Deficit Commission Chairs Give Americans What They Say They Want

November 11, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (9)

So far, I like it. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles have given the American people what the American people say they want: a smart, fair path toward controlling government spending and paying down debt, which still preserves the best features of the social safety net.

The Simpson-Bowles plan would:

  • Save Social Security
  • Cap federal taxes and spending at 21 percent of GDP
  • Reduce the long term growth of healthcare costs
  • Reform the tax code, dropping special interest tax breaks in return for low, flat rates
  • Raise the federal gas tax, nudging us away from our reliance on imported oil
  • Get rid of the horrific Alternative Minimum Tax
  • Chop wasteful defense spending, farm subsidies, and other pork barrel projects

Here is a common sense plan that Americans, if they really love their country, and not just their selfish pleasure, can rally around.

[Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

Is there pain? Absolutely. We’re not getting out of this mess without paying something for our folly. You don’t cut $4 trillion from the deficit without goring sacred cows.

But what is intriguing about the Simpson-Bowles proposal--and it is just a starting point, remember--is the way it shows us how to balance interests.

They propose to eliminate, for example, the politically sacred mortgage interest deduction, and other tax breaks and credits. But in return, taxpayers would face income tax brackets of 8, 14 and 23 percent.

The cries of “non-starter” and “dead on arrival” that you hear are coming from the vested interests. Liberals don’t like the benefit cuts. Conservatives don’t like the tax hikes. Lobbyists want to protect the vested interests of their clients.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should a balanced budget be a top priority?]

I want to see it vetted by a team of bipartisan or nonpartisan number crunchers, to make sure that it achieves its most important stated purpose, to “protect the truly disadvantaged.” And I have misgivings about making people work until they are 69 years old, before they can qualify for Social Security.

Enacting a grand bargain like Simpson-Bowles will require a lot of tinkering and horse-trading. But would I make the sacrifices they are asking for my country? You bet I would. Now we’ll see if Speaker Boehner and President Obama, and the rich boys and girls in the Senate, can cowboy up.

Tags:
alternative minimum tax,
conservatives,
liberals,
income tax,
social security,
mortgages,
Obama administration,
tax exemptions,
tax deductions,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
GDP,
retirement,
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Q: What political party took SS from the Independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General Fund so congress could spend it”

A: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Party

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for SS ( FICA) withholdings?

A: Democratic Party

Q: What political party started taxing SS annuities?

A: Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate.

Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SS payments. The democratic party gave them these payments even though these immigrants never paid a dime into SS.

Q: Which political party provided SS to those that would have had their welfare terminated?

A: Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party

08/2000 invested assets went past the 1 trillion mark, at $1,000,001,712,600.00.

Q: Which political party is saying there is no more money for those that have paid into SS for decades and now it is time to collect?

A: Obama and the Democratic Party.

Sharon of IN 8:20PM November 12, 2010

No tax increases. No new taxes. No elimination of existing deductions. No introduction of anything that walks like a tax or talks like a tax. No way. No consideration of any of that until they prove themselves capable of cutting a small amount, $50 billion, right now, in the FY2011 budget.

THAT is what we said we wanted via the midterms: Spending cuts, NOT tax increases.

You really have your head up your behind to think we should give the feds so much as another single dime in taxes, because they ***promise*** it will result in eleven cents more in your pocket -- somewhere, sometime down the road. The question is, are you getting paid well to have your head up your behind or, are you just doing that for free?

They've been chomping at the bit to get rid of the mortage interest deduction and to tax employer-provided med/dent benefits as income.

So forget about both. Let's see spending-cuts-only first.

First up on the domestic chopping block: Taxpayer funding of the NPR/NPR member station/PBS/CPB taxpayer money-laundering cabal. $430 million/year right there.

First on the foreign chopping block: Not missing that July '11 drawdown in Obama's Afghanipakistan. Untold BILLIONS there.

Further, as President, Obama should be personally billed $5.00/mile and a $500 takeoff/$500 landing fee every time he hops on AF1 to go campaigning for HIS side -- and make that retroactive to Jan. 2009. He likes to point out how as a rich guy, he doesn't mind paying more. So, ante up rich guy -- it's a user fee, not a 'tax.'

Now that I think about it, there is one new tax I would like to see: Double the amount an individual can legally contribute to a political candidate, and slap a 50% federal excise tax on ALL contributions to candidates for federal office -- soft, hard, or anywhere in between. Likewise, let the states follow suit by slapping a 50% state excise tax on ALL contributions to candidates for state office. Now wouldn't that be sweet? Everytime money-bags Soros (or money-bags Koch Brothers) throw a million here, a million there to win elections and influence people, half of that million here, million there goes right to the Treasury.

Now think about that one in relation to Obama's drivel about 'foreign' money influencing elections.

dom youngross of OH 5:43PM November 11, 2010

Larry,

Those who collect SS benefits and have incomes over $40K for singles and $60K for couples pay income taxes on some or all of their SS benefits. I pay taxes on my SS benefits at a rate of 21.25%. That is a form of means testing.

A second form of means testing is how SS benefits are calculated based on earnings over the years. Benefits are provided using a factor of about 40% for the first $55,000 of income and a factor of 15% for income over $55,000 up to the $106,000 limit for taxes. But taxes are levied at a flat rate of 6.2% for all income. Those earning over $55,ooo per year receive little benefit for the additional taxes they pay.

I'm not saying this is bad policy, but everyone needs to understand that SS benefits are already means tested for higher income workers and retirees.

Bob of TX 2:33PM November 11, 2010

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Latest Videos

advertisement