Thanks to my friend Ms. Crawford for sending me this link. None of you were able to balance the budget in the last unit, so have another crack at it like they are saying they will do on Capitol Hill, thanks to this NY Times interactive site.
In finding 73% savings from progressive tax increases and 27% percent savings from spending cuts, I still came up short of balancing the budget (One of the reasons Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 was found unconstitutional).
From the 2015 projections of a $418 shortfall, I got it down to $69 billion. I saved $698 billion, but was still $647 in the hole for the 2030 projection.
And remember, I was trying to attack the deficit by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich ($250,000) to expire, lifting the SS cap of $106,800, making some military cuts and freezing federal pay.
Politically, it is doubtful that many, if any, Republicans will want to do that.
My question is then, are they just playing politics? This simulation is yet another example of:
I was able to balance both budgets with some money left over. This was primarily by allowing all the Bush Tax cuts to expire and enacting a carbon tax and a bank tax. I also went with the plan to reduce troop levels oversees and well as reduce the size of the military to pre Iraq levels and reducing non combat compensation packages. The big cost saver however was capping Medicare growth at GDP + 1%. My only concerns were that to reduce the size of the military we would have to come up with a costly package to get the combat troops benefits and get them in school or work training programs in exchange for their service, and with the number of veterans we would be dealing with would make this package quite expensive. But, I was able to run a surplus of $135 Billion for 2015 and a $168 Billion surplus for 2030.
Facts are facts, taxes need to go up on everyone including rich people. Its impossible to talk about tax cuts to balance the budget. Cutting earmarks does nothing, military spending has to significantly decrease. It'll be tough but I'm sure we'll survive without the ability to bomb the world 6 times over.
3 comments:
How did you do?
In finding 73% savings from progressive tax increases and 27% percent savings from spending cuts, I still came up short of balancing the budget (One of the reasons Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 was found unconstitutional).
From the 2015 projections of a $418 shortfall, I got it down to $69 billion. I saved $698 billion, but was still $647 in the hole for the 2030 projection.
And remember, I was trying to attack the deficit by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich ($250,000) to expire, lifting the SS cap of $106,800, making some military cuts and freezing federal pay.
Politically, it is doubtful that many, if any, Republicans will want to do that.
My question is then, are they just playing politics? This simulation is yet another example of:
"Governing is Hard, Politics is Easy."
I was able to balance both budgets with some money left over. This was primarily by allowing all the Bush Tax cuts to expire and enacting a carbon tax and a bank tax. I also went with the plan to reduce troop levels oversees and well as reduce the size of the military to pre Iraq levels and reducing non combat compensation packages. The big cost saver however was capping Medicare growth at GDP + 1%. My only concerns were that to reduce the size of the military we would have to come up with a costly package to get the combat troops benefits and get them in school or work training programs in exchange for their service, and with the number of veterans we would be dealing with would make this package quite expensive. But, I was able to run a surplus of $135 Billion for 2015 and a $168 Billion surplus for 2030.
Its possible, but it involves doing the politically possible
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=g3xj05g6
Facts are facts, taxes need to go up on everyone including rich people. Its impossible to talk about tax cuts to balance the budget. Cutting earmarks does nothing, military spending has to significantly decrease. It'll be tough but I'm sure we'll survive without the ability to bomb the world 6 times over.
Post a Comment