Yes, you can solve the deficit problem, and you don’t have to touch Social Security to do it. You don’t have to charge admission to the Smithsonian museums to do it. You don’t have to defund NPR and PBS to do it. You don’t have to slash veteran’s health benefits to do it. See for yourself.
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
checked every damn box dealing with defense.
reduced SSB for those with high incomes
returned everything tax related to Clinton-era levels.
chose the bank tax
49% tax increases
51% spending cuts
and, if they had the one in farm subsidies separating the actual small family farm from agribusiness, would have chosen that box too.
Eliminate farm subsidies
Nuclear arsenal…cut
Reduce military
Reduce Navy and Air Force (if I had my way I would eliminate almost all of the Navy)
Cancel or delay weapons programs
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
Reduce tax break for health care plans
Capped Medicare growth (I wouldn’t, but there’s no single payer option…and they would have the same effects)
Return estate tax to Clinton levels
Obama’s proposal for capital gains
Expiration of all tax cuts
Increase payroll tax
Eliminate loopholes and keep levels the same
Institute a VAT
Carbon tax
49% tax increases
51% spending cuts
Funny, under me we’d do the same to the Air Force not the Navy. Shipping is key to trade and you need to keep the sea lanes safe to do it.
Meh:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104669561
Yup, pretty much. After listening to Schultz’s hooey on GPS this morning I felt it was the least I could do. I’d like my Senatorial paycheck now please.
Schultz? As in George Schultz?
Yeah-huh:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/
Thanks for the link, it was more than enough to listen to him the first go round for me.
69% tax increases, mostly restoring to Clinton levels (including estate tax), expire Bush tax cuts, eliminate payroll tax cap, 41% spending cuts, primary in war and defense but also farm subsidies
Have a 2015 surplus and a 2030 surplus.
It’s not the math, it’s the political will.
69% plus 41% adds up to 110%.
If everyone one the commission and all the MSM are upper income class, then would you not expect their solutions to include reductions in entitlement programs used by the lower and middle income classes? That is how greed works and it is a natural trait for people who have a lot, to want more.
So what is the effect on the economy and employment if you cut defense programs, especially weapons programs and how much can you cut without clobbering the economy? Shouldn’t you have other types of employment ready for displaced defense workers?
More jobs, that’s what:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1XByler-l4
Ugh, stupid copy-paste. Wtf.
http://www.truth-out.org/1109097
Here’s the issue. You can just up and cut defense programs like the Governator cut teachers, and expect the unemployed who know how to use weapons or build weapons to just fend for themselves. You have to build in a transition plan to your cuts.
The most reasonable one is an increase in infrastructure spending, which unlike defense spending can lower the costs of doing business in the future by capturing efficiencies in energy production, communication, transportation, health care services, and education.
Unlike warfare, in which the actual use of the products and services, sinks that cost forever. With no measurable return.
If you substitute infrastructure, then you haven’t really cut anything or made an advancement against the debt. And there may be structural employment problems as the people building hellfire missiles are not the same type of people who lay telecommunication cable. But I wish we could have a butter or bombs discussion but unfortunately, it won’t will be allowed.
Yes we do need credible government jobs programs your are correct.
Many of the 8 million newly unemployed are having structural problems using their bachelors degrees working at McDonalds.
Please don’t use that as an excuse not to cut the defense budget. The Military Industrial Complex is hardly an efficient jobs program. It is a pyramid scheme.
Best gift EVER. Thanks for the early holiday toy.
This is a cool toy!
Astonishing how easy it is to almost completely eliminate the deficit by reducing defense spending and a few tax increases. You don’t even have to cap Medicare growth (which does need to be done, but I did not pick it because I considered it to be a non-choice unless the precise method of the cap is specified).
Oh but wait, of course raising taxes on the wealthy is completely unacceptable – and we couldn’t possibly live without 10 aircraft carriers – I guess closing the universities, the national parks, and the Smithsonian really is the way to go. If that doesn’t work, I heartily recommend throwing Medicaid patients in nursing homes out onto the street. You see, I am a “serious” person, not one of those librul daydreamers.
Yep, I got beyond balance for both 2015 and 2030 with 67% of the savings from tax increases, mostly on the wealthy, and 33% in spending cuts, mostly in military, farm subsidies.
Here’s my proposal:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dmt205qv
I overcompensated:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4m9245y9
Basically, 66% tax hikes, 34% spending cuts.
But where’s the option to tax investment income as regular income?
Where’s the option for no limit on income contributions to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?
Where’s the option to add a financial transactions tax?
Where’s the option to remove all troops from Iraq/Afghanistan?
Seems to me the deck is stacked, and there could be a lot more on the table.
Less stacked than the commission itself. At least the Times included a VAT and carbon tax.
While it’s a very fun toy, and somewhat informative, I think the generally dumb-with-no-thought-to-consequences nature of Americans results in a “gosh Wally! Look at how easy it is to balance the budget! Just check a few boxes with big numbers next to them!” view of things – which is of course a radically distorted view of reality.
It’s a fun toy, though. And somewhat informative.
addendum: A large improvement on the toy would be to add on 1st-level consequences. For example: “Ok, you’ve chosen to cut $100 from defense. This leads to x-thousand jobs lost in the following states, with the accompanying tough election for that state’s congresscritters, etc.”
nothing definite yet, just messing around with it – lots of fun though!
For all the hand wringing and attacks against the President’s political skills, or lack there of, against uniform and unflinching Republican opposition, it’s telling that you all can’t STFU long enough to see this may be the first real political trap set for the GOP and the tea baggers.
i covered the 2015 deficit, and came verrrrry close to covering the 2030.
Interesting fantasy baseball. With sliders for adjusting amounts and sublevels for details of each proposal, it would be near-useful — and probably more informative than what most members of Congress look at. Skipped the earmarks option simply because it’s such bullshit, even though it needs reform and total transparency.
Here’s mine:
Eliminate farm subsidies (but only some)
Cut 250,000 government contractors
Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe
Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets
Cancel or delay some weapons programs
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
Enact medical malpractice reform (But total structural reform, not just caps.)
Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance
Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes
Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels
Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
Millionaire’s tax on income above $1 million
Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher
Reduce mortgage-interest deduction by converting to credit
Carbon tax
Bank Tax
Which got it to $714 billion short term, $1518 billion long term. And most of it is socially beneficial as well as fiscally necessary.