in some tax cuts.”
    ________________________________________________
    I was a proud member of the Republican Party for years. I left because the party became too divisive. At this point they are dysfunctional, and I have become a true Independent. I’m glad I left when I did.
    Onward…
    While some of these departments need reorganization, eliminating them is just the latest scheme to deregulate everything.
    But if you agree with eliminating these departments, would you PLEASE tell me exactly what you think government SHOULD do? I mean, really? These folks have gone so far off the reservation that I don’t think they have any clear idea of what the fundamental purpose of government is. All they ever say is deregulation, less government, and bigger tax breaks for
    gozillionaires/big corporations who haven’t been creating many jobs lately; The rest of the country be dammed.
    Enough venting. I do agree with one part of Paul’s plan. we should not be sending massive amounts of money to other countries. We just can’t afford it right now.
    I would like to know more about Cain’s plan. I need to read the details of the 9 9 9, but if it doesn’t cut the deficit, I’m not sure it’s worth my time. But if as Darrell suggests, I had to pay 20% more for a Big Mac I would be hungry. I love a Big Mac, but they are already too expensive.
    Same with Romney with one exception. I understand that lower tax rates stimulate growth, but I am beginning to wonder if it still works. People are scared to spend any money. I think the only thing that can fix that is time. To be more specific, time AFTER the crap in Washington STOPS.

    I might be exhibiting signs of foot in mouth disease, but what would happen if all of the mortgage companies agreed to a moratorium on foreclosures for people who have been laid off due to the recession? Not for long, just long enough for people who need to be re-trained/educated to do something else get that training/education?

    Onward, again.
    I agree that fiscal sustainability will not be cheap or easy. When was the last time we enjoyed this sustainability? What were we doing then that is different from now? These questions might be considered stupid for some of you, but I would really like to know. I would like to see a plan that actually made it past election day.

  3. If you want to know why we have a structural deficit – look no further than here:

    ” Obama’s Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

    There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.”

    .
    .
    But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

    Here’s how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

    The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

    With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

    The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.”

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html

    now don’t mistake my posting of the facts for any particular advocacy – my sole interest is that before we make decisions about what to do and who to tax – we ought to know the truth about the current circumstances.

    the simple reality here is that a family of 4 with an income of 50K pays no taxes in most cases.

    we can blame it on the rich or on corporations but at the end of the day – the “family” tax cut is a potent factor in the deficits.

  4. oh… and clearly – Obama wants to keep the tax cuts for the 50K families and get the higher income earners back to a Clinton/Reagan era tax-rate ….

    but at least Obama has a plan. The only plan that Herman Caine and the Republicans have is supply-side economics…. that if you cut taxes “enough” economic growth will occur at a level sufficient to wipe out the deficit – as long as you cut entitlements …..

    so the question de jure is this – the left base and the right base are irrelevant in this issue despite the fire and fury.

    the decision lies in the hands of independents.

    which way will they lean?

    oh.. and the worst part is this – of the political spectrum – independents tend to be the least informed on the facts and the most easily swayed by sound-bite messages.

    On that count – the Republicans have it all over the Dems. The Dems are downright stupid when it comes to propaganda…. whereas the Republicans all have PHDs in that school.

  5. Groveton Avatar

    Caine’s plan is quite good. However, he’s 2 9’s short. The first 9 is 9% tax on capital gains. The second 9 is a 9% tax on dividends.

    He also is pitching his plan the wrong way. Revenue neutrality is interesting. Corruption reversing is fascinating.

    10 million words of tax code and GE pays no taxes. That is corruption, pure and simple.

    I also love the counter – Caine arguments:

    1, It will hurt the middle class. Oh yeah, the present approach is just is just a bed of roses for the middle class. Let’s stick with that!

    2. Congress will just raise taxes. Great, politicians agreeing in concert that politicians can’t be trusted.

    What a catastrophe of a time we live in.

    Next up, a double dip recession thanks to the Europeans. Well, at least Obama won’t have to keep blaming Bush.

  6. Groveton Avatar

    “On that count – the Republicans have it all over the Dems. The Dems are downright stupid when it comes to propaganda…. whereas the Republicans all have PHDs in that school.”.

    From the Saul Alinsky handbook, “When confronted with an inconvenient fact, reverse it and declare it to be true.”.

    How is Nancy Pelosi’s recollection of those mean old Tea Party people spitting on Congressmen after the Obamacare vote? Hint: Never happened.

    How is Al Sharpton’s insistence that the Republicans dislike Obama because they are racist now that Herman Caine is leading the pack?

    How is LarryG’s insistence that a plan which runs up a $2.4T surplus is “pay as you go”? What if I told you that the $2.4T that took 27 years to run up would be completely exhausted in 14 years? Interesting definition of “pay as you go” – first you pay $2.4T more than you should have paid (as you go), then you pay $2.4T less than you should have paid (as you go). After that? Who knows. JM Keynes once said, “In the long run we’re all dead.”. Maybe he came up with the SS definition of “pay as you go”.

  7. as I pointed out before FICA brings in almost a trillion a year and pays out a similar amount.

    How long do you think a 2 trillion “surplus” would last if FICA went away?

    The surplus is a result of actions taken in the 1980’s when it was recognized that we would have a baby boomer problem in the coming years.

    It was intended as a down payment for more changes that would have to follow to keep the program paying out only what it took in – over the longer run.

    Groveton seems to believe that because of demographics and baby booms that the folks who created SS were ‘criminal’.

    They could not have known in 1934 what the future would bring for a pay-as-you-go system but they KNEW that such a system would be affected and potentially vulnerable to demographic changes and that is why they required an annual trustees report that included a 75-year look ahead.

    the system works – as designed.

    It’s just plain dishonest to say otherwise.

    Now if someone disagrees with the original premise of SS – then make your argument – a principled one – on that basis.

    If one thinks now is the time to switch from a pay-as-you-go to a pre-funded system -as Chile has done – then make a principled argument on that basis.

    but don’t lie about the facts… that’s not right but it’s increasingly the preferred path of the right wing these days…

  8. I see nothing that leads me to think we are facing a double dip.

Leave a Reply