I see Andrea True died earlier this month. The late disco diva enjoyed a brief moment of global celebrity in 1976 with her ubiquitous glitterball favorite:
More More More
How do you like it?
How do you like it?
More More More
How do you like it?
How do you like it?
In honor of Andrea’s passing, I have asked my congressman to propose the adoption of this song as the U.S. national anthem. True, Miss True wrote the number as an autobiographical reflection on her days as a porn-movie actress but, consciously or not, it accurately distills the essence of American governmental philosophy in the early 21st century: excess even unto oblivion.
Advertisement
When it comes to spending and the size of government, only the Democrats are officially panting orgasmically, “More More More, How do you like it?” while the Republicans are formally committed to “Less less less.” This makes for many dramatic showdowns on the evening news. In the summer, it was the “looming” “deadline” to raise the debt ceiling. In the fall, it was the “looming” “deadline” for the alleged supercommittee to agree $1.2 trillion of cuts. The supercommittee was set up as a last-minute deal for raising the debt ceiling. Now that the supercommittee’s flopped out, “automatic” mandatory cuts to defense and discretionary spending are supposed to kick in — by 2013. But no doubt, as that looming deadline looms, the can of worms will be effortlessly kicked down the room another looming deadline or two.
In return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling (and, by the way, that’s the wrong way of looking at it: more accurately, we’re lowering the debt abyss), John Boehner bragged that he’d got a deal for “a real, enforceable cut” of supposedly $7 billion from fiscal year 2012. After running the numbers themselves, the Congressional Budget Office said it only cut $1 billion from FY 2012.
Which of these numbers is accurate?
The correct answer is: Who cares? The government of the United States currently spends $188 million it doesn’t have every hour of every day. So, if it’s $1 billion in “real, enforceable cuts,” in the time it takes to roast a 20 lb. stuffed turkey for your Thanksgiving dinner, the government’s already borrowed back all those painstakingly negotiated savings. If it’s $7 billion in “real, enforceable cuts,” in the time it takes you to defrost the bird, the cuts have all been borrowed back.
Bonus question: How “real” and “enforceable” are all those real, enforceable cuts? By the time the relevant bill passed the Senate earlier this month, the 2012 austerity budget with its brutal, savage cuts to government services actually increased spending by $10 billion. More more more, how do you like it?
But don’t worry. Aside from spending the summer negotiating a deal that increases runaway federal spending, those stingy, cheeseparing Republicans also forced the Democrats to agree to create that big ol’ supercommittee that would save $1.2 trillion. Over the course of ten years.
Anywhere else on the planet that would be a significant chunk of change. But the government of the United States is planning to spend $44 trillion in the next decade. So $1.2 trillion is about 2.7 percent. Any businessman could cut 2.7 percent from his budget in his sleep. But not congressional supercommittees of supermen with superpowers thrashing it out across the table for three months. So there will be no 2.7 percent cut.
the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP prior to the economic calamity of 2008-present was roughly the same as it was in the first Clinton years. But Clinton and Gingrich managed to reduce it afterward till 2000.
The Federal debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher during World War II--but we managed to pay most of it off afterward.
In both cases, the U.S. became prosperous, tax receipts soared as incomes and profits soared, and the Federal debt was paid off.
Right now, the Federal debt looks artificially high because tax receipts are lessened when wages and profits are low, and because of all the automatic entitlements that kick in during economic troubles: Food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. Put people back to work with a decent wage and they will no longer need these. And they will pay more taxes which will help the Federal government balance its books.
The real problem is that Obama has failed to restore America to prosperity. Even left-wingers like Paul Krugman said that his first stimulus package would not come close to restoring full employment. And Obama doesn't even claim that his new "jobs" plan will do that--because it's actually smaller than his first stimulus package which didn't succeed at that.
If we don't restore America to prosperity, we won't be able to reduce the national debt. It will be politically impossible to cut entitlements on the backs of the unemployed. And unemployed people don't pay income tax, meaning that the Federal government will continue to take in much less in taxes than it spends.
I like the Democrat and adult film industry analogy but find the mental images it creates quite disturbing. Amending the constitution might be the only way to keep from kicking the can down the halls of congress.
You know, if the Republicans were willing to give a little, say, on letting the top bracket go back to 39.6%, and if the Democrats also bent a little, say, by making the moderate adjustments to Social Security needed to bring it back into balance, we might actually make some real progress here.
In a rational and fair world you might be right. I'm confident though that spending would not decrease and you are left with a tax increase. That's why the GOP is taking a stand and saying no more tax increases, the line in the sand has been marked.
That's the virtue of agreeing to a tax increase in exchange for reforms to Social Security that restore it to balance. Do it in the same bill, and neither can go into effect without the other.
This isn't raising taxes in exchange for vague promises of spending cuts that either never materialize or are fake from the start, since things like hasting the raising of the retirement age to 67 are both real and automatically renewed year after year, barring general agreement to undo them.
As restoring the Constitution is a MUCH more ambitious goal than merely balancing the budget, the latter seems to logically come before it, unless you have a magic wand you haven't been waving for some reason.
Seriously, it that's the plan, fine. What's the backup plan for when that gets bogged down?
Have you guys ever - ever - done any actual homework that involved math?
Bumping the top tax rate up to 39.6% would increase tax revenues only $66billion, which is less than 5% of the annual budget DEFICIT (which is 1,300 Billion dollars per year under your guy)! The problem is not the tax revenue, Einstein, it's the spending.
BLS, I think everyone here comprehends and follows your argument. But to raise tax rates, in any way, is a petty token to class warfare. Even if doing so contributed 50 percent to the $1.2 trillion goal over 10 years' time, that is a pathetically small percentage of the total debt. Let's not forget, either, that Obama said to raise taxes during a recession is bad policy. (Finally, since Obama said it, it's true! /sarcasm) Additionally, the line of argument that comprises the smokescreen notion that we must raise taxes presently willfully ignores the very real fact that government spending is out of control. There really is no way to deny this without being ridiculous.
BLS, I think everyone here comprehends and follows your argument. But to raise tax rates, in any way, is a petty token to class warfare. Even if doing so contributed 50 percent to the $1.2 trillion goal over 10 years' time, that is a pathetically small percentage of the total debt. Let's not forget, either, that Obama said to raise taxes during a recession is bad policy. (Finally, since Obama said it, it's true! /sarcasm) Additionally, the line of argument that comprises the smokescreen notion that we must raise taxes presently willfully ignores the very real fact that government spending is out of control. There really is no way to deny this without being ridiculous.
Then your position is that balancing the budget must be done 100% in cuts and 0% in tax increases, or it's no deal?
Ultimately it IS a spending problem because ultimately the driving force behind the runaway future projections of the debt / deficit is driven by runaway medical inflation.
But that doesn't mean that insisting on not one drop of new taxes is going to break the log jam.
Much as you would like to think you are a normal every day American, you are not, the problem is NOT revenue, the problem is and always has been spending by the political class in DC and the more people that think like you the worse it is going to get.
There has to be a line drawn in the sand where the hard working people of the US and I mean real hard working not the politicians that think they work hard. I mean the people that get up at 5 or 6am and put in the 10 to 12 hours a day knocking themselves out to put food on the table and get their kids through college not looking for any handout and are now paying for all the debts that the political class have racked up by promising the losers of society freebies only made possible by the actual workers in this country.
Right now in this country we are at a breaking point where the producers are being swamped by the losers and even though it may take some form or revolution whether it be economic or in the streets things will have to change.
The producers are getting fed up with carrying you losers "blsdaniel"
I don't care how "normal" I am on this issue, I care about what the best way to get to the point where we can start making REAL reforms to Medicare that bring its long-term spending make into line with revenues.
And I don't see how we get there without making some compromises with the Dems.
LKS, I'm not proposing anything here that will solve our long-term budget deficit. That essentially can't be done without major alterations to Medicare (et. al.).
Let's recall that the goal of the so-called super-committee was to reduce the projected debt by 1.2 trillion over ten years.
If you take 66 billion a year and multiply it by ten, you get 660 billion, which is very close to half the amount (though, in fact, the estimates I've seen say this would likely save closer to 700 billion...yes, I do do homework).
If, in return, the Democrats agreed to the benefit cuts needed to restore balance to Social Security to soundness, that would be a huge step forward, in that it would take a problem we've long known about but been unable to solve off the agenda, and, not incidentally, help strip the entitlements of their status as untouchable.
If the long-term savings on SS add up to less than the equally long-term tax revenues from the higher marginal rate, adjustments could be made.
For further information on what types of measures are needed to restore SS to balance, see the Society of Actuaries tutorial at External Link.
The one approach that seems guaranteed NOT to work is demanding that all the net reductions to the future deficits come from spending cuts. Believe it or not, compromise is going to be required.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this deal gets done: $70 billion a year from going back to 39.6% and $70 billion from SS reform. And suppose further it doesn't splinter the Republican party because they've gone back on the no new taxes pledge, and that the cuts really happen and the deficit shrinks by 10%.
Then what? Will the Dems say, well, we got the tax increase we wanted so I guess the rest will have to be cuts? Or will they say we've set the precedent that it has to be "balanced" and now we need another $300 billion annually in revenue? Or would Congress extend the payroll tax cut, which more than offsets raising the top rate?
You have a good point. Another consideration is that when you raise taxes on the productive sector of the population, whether it be a business or an individual, they have less of their own money to work with. Bills come first, then food, then necessary clothing. If a family's budget draws tight enough their spending goes way down. The same is true for a business. First go the frills, company parties, promotional items such as pens and mugs, and so on. Eventually the business is laying people off, then closing branches. When you raise taxes, it's like increasing regulations. You don't get more revenue in the long run. You get a depressed economy and more unemployment.
Follow
