Light at the end of the tunnel…deficit debates.

That is feasible using fibre optic cables.  I am not sure of that light source, however.

Rdan,

That is hilarious. 

coberly – if your around, you should check at all those ‘village’ bloggers. Seems the meme going around is to ‘save’ SS’ by removing the FICA tax cap so as to tap into the wealthy’s hidden cash they have laying around in stacks of glod at gringots.  But then keep the cap on payouts.  Makes the tax much more progressive.

Only Nixon can go to China and only a Dem can gut SS…

Islam will change

Remarkable quote by Obama :

And I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower. 

Dwight Eisenhower spending as a % of GDP = 18%,  2011 spending = 25% of GDP.  This implies cuts in spending of $1T per year.

It’s probably BS, but he said it.

In real terms Ike spent less than 50% of today’s military, looks like a cut of >50% in the war machine

Buff, this Democratic President is not what I’d call an inspiring leader. Ya know, it would have to be a Democratic President with a lot more negotiating ability than this one. Although, I don’t think he’s a Democrat, strictly speaking. They usually respond faster to unemployment and actually have no interest in killing SS. NancyO

Corev,

It is remarkable that you have any doubt about that!

 here’s a post by libertarian blogger megan mcardle @ the atlantic, in which she is attempting to convince her right wing followers that stonewalling the debt ceiling vote is a non-starter… you’ll see she pays interest & pensions, military payroll, VA benefits, social security, medicare & medicaid out of current revenues, and then runs out of money for military operations & the rest of the budget…and as she points out, you cant just stop running the prisons, leave the troops in iraq & afghanistan unsupplied, stop IRS operations & refunds, and leave the border checkpoints unmanned…

Or the government can simp;ly raise the tax rates for all forms of income so that what ever government services are required can be paid for.  Social Security has nothing to do with those other government services.  If we want to fight wars, subliment the energy industry, susidize farmers (at least people who own farm land), have some reasonable health care system (so that the Bachmann organization can receive its Medicaid reimbursements) then I guess it’s necessary to have sufficient revenue to cover all those costs.  What am I missing in the continuing drama concerning the deficit.  No one wants to cut the big programs that seem to be essential to making American lives reasonable, but no one seems to understand that they have to be paid for.  Raise taxes.  It’s a no brainer.  Government spending adds to a demand economy which helps to drive up employment.  What’s the mystery?  Why the argument?  So that a group of greedy little rich boys can avoid the responsibility of supporting the country that makes their wealth possible, and protects that wealth. 

put me down for an old republican tax plan….the top marginal rate was 91% under eisenhower…

There is no light at the end of the tunnel for the federal budget deficits in the current rounds of talks.  Yes, the Congress will raise the debt ceiling ultimately but the deficit problems do not end there.  The supposed $4 trillion, $2.4 trillion, and $1.5 trillion plans under discussion are totally inadequate in order to avoid a financial crisis later this decade. 
 
The U.S. Government can not afford to carry further increases in debt held by the public at or near the CBO projected deficits growth of $9.47 trillion between 2012 and 2021, resulting in $20.8 trillion total debt held by the public.  The financial risks increase rapidly above $5 trillion and the U.S. Government is already faced with $9.75 trillion in total debt held by the public.  The current level of debt held by the public and the projected deficits including revisions based on ten year reductions of  $4 trillion, $2.4 trillion, or $1.5 trillion keep the government on an unsustainable path.  The financial risks that the government is facing increase significantly after 2020 as expenditures for mandatory programs including trust fund reimbursements ramp up significantly as do net interest payments on debt held by the public. 
 
The U.S. Government is at a tipping point with regard to its national debt, composed of intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public, presently totaling more than $14 trillion.  It is essential that no additional debt held by the public be added to the current obligation total by 2021.  As such, future deficit reductions need to be sufficient to put the federal budget in surplus during years toward the end of the decade.  The effort necessary to achieve total deficits reduction of $9-10 trillion by 2021 will require a combination of spending reductions and revenue increases.   
 
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma proposed a $9 trillion ten-year deficit reduction plan today.  Coburn’s 621 page deficit reduction plan is broken down by department and agency.  The document is a worthy read.  
 
I expect many individuals to assume that all is well after the debt ceiling decision occurs, but that certainly will not be the situation.  Similarly, the majority of the econ blogs which already have a history of severe weakness in federal budget analysis are likely to go back to sleep on this issue.  And deficit reduction proposals like that of Senator Coburn and his staff are likely to be ignored out of sheer stupidity, general ignorance, political ideology, arrogance, or any combination thereof.  All par for the course among those who fail to grasp the significance and scale of the fiscal threat. 
 
The bottom line is that the federal budget problems are not going away, rather they are just beginning to take shape.  There is no light at the end of the tunnel.  Not thus far. 

For all the class warriors, tax the rich types, the chart I provided above is proof that top marginal tax rates are nearly meaningless in increasing revenues.  We need a complete tax reform if we are going to do anything with taxes.

Sigh . . .

All deficit programs cited by the party of Grover “No”rquist deals with spending cuts direced towards the middle class, the poorest segment of the taxpayers, the elderly, and the children of the nation. Are you a Norquist sychophant? The Republicans represent Grover Norquist as determined by the pledges they singed.

Incrementally what is needed is:

– a sunsetting of tax breaks to the 3% of the taxpayers making > than $250,000 annually.
– an incremental increase in SS of 1 tenth of 1% annually to force SS back into paygo since Congress stole the TF.
– an increase in Medicare taxes of the same magnitude.
– a job plan which does not inclue tax breaks to the highest incomes of the taxpayers. Tax breaks to this portion of the taxpayers does not increase jobs.

With an ncreased Civilian Labor Force, tax revenuess increase as more people pay into it. The Republicans have a firm plan to revitalize Wall Street; but, they hve no jobs paln other than decreased taxes to the high income bracket. Your plan is arace to the bottom for 97% of the taxpaying population the same as McConnell and Boehner suggests. You are amongst your own kind.

while im here, i want to take on the pervasive idea that our government debt is somehow a bad thing; if the treasury would suddenly stop borrowing, the world would find itself with a dearth of safe assets; without government bonds to invest in, where else could the social security trust fund or state and local pension funds park their savings that would be safe? real estate? the stock market? similarly, those nations that run a trade surplus with us accept treasury notes and bonds as a safe store of value; that’s the function of the dollar as a reserve currency…thus short term US government debt has become, at least in part, the worlds money supply; a million dollar Treasury bill is used as money by a sovereign wealth fund in the same sense that you use a ten dollar bill in your wallet…thus, a contraction of the supply of the reserve currency (our treasury debt) would have a negative impact on the world economy in the same manner that a contraction in the domestic money supply would impact our nation’s economy…

run75441 – “All deficit programs cited by the party of Grover “No”rquist deals with spending cuts direced towards the middle class, the poorest segment of the taxpayers, the elderly, and the children of the nation. Are you a Norquist sychophant? The Republicans represent Grover Norquist as determined by the pledges they singed.” 
 
You’re apparently clueless on Senator Coburn’s activities regarding deficit reduction.  Similarly, you’re apparently unaware that Norquist’s grip on the Republican members of Congress is being challenged by a number of members. 
 
Senator Coburn has been engaged in a war of words with Norquist since March over the Norquist group pledge.  The examples have been well covered in the news.  Senator Coburn led a group of thirty-four Republican Senators across the Norquist pledge line in opposing continuation of ethanol subsidies in June.  That served as a public challenge to Norquist’s grip on Republicans in Congress, and the effort continues with Senator Coburn’s $9 trillion deficit reduction plan which calls for $1 trillion in new revenues generated by restructuring the tax code, eliminating tax loopholes, and eliminaating upper income tax exemptions.  Basically, you have no idea what Senator Coburn has been doing.
 
run75441 – “Incrementally what is needed is: – a sunsetting of tax breaks to the 3% of the taxpayers making > than $250,000 annually.”
 
That changes nothing in CBO’s projected federal debt held by the public in 2021.  Nothing at all.   
 
Those familiar with President Obama’s FY2012 federal budget proposal and CBO’s analysis of the Obama proposal are well aware that President Obama included additional revenues from upper income earners in his proposal.  President Obama eliminated the Bush II era tax cuts previously provided to upper income earners in the federal budget revenue projections for 2012-2021.  Including that additional projected revenue still results  in the cumulative $20.8 trillion debt held by the public figure cited in the CBO analysis of the President’s budget proposal. 
 
run75441 – “Incrementally what is needed is: – an incremental increase in SS of 1 tenth of 1% annually to force SS back into paygo since Congress stole the TF.”
 
The U.S. Congress hasn’t stolen the Social Security Administration’s combined OASDI trust funds.  Moreover, the Obama Administration’s Treasury Department has been covering the SSA’s combined OASDI trust funds’ net cashflow shortfalls with revenues from the General Fund in accordance with the U.S. Code.  There have been no negative changes in Treasury’s support of SSA OASDI cashflow needs and redemption of earned interest on SSA OASDI combined trust funds’ assets.  Your false assertions do not change the facts. 
 
Restoring positive net cashflow of the SSA OASDI combined trust funds for the next nine years would eliminate $355 billion in required redemptions according to SSA projections.  That change would help reduce the projected FY2012-2021 federal budget deficits. 
 
run75441 – “Incrementally what is needed is: – an increase in Medicare taxes of the same magnitude.” 
 
Where is your supporting math and details as to where this additional funding would be added?  Such an increase would not eliminate the General Fund support of Medicare […]

rjs,

Let’s see what you say in ten years when the U.S. federal debt held by the public is in the ballpark of $18-20 trillion and the supporting net interest obligations represent the largest component of the U.S. federal budget.  Imagine what you will say when federal debt held by the public reaches 180% of GDP or 300% of GDP.  That’s is where the U.S. Government is headed without fiscal management corrective changes. 

The U.S. isn’t going to run out of intragovernmental debt or debt held by the public. 

You fail to make the distinction that intragovernmental debt is comprised primarily of special-issue U.S. Treasuries that are not available for sale in the market.  

There is such a thing as carrying too much debt, and that’s what the fight in the U.S. Congress is all about.  The Members of Congress realize that a growing portion of the federal budget outlays will be net interest obligations.  Moreover, they realize that growing net interest obligations will crowd out discretionary spending.  And that is when the wheels will come off the wagon. 

When a national government is paying .50 cents on the dollar for every dollar spent, it’s time to wake up and get the debt level under control. 

right now, it’s actually cheaper for the govt to borrow money than to spend cash, so we should be borrowing all we can, & investing in infrastructure & human capital…

rjs, in addition to what MG has said, you imply that what Clinton did by paying down the debt, was economically a bad thing.  I think the issue revolves around sizes of each, total debt and how it is paid down (taxes versus cuts.)

If you did not mean that, then a little more detail is needed.

rjs, there seems to be two schools of thought on the debt/deficit and interest issue.  One, I will attribute to a Obama stimulus results were just an anomaly, everything will be fine school and the other that we are facing a serious near/short term future problem school to which MG, I and most of the TP members believe.

Also, we’ve tried the Keynesian approach and the results have been at best mixed.  We can discuss the value of the various parts of the Obama stimulus bill, but taken as a whole it clearly has added little sustainable economic growth nor net job growth.  Doubling down on that is the wrong strategy.

End the MICC give 4% of GDP back to better more productive use.

Stimulus was not even attempted, it was a tenth what may have been useful, the spending part of Obomber’s stimulus was $350B odd.

That is half the stimulus to the war profiteers each year.

well, you should be quite pleased that you already have a tea party president in the white house…he’s bought all you believe, hook, line & sinker…

ARRA was badly structured & applied; almost 40% went to tax breaks, much went to cover the state budgets (which theyre now experiencing withdrawal from) & for the safety net (no complaint there), & only $48B was for transportation infrastructure…

rjs, I agree completely, “…ARRA was badly structured & applied…”.  Because of that the Keynesian theory is still in doubt.  The voters, however, have been completely discouraged with Obama’s, as Ezra Klein claims, the Keynesian super stars on his original economic team.

There was a great deal of discussion in the press and blogs re: the various efficiencies of the ARRA.  It appears the conservatives were proven more true than the hard core Keynesians, especially where it came to “shovel ready” projects, state grants that go to continuing current levels of employment and the business incentives portions of the tax package.

Your biases show when you call Obama a TPer.  he is so far from it it funny.

While the light at the end of that pouch’s tunnel is good for laughs I think that the more appropriate analogy whould be the dog chasing its own tail when it comes to discussion of the budget deficit and how to “fix” it.  We have lots of commentary concerning GDP and percentages of other related economic parameters.  We have repeatedly been told that no matter what tax revenue plan is suggested that “such a raise in tax revenues” would not be sufficient to resolve the deficit problem.  I like that argument very much.  The implication is that since that one aspect of the budget doesn’t eliminate the entire budget deficit then we shold ignore the suggestion. 

And endlessly we hear that government spending needs to be reduced.  Have you jnoticed that very few suggestions are provided as to which governemnt activities should be reduced or elimiinated in order to achieve balance or simply reduce dificiency?  Social Security funding?  We all know very well that that’s not a contributor to the deficit problem.  I do like Obama’s rationale for inclusion of Social Security tampering into the deficit discussion.  It’s a tough problem.  So since we’re trying to resolve one tough problem, the budget deficit, we may as attempt to resolve two tough problems by including Social Security funding into the mix.  When did adding one tough issue to another add to the likelihood of resolving either tough problem.  The guy is nearly as slick as his Republican protagonists.  Maybe he is actually more clever.  His comments are not as obviously oximoronic.  For that we only have to broadly review the Paul Ryan budget deficit plan.  Reduce tax revenues for the rich and fuck the elderly in regards to their helath care support system (quaintly referred to as Medicare). 

The point is that revenues have to increase and spending has to be worth while.  The government is essential to the provision of services and activities that its citizens are dependent upon.  No matter what an ass hole like Grover may say, there are many essential activities that the government of a modern, complex, 300 million people society  must perform.  Demand efficiency and value from that government, but stop the stupidity of thinking that the government must shrink from its essential role in our society.  Raise revenue with fair, comprehensive and simplifies taxation, inlcuding tarrifs.  Carry out essential government activities in an efficient and effective manner. 

What does it cost to run a government for a society of 308 or so million people? How do you tell what it ought to cost? How do you know when you’re spending too much, too little or something like the right amount? Are taxes too high? Compared to whose taxes? There’s no other country like the US.

Everyone else spends a lot less on things we pour money into like there’s no tomorrow. Ever notice how much we pay for “defense?” From whom? Do we have a problem with spending? Compared to what? No problem solving going on here without basic premises and definitions laid out up front. Oh, and saying the government shouldn’t spend any money at all is ridiculous. NancyO

Jack,

“I guess it’s necessary to have sufficient revenue to cover all those costs.”

Just because you raise the rate does not mean you increase the revenue, especially on the upper incomes. If you want to increase revenue by increaseing the rate the increase on the upper income should be very small, and the increase lower incomes should be quite high. Since everyone on the left is a Class Warrior, they will not go for that, which in turn means, it is not a feasible plan.

MG,

“In my opinion, it’s only a matter of when, not if, interest rates increase”

I agree! My understaning is they have been kept falsely low, by actions of the Reserve, all in an effort to get past the recession. I am not clear on how all that works exactly…maybe you can clear that at for me.

If rates increase though, the debt burden becomes a major issue, as service of the debt will chew up a larger portion of our revenue.  

Ilsm,

“is the $5T debt accumulated for war”

Where are you getting this number? My understanding is that number is way too high.  

“War is never stimulating”

Well, how do explain the economic explosion after WWII, or the economic expansion during Vietnam? Not to mention all the technological advances during times of war?  

Darren,

You should read Frederic Bastiat, or DD Eisenhower.  Maybe Seymour Melman, among others.

I lived through paying for Vietnam guns and LBJ butter in the dismal 70’s I am not sure these years are yet worse although they are pushing the pain of the 1970’s.

As to expansion after WW II you had 4 years of rationing and all of a sudden the excess capacity and forced savings came out, also the axis trade comeptitors were bombed to ashes.

Check the recessions of 1945 and 1948.

If war is so expansionary what is the trouble with paying the SSTF back which paid the tax cuts and the wars.

It appears to be an ad for Science Diet dog food. 

Show me the video!    🙂

“The point is that revenues have to increase and spending has to be worth while. ”  Not reduced?  Next we’ll hear in a more fair manner, or some such foolishness.”  

Worth while rather than willy nilly.  A conservative Republican’s idea of unnecessary may not be the opinion of the vast majority.  As I stated earlier, government has a responsibility to provide important services and carry out significant activities.  What those services and activities are is not based upon the opinion(s) of any group of ideoloques with a political axe to grind.  The people choose their representatives and those decisions are left to the Congress to try to determine.  We’re getting a great deal of brazen bull shit in the name of financial prudence, but based on an elitist view of the role of government.  

“Conservatives have asked to have Dept of Education and Dept of Energy eliminated.  Cut back Interior, Agriculture, Defense, and EPA.”

Again, a gross distrotion of the facts and a good example of thoughtless rhetorical argument.  I’m talking services and activities and your suggesting departmental categories.  It is your opinion concerning agency duplication.  It is you opinion that government is doing what it should not be doing.  Talk about efficiency and value and maybe you’ll say something worth listening to.  The government has a responsibility to its citizens to assure their safety and well being.  That’s a broad mandate in a modern complex society.  You often sound like that idiot in Wisconsin, Scott Walker, who seems to think that education can be provided cheaply by under paid teachers, as but one example.
The greatest waste is in trying to carry out a difficult task so cheaply that the result isn’t worth the effort.  You, and Walker, spent your developing years in a country that had a better view of what its government should provide.  Now that your past the half way point you’re ready to deny that quality of life to those behind you.

here’s Krugman on Obama’s Penny-Wise Policy; PK says obama’s restraint on the size of the ARRA actually made our debt situation worse…

Jack,

You asked alot of questions there that stray away from the main point. The main point is “Do tax rates affect behavior?”

There are hundreds of companies out there with Millions of Dollars on the sidelines and there is a reason for it.

Did people demand the Personal Computer before it was invented, or did IBM and Mac invent them to make a profit, and people bought them because they beleive they were useful?

Did McDonald invent fast food to make a profit, or because they wanted to create jobs?

If you want companies to “invest” all the money sitting on the sidelines, there must be an incentive for them to do so, and that incentive is profit. In that process is where jobs are created. Regulation and the tax structure work hand in hand, and if the system can not fit within the typical 5 year economic plan of small and large business then they will not invest.

It is the prime reason Obama has been so unsuccessful, he keeps talking about wealth redistribution, tax increases, increased regulation, and nationalization.

Jack, this is just one list floarting around on the the Ole intertubes,

These are all the programs that have been proposed for cutting.  
Is there anything listed that you can’t live without?

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America ‘s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their […]

CoRev,

I would read an excellent speech that FRBNY’s Dudley gave in June.  He does a far better job than Auerback in recognizing the need for structural changes necessary to put the U.S. back on a competitive basis globally.  Auerback acts as though nothing can be done about U.S. trade policy whereas Dudley addresses the need for such changes along with other changes by emerging economies.   

U.S. Economic Policy in a Global Context
William C. Dudley, President and Chief Executive Officer, FRBNY
June 7, 2011
Remarks by President Dudley at the Foreign Policy Association Corporate Dinner, New York City 

Read with care…   

rjs – “clinton era fiscal policy was not carried out during a period when the world’s economy was suffering from a shortage of safe assets as much as it is now“

Clinton’s fiscal policies were carried out during the period in which Clinton pushed for and implemented U.S. trade policy changes that led to the massive offshoring of U.S.-based production, resulting loss of millions of jobs, and presence of larger current account deficits that the U.S. continues to experience.  So, yes, Clinton had a significant role in creating the global safe assets imbalance resulting from the economic growth of emerging economies.  Moreover, some of his policies led to a rapid increase in U.S. household debt accumulation and declining personal savings rates observed during his terms in office and thereafter. 

“Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.”  Some of the best money ever spent by a government.  A valuable contribution to the population’s intellect.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.  Essential to the need to assure legal representation to those who can’t afford it.  Especially in Texas.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.  
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. 
Both are essential to the cultural development of America.  Our society borders on being a cultural wasteland. 

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. 
A man who never saw a useful government program that he didn’t hate unless it provided for the wealthiest Americans.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.  Not a bad idea, but only if focused on the travel expenses of elected officials.  Some Federal employees are required to travel in the conduction of their work.  Let the Congress stay home or in DC.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.  If it’s truly essential how can you cut it out? 

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.   That sounds like money well spent if its spent on public beaches.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.  What transit is covered?  We need more public transit, not less.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.  Is the USofA the only modern industrial country without a rail transit system that serves all points?

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.  What’s wrong with family planning?  Would you rather have a need for more abortions?

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.  Now Appalachia is one truly depressed area.  It needs all the help that we can give.  Too bad most of their reps. don’t give a shit about the people who live there.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.  That sounds like programs for people in […]

ilsm – 1:22:49 PM – “If war is so expansionary what is the trouble with paying the SSTF back which paid the tax cuts and the wars.”
 
Why would you make such a claim?
 
The positive net cashflow from the SSA OASDI combined trust funds transferred for other uses in the federal budgets could not have possibly covered the net costs of the Bush II era tax cuts and U.S. Government expenditures for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq launched by President Bush and continued by President Obama. 
 
The positive net cashflow from the SSA OASDI combined trust funds for 2001-2010 amounted to $617.0 billion.  The OASDI combined trust funds are projected to have a negative cashflow of $53.0 billion for FY2011, thereby reducing the positive net cashflow for 2001-2011 to $564 billion. 
 
The net cashflow from the SSA OASDI combined trust funds for 1987-2000 amounted to $555.6 billion, which was spent long before the Bush II era tax cuts kicked in or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were launched under Bush II and continued under Obama. 
 
What cost figures are you using for the Bush II era tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? 
 
Here is the SSA data: 
 
SSA OASDI Combined Trust Funds
Fiscal Year Net Cash Flow — net increase in assets, less interest income
 
1987  15.0 billion
1988  32.3
1989  42.1
1990  43.3
1991  33.8
1992  27.1
1993  20.0
1994  27.6
1995  27.1
1996  29.9
1997  40.1
1998  52.7
1999  72.6
2000  92.0
 
Subtotal 555.6 billion
 
2001  94.2 billion
2002  82.2
2003  72.0
2004  64.9
2005  81.6
2006  87.5
2007  80.1 
2008  71.9 
2009  19.4
2010 -36.8
2011 -53.0 projected (see Table VI.C6, then calculate for this one figure)
 
Subtotal 564.0 billion
 
Total 1,119.6 billion

Sigh!  It’s time to go back to ignoring your comments.  You proved my earlier point re: “worth while spending”.  Unless its on your list, which when totaled is too small to actually cut the budget/deficits significantly, it is worth while spending.  No middle ground.  No area for discussion.  Jack’s list is the only list!

OK, got it!  G’Day to ya.

From the finger tips of CoRev:
“Sigh!  It’s time to go back to ignoring your comments.  You proved my earlier point re: “worth while spending”.  Unless its on your list, which when totaled is too small to actually cut the budget/deficits significantly, it is worth while spending.  No middle ground.  No area for discussion.  Jack’s list is the only list!” 

 “OK, got it!  G’Day to ya”.
Today, 7:21:35 AM
So let me understand your position.  You put up a list of your favorite budget eliminations.  I review that list and comment on the specific entries and the lack of cetain potential entries that do not appear ie oil & gas depletion allowance, farm subsidies, etc.  You come back and claim It’s Jack’s way or the highway according to Jack.  What’s the expression regarding pots and kettles that have been well worn? 
You have  opinions that is out of touch with Main Street Americans and seem to come straight out of the “I swear I’m a good conservative” play book of cliches.  Though in fact those opinions are manufactured by the conservatives in name only and sycophants to wealth and power boys club.  We can only hope that the election results in Wisconsin last evening are a harbinger of the near future
“State Sen. Dave Hansen holds onto seat in recall election”  Holds onto seat is a quaint way to describe the election results. 
“Sen. Dave Hansen defeated Republican recall organizer David VanderLeest, collecting 66 percent of the vote with 99 percent of precincts reporting, according to unofficial results Tuesday night.”

rjs, strangely I agree with you about the lost years.  If reelected it surely would be a decade.  If defeated it will be ~ 1/2 -2/3 of a decade, and that’s sad because it didn’t have to be.   
 
I’ve said it before, but we conservatives will grow to thank Obama for showing just how bad were liberal policies.

MG,

“Clinton pushed for and implemented U.S. trade policy changes that led to the massive offshoring of U.S.-based production, resulting loss of millions of jobs, and presence of larger current account deficits that the U.S. continues to experience.”

I like your style! You seem to be the smartest one here! Good on Ya!

Darren
You’re watching too much Fox Faux News and reading too much from the Heritage Foundation. 

“How is it possible that a Government agency is more valuable or efficient than anything happening in the private sector when the Public sector task is merely the referee, they do not create anything?”  I didn’t say public agencies were nay more valuable. I said that you have no evidence that they are any less valuable.  Organizations both public and private use the same organisms to carry out their tasks.  In this case we’re talking human behavior.  It doesn’t change from public to private sector. 

“Did you not see the overlap of many of our agencies offered by Corev’s link?”
You reference CoRev’s bogus data links and expect to be taken seriously?  He is a toady to the establishment who got well taken care of throughout his life and career at a better time than now.  Now he has a bone to pick with anyone who doesn’t share his selfish reactionary point of view.  He only calls himself a conservative.  Reactionary against the good of the people is more the case.

“Do you not pay attention to the Military Rants that Ilsm consistently never gives up on?”  The perfect example that supports my general contention.  That being that public and private alike can serve the forces of evil and/or good.  That’s the military/industrial complex that ilsm is drawing your attention to.  Did you miss the many references to private corporate military suppliers?  Are you one of those that wants the government to keep off of your Medicare?  You’re only right in that case if by government you mean our elected government rather than the government agencies that make the whole complex machine work.  That even includes the military.   

You need to clean up your act, Jack. 
 
Jack – “Have you jnoticed that very few suggestions are provided as to which governemnt activities should be reduced or elimiinated in order to achieve balance or simply reduce dificiency?” 
 
Bullshit.  Many reports on this issue have been released by the government, private organizations, and individuals.  Many if not most of the reports have been posted in comments on this blog including CBO’s 2011  report on deficit reduction options.  In my opinion, you’re too lazy and arrogant to read them because you’re wrapped up in defending a political ideology and a set of personal beliefs that do not allow for consideration of other ideas.  Your closed-mindedness mirrors medieval arrogance and flat earth beliefs. 
 
Jack – “Social Security funding? We all know very well that that’s not a contributor to the deficit problem.”
 
That is a false statement.  The SSA OASDI combined trust funds are now contributing directly to the fiscal year deficits of the federal budget.  This fiscal year’s SSA projection is a $53 billion net cashflow shortfall which will be covered by Treasury and counted against the end of year fiscal balancesheet just as the negative cashflow was at the end of the last fiscal year.  All of this is recorded in Treasury’s end of year financial report of the United States. 
 
Jack – “BTW, this site has lately been over run by idiotic reactionary trolls. The conversation is fast becoming increasingly less valuable and inefficient. Your new found presence has not interrupted this recent onset of increasing intransigence of our friends who occupy the right, but wrong, side of every issue.”
 
You pretend that this is your blog and do your best to run off other participants in violation of Dan’s blog policy and emails on the subject.  In reality, you’re one of the two trolls (the other being Joel) who are on Dan’s blog.  Others are here to share their opinions and learn something of value.  Your Nazi youth tactics are out of line, and you know it.     
 
Jack – “Did you not see the overlap of many of our agencies offered by Corev’s link?”  You reference CoRev’s bogus data links and expect to be taken seriously?”
 
CoRev’s link to a recent GAO report is your deceitful bogus data link claim.  Your ignorance and intentional misdirection to other readers are nothing short of astonishing. 

“That is a false statement.  The SSA OASDI combined trust funds are now contributing directly to the fiscal year deficits of the federal budget.  This fiscal year’s SSA projection is a $53 billion net cashflow shortfall which will be covered by Treasury and counted against the end of year fiscal balancesheet just as the negative cashflow was at the end of the last fiscal year.  All of this is recorded in Treasury’s end of year financial report of the United States.”

Such supplements to FICA contributions in order to meet benefit requirements come out of the Trust Fund and represent the Treasury’s honoring its debt as defined by the Special Treasury notes that make up the Trust Fund assets.  The “unified budget” is a political fiction which is manipulated to either reduce th apparent deficit or magnify the costs to the general budget.  You and the political class may not want the public to be aware of such subtelties of the country’s accounting, but they are matter of existing legislation, as spelled out:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

The key paragraphs describing the most current legislation:
The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:
1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992.
2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President’s budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).
3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.
Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts.

But why take written legislation so seriously when a subterfuge so much more so suits your political agenda.  Do you actually want to suborn the many current efforts to use Social Security assets in order to cope with a budget deficit that is the result of both political parties worst political and economic behavior?

So what can I tell you MG that you don’t already know about all of the many words that have been regurgitated concerning the budget, the deficit and the Social Security program.  Yes, it all has to do with government receipts and expenditures, but like any complex organization there are many accounts and there is a need to keep the various funding streams and the costs that they are intended to cover in clear distinction.  The government is not a private business where it is legitimate for the owner to decide to pay Peter with funds that may have been intended to pay Paul.  The government business is legislated by the Congress and while changes can be made going forward new legislation cannot have a retroactive effect.  In any event where there may be an effort to cause such a retroactive effect it needs to b e clearly stated as such.  That’s the difference between legislation and proposed legislation.  Proposals are subject to change and often used as to obfuscate the efforts to steal from Peter in order to pay Paul.  I’ll make every effort to bring such subterfuge to light and do so repeatedly in the face of repeated efforts to cover up the theft of benefits as may be currently taking place.  Each Congress is a short lived beast, but we have to live with the results of each new group of bandits.  The current Congress is acting in a more egregious manner than in the recent past in regards to budget matters and making every effort to confound that issue with established and funded benefit programs.   In effect, we’re Peter and they represent Paul.  The lady fro the Tea Party may have been more insightful without knowing it than we give her credit for when whe blurted out, “Keep you government hands off of my Medicare.”   To be more accurate she should have said, Keep your Congressional hands out of my health care and retirement.  It’s not the government that’s f—ked up.  It is the group that we send to Congress in hopes that they will represent our interests and needs rather than the preferences of a few.

so what’s with all this tea party porK?

Cost-Cutters, Except When the Spending Is Back Home — Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.  They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House. An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.

So long as 30% to 35% (granted a rough estimate) of all income is sequestered from full taxation (which is what the rest of us pay) the problem will not be abated.  Yes, there is plenty of room in the budget to cut back and spend less, but those in Congress and their contributorsk, screaming most loudly for such reductions are the last to want those cuts to come out of their “backyards.”   Currently the Bachmann family is in the limelight as beneficiaries of both Medicaid reimbursements and farm subsidies.  They’re take is small potatos for sure, but they are symbolic.  Undoubtedly the media will let them slide soon enough.  The point is that The lady is disengenuous in her rhetoric and so too are too many of her congressional cohorts.

“It is a hard Left State. It is amazing that they even have any Republican representation.”

Darren
We’re talking about Wisconsin.  They have a reactionary right wing Republican governor and a majority of same in their legislature.   A “hard Left state?”  Left of what?

CoRev
Thanks for the confirmation.  So that means that only 25% to 30% of income is sequestered from taxation and its the income of only 2% of Americans.  Fair and balanced, like Faux News.