War spending and tax cuts for the wealthy have created the festering deficit we now face
Where is the outrage of my fellow Americans? Here is Congress debating how to cut the social safety net of this country, from Medicaid to Social Security when the ink has barely dried on the tax cuts we inherited from President George W. Bush were renewed for two more years. It is unconscionable to enter into three wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, without providing for adequate taxation.
It seems that the Republicans have discovered the whopping budget deficit only when Obama took office.
Time to tell Congress that we should cut the oversized obese Pentagon and reinstate the taxes as they were in 2001.
And let our patriotic companies join us by pitching in and paying their dues. We all have to contribute to close this huge deficit festering in the past decade.
Marina B. Brown
Ann Arbor
Comments
Jon Adams
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
What are "entitlements?" No bid contracts? Govt subsidies to the oil industry? Tax abatements made by local governments to large corporations in return for development? Contracts to build private prisons? Giving away the Indiana Tollroad and Ohio Turnpike to private monopolies?
John B.
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 11:46 p.m.
BB: Nice nit-pick, but his point is valid. There are several Toll Roads that have been sold off to foreign companies by cowardly local and State governments. That short-term, short-sighted type of decision-making is extremely damaging to our long-term interests.
Basic Bob
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:41 p.m.
The Ohio Turnpike is owned and operated by the State of Ohio. The Indiana Toll Road is owned by the State of Indiana but is operated by a private company. In either case, they are not monopolies because there are good, free alternative roads.
Jon Adams
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
US expenditures on warmaking constitute half of what is spent in the entire world. The United States now has the largest incarcerated population in the world --- probably, in part, because private prisons have made it profitable. There is nothing wrong with progressive taxation. In fact, it is just and reasonable that the well-off could and should pay higher rates. But currently that isn't even true. Before Social Security, most of the elderly in the country were destitute. End the wars. End the Bush tax cuts. Lift the wage cap on social security taxes. Make the necessary collective decision to get this country off it's oil dependency --- as if our existence depended on it. The United States currently consumes 1/4th of the world's oil production while possessing only 2 per cent of proven reserves.
bedrog
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
Given others of her posts I wonder if Marina Browns "outrage" ever extends to the Muslim world, whose tax base is generally far less than ours, but who nonetheless seem to produce a large number of "war-ry" types and ideologies directed against Israel, the U.s. and muslims of rival sects. I kind of doubt it , but am willing to be educated were she to deign to reply in a way that indicates some actual grounding in geopolitical and cultural reality instead of rote sloganeering.
debling
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.
Spin, Spin, Spin ... Almost all economics agree and understand the reason the US has a budget problem is due to three main reasons a) poor economy b) Bush tax cuts c) Defense spending and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget is about $3.4 trillion and revenues $2.2 trillion. What about entitlements you say? Social security and Medicare/medicade are self funded programs that until recently have run surpluses. In fact the Federal government owns about $2.4 trillion to social security and $400 billion to medicare via their trust funds. They are stand alone programs that should not be included in the general budget and the surpluses should have been invested to generate revenue not loaned to the government. If you remove them from the general budget you see we have $1.9 trillion expenses and $700 billion revenues. 1/2 of the expenses (about $800 billion is defense and security), another $400 billion interest on the debt and the rest running the government more or less. You can cut all of the defense spending and most of the government and still not balance anything. So in the end, you must eventually raise revenues just to pay the interest on the debt. The Bush tax cuts must end and almost $500 billion in subsidies to industry must be fazed out to have a chance of balancing the budget. Social security must be run as a stand alone program and adjust revenues and payouts to keep solvent. However, long term it is clear the major issue for the US is health care reform, health care reform, health care reform! I'm not talking about the Ryan plan which rations health care and sticks the public with the bill. I'm talking about making real changes to our system that cut by 30, 40, 50% the costs of drugs, hospitalization and doctor visits. If we can't do this, we are sunk.
John B.
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
Precisely! Very well-said. If we can't resolve the ridiculous rate of inflation of our healthcare costs, nothing else will matter, because that will dwarf absolutely everything else. I would add that our current healthcare system really benefits only three groups: Big Pharma, Big Insurance Companies, and Specialist providers (not family practitioners, generally). Those three groups, put together, have immense financial clout, own much of our government, and will never want the status quo to be changed, but they are bleeding the USA dry, slowly, but surely.
walker101
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the 2006 elections. Prior to that the Republicans controlled the House for the prior 12 years and the Senate for 10 of the prior 12 years. Going back further, the Democrats had a majority in the House from 1949 to 1993 and the Senate swung back and forth several times in that period. To blame Bush when gas was only $2.00 a gallon and unemployment was an all time low is ludicrous, to blame him for the wars in the Middle East which was voted on by the majority (Democrats), now we are in Libya and spending millions everyday and you want to blame republicans? We have given private corporations Auto industry billions of our tax money and you complain that rich republicans are benefiting from tax cuts, I guess all auto workers UAW would be considered republicans? Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when Democrats are allowed to institute the crazy ideas they usually only talk about when no one else is listening. Currently 47% of the cities resident could not fill out an employment application because they can't read or write for jobs, DPS is the most corrupt department in the nation, the city will never survive and will be another 10 of 12 large cities throughout the country that have failed under democratic leadership. American involvement in the Vietnam War grew most dramatically under the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (Democrats) and now the great one has us fighting 3 wars altogether, I guess you see it hasn't changed much. Unfortunately these are just facts and not a figment of your imagination.
braggslaw
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 11:43 a.m.
It always struck me as interesting that many people think that other people's money should be transferred to them.
C. S. Gass
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 10:17 a.m.
Here is my outrage: In the US Constitution it mentions that one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is the Armed Forces. This is one of the few things I DO want from Uncle Sam. I don't want Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. I have Zero faith that I will ever see a dime of SS money when I retire and care little for the govermnment having anything to do with my healthcare. The Constitution makes NO mention of Medicare Medicaid or Social Security, yet they are considered MANDATORY spending while the Armed Forces are listed as DISCRETIONARY??? THAT is outragious. You can never convince me otherwise no matter how much you chant 'Bush lied' and 'it's all Bush's fault'. That's really old and tired. As far as taxing the rich more, WHY? Is it because they have a big pile of cash to which you think you are entitled? You're not, by the way, just saying. I don't want to tax the rich. Why not? It is because they are the productive members of our society. You don't punish productivity. Also they use precious little of our community services (Police, fire, EMS), so why should they pay more? Because they can? I think not. Oh and BTW, I'm far from rich, I'm just not so overcome with jealousy and greed that I want to take that which is not mine. Such people are beneath contempt.
John B.
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 11:30 p.m.
'It's all Bush's fault.'
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:21 a.m.
The larger war being waged is right here in America. The wealthy are waging war, and winning, against the middle class. Pretty soon, we'll be a nation of wealthy individuals and slave labor. Time to take our country back from the wealthy and corporations.
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.
Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Entitlements, entitlements, Say it often enough and it begins to sound bad. Just like any propaganda. I'm entitled to Social Security, having paid into a retirement account all my working life. But why am I entitled to pay income tax on only 30% of my income? Because I have a lot of deductions, home mortgage interest being one example, and becuase my benefits from my employer are not taxed, health insurance for one example. And why are non-wage incomes subject to a lower tax rate than wage incomes?
Gorc
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 9:37 a.m.
I personally think the federal government does a horrible job managing the Social Security fund. Actually the government does a horrible job managing anything they put their hands on (regardless of party affiliation). Social Security should be phased out too. I will not rely on the federal government to help me properly prepare for my retirement. Think about how bad the government handles housing...I don't want to live in the poor conditions of federal housing or section 8 housing. That's the same level of a 3rd rate retirement you can expect if you rely on the federal government to handle your retirement. If you don't like the word entitlements, substitute redistribution of income instead.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:32 a.m.
Because you're confused as to what constitutes income. It can arrive in many forms, and a different approach to taxation is appropriate.
Jacob Bodnar
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
Go ahead and cut all the spending for the defense department. Do the math, we'll still have a deficit. Heck, cut the ENTIRE defense department. We'll still have a deficit.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:55 a.m.
The top 5% of all earners pay about 60% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of all earners pay less than 3%. The gap grows. Thirty years ago, the bottom 50% paid about 7% of all income taxes. Never before in history have so many benefited from the generosity of so few. Yet all you hear from people like Ms. Brown is "give me more, give me more." Pathetic.
Jon Adams
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
The rich are by no means generous.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:31 a.m.
I think it's time to turn in your libertarian card. Populist class warfare simply isn't part of their platform. But no, we have a progressive tax structure. And the marginal rate is higher for the rich than for the middle class. You're thinking of tax shelters, which some rich people can take advantage of, and are largely being eliminated (or should be eliminated). But more for people who own businesses than for people who receive more in salary.
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:14 a.m.
The income gap is certainly growing. And the disparity of wealth distribution is getting much worse. Unless, of course, you happen to be at the top of the distribution. Greed isn't good....for the soul, or for the nation.
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:12 a.m.
And if we give the top 5% of all earners 95% of all income, they would have to pay 95% of all income taxes. However, the middle income people pay a much higher percentage marginal tax rate than the wealthy do.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 3:56 a.m.
Your guess would be wrong. The top 5% earn 35% of all gross income, the bottom 50% earn 13%. My numbers come straight from the IRS.
RayA2
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 3:18 a.m.
Don't know where your numbers come from but you are omitting a very important statistic. What is the income percentage of the "top 5%" ? I'm guessing it is far in excess of their percentage of income taxes. I think you meant to say, never before have so many worked to support so few.
braggslaw
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:28 a.m.
The issue is simple... the numbers are clear... It is all about entitlements, Social Security Medicare etc. People of course will have different opinions on this issue. I would prefer my children not to be burdened by the entitlements of my generation. I am against the redistribution of income from makers to takers. I don't plan one ever seeing a dime of social security or medicare. Those on the other side of the public trough will of course have a different opinion. Most vote in their own self interest.... the problem is when most want to take instead of make.
braggslaw
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.
Libert... The people who paid in the most for Social Security will get nowhere near what they paid in. In fact the latest proposals have those who saved diligently in their private retirement accounts will get almost nothing.
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:16 a.m.
I expect the next generations to pay into Social Security so that I can withdraw my rightful monthly share. I paid into it, I earned it, I expect to be paid back my own money with interest.
1bit
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
Check again - military spending is out of control. Right up there with the entitlements. It has to be "right-sized" as well.
Joe Hood
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.
The wealthy, eh? Just where do you draw the line for the wealthy; those that are employed, those wealthy ones? The Republicans and President Bush were trying to head off the Freddie Mac debacle but were thwarted by, guess who, Democrats. And don't touch Medicare, right? What do you propose to do to fix the unsustainable Medicare, let it crash and be gone? Have you gotten to play with Medicare yet, let me tell you from first hand experience, it's a royal pain. You're not allowed to go out and buy your own insurance. If your primary insurance decides not to pay, Medicare ain't going to pay. Paul Ryan has finally taken a stand against what some singular strong Democrats and Republicans have clamored for in the past, that the status quo is unsustainable. The system needs to be fixed (the era of the bring-home-the-bacon-politician should be eviscerated).
John B.
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.
Gild: Nonsense. Common definitions are those making over $250,000 per year in income. I would agree with that; it seems very sensible to me. Federal Income Tax rates are ridiculously low right now. Much too low, at many levels. They should be reverted back to at least the 1990 levels, and then that should be part of a balanced approach to deficit elimination, along with careful but significant spending reductions. It is IMPOSSIBLE to balance our Federal Budget by cutting 'non-discretionary' expenditures alone. Impossible.
gild
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:57 a.m.
"The wealthy," of course, is anyone who makes more money than I make, or expect to make in the future. All people above that line are evil and must be punished for their success.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:21 a.m.
"Revisionest history is always interesting. In 2007 when the evil George Bush was president and the republicans controlled congress the budget deficit was $156 billion." On what planet? The FY 2007 (10/1/06 to 9/1/07) was $500 billion The FY 2008 deficit was $1 Trillion The FY 2009 deficit (enacted in 2008--Bush's last budget) was $1.9 Trillion And if you want to go backwards from that, 2006 was $600 billion, 2005 was $600 billion, 2004 was $600 billion . . . Source: <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm</a> Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
Ed, 2007 Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, which means Democrats had a majority of members in the House. Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader since 2007. Which means Democrats had a majority of members in the Senate. As I am sure you know all spending bills originate in the House, not the Executive Branch.
1bit
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.
ERMG is correct - there were quite a few accounting gimmicks that were used to hide the real deficit.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
And I'm afraid you are wrong. The debt increases every year by the difference between revenues and spending. That difference is called . . . wait for it . . . the deficit. Note that the numbers you think are correct do not include $115 billion in war-related spending. Note also that it does not include other supplemental spending bills. Which is how one gets from the $161 billion deficit "approved" in the budget to the real $500 billion deficit. Good Night and Good Luck
TV
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:14 a.m.
I'm afraid you're wrong. You've pointed us to US debt outstanding, not annual deficits. Change in annual debt does not equal annual deficit. The correct numbers are here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget</a> It shows a 2007 deficit of $161 billion, much closer to outdoor's number. There's a bar on the bottom to go from year to year. Click on 2010 to see a deficit of $1.17 trillion, and on years thereafter to see more trillions in deficit.
Gorc
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:20 a.m.
More than half of the federal government's spending is on entitlements. We need to stop redistribution of income to indiviuals and stop corporate welfare (such large corporations in agricultural, petroleum industry, etc).
Libertarian1
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:19 a.m.
I agree with half of your statement. We need to stop government handouts to rich individuals and multinational corporations. They hoard or export wealth, and don't pay their fair share of taxes. Tax giveaways must be stopped. No more favoritism in the tax laws.
outdoor6709
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
Revisionest history is always interesting. In 2007 when the evil George Bush was president and the republicans controlled congress the budget deficit was $156 billion. <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35461" rel='nofollow'>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35461</a> Since Mr obama has become president, we have 3 straight $1.4 trillion defictits with no end in sight. We have expanded our presence in Afghanistan, more service persons have died this year that 2001-2010, gone on to attach Lybia. No mention of war powers act. It appears the saying " power corrupts" is correct.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 1:57 a.m.
I see the A2.com-employed Canadian-resident censors are out in force tonight. So I'll try again. @Sb: you are correct where the Patriot Act is concerned. There hasn't been enough outrage on the left. That said, most of the Congressional opposition to its renewal came from Democrats. @6709: So many factual errors!! 1) You wrote: "Since Mr obama [sic] has become president, we have 3 straight $1.4 trillion defictits [sic]." No. Mr. Obama is responsible for the FY 2010 budget ($1.6 Trillion deficit--a $300 billion reduction from Mr. Bush's last budget) and this year's budget (FY 2011) who figures are not yet final. He has not overseen three budget cycles. 2) You wrote: "more service persons have died this year that [sic] 2001-2010" No. Not even close. See: <a href="http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx</a> --and-- <a href="http://icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx</a> 3) ". . . gone on to attach [sic] Lybia [sic]. No mention of war powers act." He did exactly what the War Powers Act required him to do--he notified Congress. The WPA permits the deployment of US soldiers into combat for up to 90 days with Congressional notification (approval not necessary). American forces were withdrawn from combat operations in Libya well before the 90-day limit was reached. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
"Got to love the way the Patriot Act was extended yet again under Mr Obama. That piece of legislation was demonized, lambasted and held up as an example of power grabbing Republicans. " And there are those of us who are very upset with the president for signing it into law. But I wasn't aware that was the subject of THIS discussion. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:40 a.m.
Got to love the way the Patriot Act was extended yet again under Mr Obama. That piece of legislation was demonized, lambasted and held up as an example of power grabbing Republicans. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Mr Obama seems to think that it isn't such a bad idea after all, and his fellow Dems, for the most part stand mute. Why the sudden change? Deficits can easily follow the same track. Each side pointing their fingers at the other, while us sheep get screwed over again and again.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.
Newt Gingrich is your source? Gee, he wouldn't misrepresent things, would he? The US Treasury has a different point of view. It seems to think the FY 2007 deficit was closer to $500 billion. Source: <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm</a> And, of course, what Newt's deft sleight of hand about the deficits of the Democratic Congress overlooks is: 1) The budgets were approved by the president, and he proposed budgets that were hundreds of billions in the red 2) If the Republican president was so opposed to the budgets sent to him by Congress, he should have vetoed them. But gotta love the pathological liar that is Newt Gingrich--having publicly excoriated the Ryan Medicare plan, he has said that anyone who cites him is a liar. Yeah, THAT's a trustworthy source. Good Night and Good Luck
Will Warner
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
We can fiddle around at the edges, but unless we reform entitlements, our children and grandchildren will find that our maintenance is crushing and they will have no choice but to set us adrift on ice flows.
DonBee
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
In 1991 the US Government spent 3 percent of the country's GDP on Health Care, today it is over 7 percent of GDP. In absolute dollars that is a jump from less than 200 Billion Dollars in 1991 to more than 900 Billion this year. In 1991 the US Government spent roughly 250 Billion Dollars on Pensions (including Social Security), today that number is approaching 800 Billion Dollars. If we look at all levels of government Spending on Health Care is over $1 Trillion Dollars a year. Spending on Pensions is over $1 Trillion Dollars a year. Government Health Care Spending is growing at more than 7 percent a year. So by 2020 the spending will exceed $1.8 TRILLION dollars. Pensions exceed Defense Spending, Health Care exceeds Defense spending. Zeroing Defense spending will not close the Deficit. I agree we should fix the tax code. Let us start with getting rid of ALL transfer payments through the tax code and ALL deductions. Taxes should be taxes and they should treat all income the same, graduation by ability to pay should remain, but we use the tax code to hide all kinds of favoritism and subsidies.
1bit
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:10 a.m.
Not sure I agree, but kudos for your consistency...
DonBee
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
All tax credits if we are going to get the tax situation under control. I am in favor of if the government is going to favor something, then they should cut a check. That way it is a clear decision to put tax money to work somewhere. From Mortgage deductions to charity, to children, all deductions and credits should go. I know this is unpopular, but it is the only way to stop the $3 Trillion in tax "reassignment" we do now.
1bit
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:26 p.m.
DonBee - are you then opposed to tax credits for charitable contributions?
John B.
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:04 p.m.
Wait for it - the 'usual suspects' of the paid right-wing blogger variety will respond soon. Truth-tellers are always attacked by them.
Rachel
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.
The teapublicans scream about "big government" and the deficit. If they hate "big government" so much, why are they NOT cutting the military and and Medicare? Why are they wasting tax dollar money (around 7 billion dollars) on corn subsidies (which causes obesity, animal cruelty, environmental damage and hurts poor countries)? They say they detest "big government" yet they defend DOMA. And if they were serious about cutting the deficit, they would not trifle over small things like the FAA, EPA and foreign aid. I for one am disgusted by this nation's hypocrisy.
Diagenes
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:22 a.m.
Rachel, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency when they borrowed a trillion dollars in 2009 to "stimulate" the economy. Most of that money funded the programs you complain about.
RayA2
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.
There's plenty of disgust and outrage at teapublikan politics. As the teapublikans gain wealth and therefore power, as clearly shown by the growing gap between rich and everyone else, it becomes more difficult to fight. Slick won the governorship by spending from his abundant personal wealth. Now, thanks to the idiotic U.S. Supreme Court decision, corporations and foreign governments can secretly pick the winner of elections with their wealth. I'd say that we, the non-wealthy, need to get smarter and use our one weapon, our vote. Teapublikan attacks on education however, make that less likely. Ignorance is clearly more expensive than education, unless you are Slick, W, Rupert, or their ilk.
Diagenes
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:17 a.m.
What is a "teapublikan"? Are you implying all republicans are members of the Tea Party? It would not suprise me to find out some Tea Party members are Democrats, especially from southern states. Or are you just trying to be clever? A2.com, is referring to Gov. Snyder as "Slick" a violation of conversational guidelines? Does that mean we can refer to all politicians with pajoratives?
John B.
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
Correct!
diagbum
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
We are at war with Pakistan?
John B.
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.
Well, not officially.... She is probably thinking Af/Pak and de-coupling them inadvertantly. War #3 is actually with South Carolina, right?