Some dimwit Republicans still don't get it:
Here's the problem that Hing and too many House Republicans still don't seem to understand: When the deficit is more than a trillion dollars a year, comparatively modest spending cuts are nothing to boast about. They might as well be shooting BBs at a charging elephant.
At least one GOP member of the Rogers panel understands this reality. Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia told Hewitt on his radio show this week that "right now, frankly, in my opinion, we're not cutting anything serious. It's earmark money, it's duplication money."
I suspect that what really grinds Hewitt's critics is his observation that "in this age of new media, instant messaging and Twitter, Tea Party activists across the country have already figured out their No. 1 opponents are not Democrats but GOP appropriators."
Those who don't make a real effort at serious spending cuts are no better than those who approved the spending and don't deserve to keep their jobs.
Comments
Because of dogmatic opposition to taxes, they also don't get that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in creating this mess.
The bipartisan lack of political courage to go back to the Clinton tax structure is going to hurt us in the long run.
Our spending as a function of GDP is, historically, at pretty normal levels. Our tax burden is at historically low levels. Hence, the deficit.
Doug:
Open up you eyes just a little. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of the 9/11 recession but even if we rescinded those tax cuts we could not afford Obama's spending nor his future health insurance burden.
Let's return programs and funding to 2008 levels and see what happens after that is accomplished. We have had two years of spend, spend, spend with no recovery to speak of in the job market. Obama needs to forget about his Keynsian roots.
Gadfly: I am astounded that anyone could write that Bush's tax cuts ended a recession. They plainly were a major cause of one. And they continue to exacerbate it, since no one wants to raise taxes, even if only to their previous levels.
Bush also kept the costs of his two wars "off the books," making things look less terrible than they were. Obama has been honest about those expenses.
Lest you think I'm only picking on Bush, let me say that Obama's enthusiasm for wars we can't afford is appalling. Ending them would help our budget considerably.
LittleJohn, I'm not the least bit astounded you choose to rewrite history, that's the liberal way. Don't forget to feed your Unicorn his skittles.
"To maximize real economic growth in the United States, the top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%, give or take about ten percent."
http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=268
Harl, think flat tax 20% across the board for individuals and corporations alike, no deductions of any kind. Neat and easy.
So tax the same someone who eatns $13,000 a year as u do GE. Oops ny times reported today the government owes them a refund.aj
The problem with neat and easy solutions is that they don't work.
General Motors sells a car for $20,000. You gonna charge them $4,000 tax on their gross income?
What about a local grain elevator, which buys grain for $7.00 a bushel, unloads it from the farmer's wagons, and loads it in a rail car to sell to a distant market for $7.05 a bushel. Are you going to charge them $1.40 tax on that transaction?
If you allow General Motors to deduct the money they spend for steel and glass, for labor, and for real estate taxes, what are the half-million dollars they spend for a welding robot? Currently they have to deduct that half million over a period of about a decade, and we call it depreciation. Do they get to deduct the entire half-million when they spend it, or do they depreciate it over the useful life of the robot, or is there no deduction at all?
The fact is, a lot of the programs of the federal government benefit the wealthy. About 62% goes to pay for wars, current and past, and that's to protect those with foreign interests, something that applies only to the wealthiest 5% of so of the population. If you're not doing well enough to fly to Orlando for a vacation, air traffic control benefits you. If you're not wealthy enough to afford vacations to the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone, the National Park Service doesn't help you much. Not only are the wealthier people better able to afford the taxes, but they are the primary beneficiaries of them.
And from the standpoint of maximizing economic growth, the wealthier someone is, the more important it is to goad him into putting his wealth actively to work, instead of sitting idly in a bank account. Progressive taxes do that. Flat taxes do not.
"Our spending as a function of GDP is, historically, at pretty normal levels. Our tax burden is at historically low levels. Hence, the deficit."
This is pretty true, except when you look at the budget. While the total combined total federal taxes from all sources (Income tax, corporate tax, estate tax, social security and medicare) has been about equal, what really has changed dramatically is the percentage of tax in relation to general budget expenses. The combined Income tax, corporate tax, estate tax has dropped decreased by nearly 50% when compared to GDP while the combined FICA tax has risen by 2100% to GDP. In simple terms when Social Security and Medicare were passed, the congress did not reduce spending when the reduced Income, corporate, estate tax and other federal general revenues in order to keep the overall tax rate at "normal levels." We went from periodic surpluses to continual deficits in order to pay Social Security and Medicare. People complain about high taxes, but the two highest taxes for most people is Social Security and Medicare.
"About 62% goes to pay for wars, current and past," can you site a source for this? The budget source I have from the Federal Government identifies line item totals by year. When I add up the totals for defense, I do not get anything close to 62%.
As for a flat tax of 20% with no deductions, this does not cover the general budget. Total income according to the IRS is just around $7.5 Trillion. You would raise $1.5 Trillion in revenues with a 20% flat tax which is about $100 billion less than the current tax system and you have not even begun to pay for Social Security or Medicare.
People need to start thinking a lot bigger.
I believe the IRS code needs reformed big time. GE was in the news because they owed no federal income tax this year. Well they had some huge losses in GE capital that loaned money to buy airplanes, jet engines, appliances, etc. Just like individuals who can carry a loss forward to offset income, GE is carrying forward billions of dollars in losses which offset previous losses. GM certainly did not pay any taxes and they were given billions from taxpayers. What about the Child Tax Credit of $1,000 per child under age 18. If you owe no federal income tax you file a form 8812 and you will get a Refundable $1,000 tax credit/refund. The same goes for the first time home buyer as well.
The problem with taxation is that the US Debt has grown so large that raising taxes to pay for it while not cutting spending is shipping jobs and services over seas to lower cost areas.
The flyer I had used 2005 figures, so I went through the 2011 budget to update the numbers.
Department of Defense - $718,795 (everything in millions)
Energy - nuclear defense - $17,214
HHS - ABC countermeasures - $2,424
Homeland Security - $53,658
Bureau of Indian Affairs - $2.698
Justice - Gitmo detainees - $73
State - Nonproliferation - $758
State - Foreign Military Financing - $5,473
State - Pakistan Counterinsurgency - $1,208
State - Refugee Assistance - $1,605
State - International narcotics control - $2,136
National Defense Highways - $41,363
Terrorism Insurance Fund - $236
Veteran's Administration - $123,757
VA Home Loans - $53,570
Corps of Engineers - $5,986
EPA - Tribal Assistance Grants - $1,276
NASA (est. 50% military) - $9,500
NSF (est. 75% military) - $5,091
Interest on national debt (est 80% military) $331,163
Total - $1,277,976, which is 63.39% of $2,173,700 budget.
Note that this does NOT include veteran loans from the Department of Education, nor hiring preferences for jobs to veterans, because I didn't have the slightest idea how to figure out how much extra they cost us. Obviously, they're non-zero. Nor did I have any idea how to ferret out the money spent for intelligence agencies and operations around the globe.
Here is a link to what I hope is the list of budgets from 1929 to present. There is a lot of information here.
The last time I looked at this site was back in 2006.
Your number seems very high considering the total federal general budget in 2005 was $2.6255 Trillion. Based on the Treasury, $1.5185 was spent on social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Education). This leaves just $1.107 Trillion for everything else including defense, NASA, Veterans Benefits and interest on the debt.
I am not saying your information is wrong, but who produced the flier? I like your itemized list and it seems to cover all the defense related expenses that do not fall under the actual budget of "Defense." One little note, Veterans benefits come in several catagories. A large number of veterans receive a fee based (means tested benefit on a first come first served basis even though there service had nothing to do with the medical care they receive. I would estimate 75% of the VA budget to be this type of care (non service related). In addition the VA will pay those who have a service related disability rated at under 100% a benefit but at the same time will pay that injured veteran a second benefit if they are unable to work, even though their injuries are not the sole cause of their inability to work. This benefit is a means tested benefit as well. I have no idea who much this is.
Here is a link to a few budgets and they are listed by topics. I have looked at a few, but the details in lacking.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/index.html
I found Nuclear defense was about $10.8 billion
Interest on the debt should be allocated based on a ratio of expenses the general budget to the total defense budget.
After looking at the flyer, I decided I'd rather not trust it. It was a Quaker anti-war group, and I suppose it was probably right, but I figured I'd rather make up my own list using the FY11 budget figures online.
The flyer used 50% for NASA, 75% for NSF, and 80% for interest on the debt. From reading Tom Clancey, I think the NASA figure is probably higher than 50%. I have a brother doing research for NSF, and he thinks it's probably 90% military related. Interest on the national debt depends on what the debt was incurred on, and if you note that our deficits would go pfft if we eliminated military spending, it would be justifiable to use 100%, so I think 80% is a conservative number.
Your comment about veterans' benefits is interesting, although from this perspective of this discussion, they are all related to current or prior wars.
At your URL, it shows the National Nuclear Security Administration alone is $11,783 million, plus there's another $859 million for other defense activities, and $5,416 million for research. The research might be considered dual-purpose, I suppose, but I itemized enough items for 64% of the federal budget, even without job preferences or student loans, versus a claim of 62%, so I don't feel like I've overstated things.
"$5,416 million for research. The research might be considered dual-purpose, I suppose, but I itemized enough items for 64% of the federal budget, even without job preferences or student loans, versus a claim of 62%, so I don
"This could be right if you believe that every other government program should be funded first and the scrap given to defense of this country."
We're spending virtually nothing on the defense of this country. The last time a sovereign nation invaded the US was in the war of 1812. The last time any military force at all invaded us was Pancho Villa in the years before WWI.
The so-called "Department of Defense" is a Department of Offense. Every time we elect a president, he can't restrain himself. He's like a 16-year-old with a new Corvette convertible. He wants to take the military out for a whirl and see what it will do, even though we have no good reason to do so.
Canada's military budget is about 1% as big as ours. Do you see anyone threatening to invade Canada and take it over? What about Denmark? They aren't even spending a quarter as much as Canada. Are they in danger?
The US Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee to the several states a republican form of government. We have no responsibility to other countries at all, and yet we have 737 military bases in 63 countries. Why? Let those 63 countries provide their OWN military defense!
It's called the Monroe Doctrine. America for Americans. If we really believed in democracy, we'd allow people in other countries rule their own countries.