The federal budget deficit: The answer is...
I never dreamed that the day would come when I got excited with the release of the federal budget, but today was the day. I have a lot of other (real) work to do, but I just downloaded the zip file for the full set of budget documents. My initial question was simply what the fine people in the White House were forecasting as the budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 after their "painful" budget cuts. And the number is...
- Deficit for the current fiscal year (FY2011, before the "painful" cuts): $1.645 trillion. That's well above the $1.5T that people were talking about.
- Deficit for FY2012 (the one with all the "painful" budget cuts): $1.101 trillion. Roughly in the range of what I expected.
The deficit for FY2010 was 1.293T. The lowest forecast for the next ten years is $607 billion in FY2015, with a forecast deficit of $774 billion in FY2021.
The single most important takeaway from this budget is that at no year in the next TEN years does it forecast a zero deficit and balanced budget let alone the kind of surplus needed to start paying down the debt.
Look, I understand and accept and agree with the fact that we should run a big deficit to recover from the financial crisis and recession, but only for a few years, maybe another year or two tops. But there is zero excuse for the leader of this country not to propose a balanced budget within the next five years. No excuse whatsoever. Yeah, I know, I know... the president has to play to his "base" and show that he wields a scalpel (to protect "investments") rather than a battle axe (to hack away all the fat and pork.)
What we need is a plan to balance the budget within five years and start a significant pay-down of the debt within ten years. What's so hard to understand about that?
In any case, now it is up to the Republicans in Congress to give us their counter-proposal.
posted by Jack Krupansky @ 11:49 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Quoting New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Bob Herbert, "While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn't really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance. So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can't afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters. The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president's re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won't be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They'll be genuflecting before the very rich."
We cut the taxes for the richest Americans to levels not seen since The Great Depression, fought two unfunded wars, and now you, along with Republicans, demand that we balance our budget by cutting services and NOT raising taxes. What BULLSHIT!
"the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite"
I do believe that this statement could have been made at the time of the founding of the U.S.
If anything, "the poor" have a lot more avenues of opportunity available than at any time in the past.
I think what is happening is that elite liberals are feeling a lot less in control of other people. That is probably a good thing.
Higher taxes MAY be a key part of balancing the budget, but should not be the lead or primary tool. getting growth back on track over the next two years has to be the top and overwhelming primary priority.
We should be careful to distinguish "higher taxes" and "higher tax rates." Yes, we fully expect that "higher taxes" WILL be needed to balance the budget, but we will get higher taxes by growing the economic base that is being taxed. So, there is no a priori requirement that tax RATES must rise to balance the budget.
It is truly shameful that a lot of liberals are exploiting the budget crisis for partisan political points by focusing on class warfare. "Tax the rich!" they say. Why not tax ANYONE who "can afford it"? "The Rich" are already paying higher marginal tax rates. Isn't that "fair" enough?
-- Jack Krupansky
Why not have a flat tax where everyone pays the same tax rate? Is that one you want? Is progressive-ism evil? Why?
Look at where all the Bush tax breaks have gone. And what did we get for it? Unprecedented unemployment in our lifetime.
What's shameful (why must you use such emotionally charged language?) is not liberals waging class warfare. What's shameful is the concentration of wealth and power in the tiniest top fraction of the overall population.
What has this country gotten for all the tax breaks that Bush initiated? Where have all the jobs gone? Why? It's not in search of cheaper tax rates.
Excellent
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home