NYT Interactive Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

[Raptor 597]

Quite frankly....

(Snip)

Centralizing all the IT sounds like a logistical nightmare. Not every department is going to have anywhere close to the same needs or requirements.

That was an example that everyone could understand. The general idea is - Redundancy costs money.

But redundancy in something like the federal government is inevitable. If you create a massive IT wing then you must have all the support structure in place to prop it up like finance officers, management etc. and before you know it you have an entity that doesn't serve its' purpose effectively. I do agree with you though about trying to consolidate as much as possible, but the problem is all these bureaucrats are jockeying for wider powers over others and they ardently defend what they currently control.

[Lonestar]

Wouldn't work for the Intel Community(the US has huge networks that don't even physically touch the interwebs). Usually there are security requirements so that, while you have something that says "Windows Vista" someone like Northrup has baked in a lot of bloatware security features that change it.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wasn't aware we even had space-based missile defense.

We don’t. The US current has and has had for decades a space based early warning system, something that tell us when ballistic missiles are launched by spotting the infrared flare of the rocket motor firing. A vastly improved infrared system is being worked on to expand that to a space based system which actually tracks missiles and missile warheads in flight, providing fire control data for ABM interceptors. The US is also orbiting four dedicated sensor satellites for tracking objects in space; I believe one has been launched so far. This will provide the US with truly global space tracking for the first time, all previous space tracking systems have had coverage limited by LOS from the ground stations.

But none of this involves actually basing interceptor missiles in orbit. Officially a program also exists for a space base laser relay which would redirect a beam generated on the ground. Officially the US is not deploying or intending the deploy any kind of actual weapon in space, even though space is already totally integral part of all military operations as well as the flight trajectories of long range ballistic missiles. The apogee of an ICBM can be in the range of 1,300km. The shuttle orbits at about 300km; its pretty high.

Of course, how much would you believe the official line? It’s kind of obvious the US is spending a lot of money on black space programs just like it always has. What that stuff does who knows?

Isn't that supposed to be illegal anyway?

The Outer Space Treaty from 1967 bans placing nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction in orbit and fractional orbit. It also bans all military forces and bases from other celestial bodies. Conventional military forces are legal in space so long as they remain in some kind of orbit and not on the surface of anything.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

My fixes: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=dkqm55pc

Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid:
Eliminated earmarks and farm subsidies, cut govt contractors.

Military:
Didn't touch nuclear arsenal, but reduced size of armed forces.
Didn't cancel weapons programs, as this would actually increase the deficit because the old shit still needs to be replaced and canceling or cutting back programs like the F-35 just means yet another new system has to be designed.
Reduced overhead.
Reduced Iraq + Afghan troop count to 60K by 2015. 30K by 2013 is tempting, but would probably be irresponsible and leave those countries in even more chaos than is inevitable.

Medicine:
Malpractice reform.
Did not increase eligible age. As has been pointed out by several liberal commentators recently, life expectancy may be going up, but not for the poor and lower middle-class, and those are the people who need Medicare the most.
Reduced the employer tax break and capped Medicare growth. Reducing the tax break would cause companies to dump people onto the exchanges, which would then have more healthy patients to spread the costs around. Capping Medicare growth is almost a no-brainer, and would be especially helpful in the event that we someday expand it to everyone.

Social Security:
Didn't raise eligible age for same reasons as above.
Cut payouts to people who don't need them.
Alternate measure of inflation. CPI does overstate inflation by about 1% per year, and over a long period of time that adds up to big bucks.

Taxes:
Estate taxes back to 90's levels. Fuck your dynasty, bitch!
Dividend taxes back to 90's levels. The source of income that is small for the poor and huge for the rich shouldn't get favorable tax treatment.
Roll back the Bush tax cuts for $250K and subject higher incomes to payroll tax.
No millionaire's tax.
Bowles-Simpson reform. It's not perfect, but I'm in favor of anything that simplifies the tax code and brings revenues and rates closer in line.
Mortgage tax credit instead of deduction.
Carbon and bank tax.

I know this thing isn't balls-on accurate, but it's amazing to me how easily and relatively painlessly the projected deficits can be turned into huge surpluses. My relatively moderate fixes produce a $100 billion surplus in 2015 and almost a trillion in 2030. For all the talk about how much of a mess we are in, it seems to me that with a little political will the fixes are downright easy. Too bad we haven't got any of that.

[Solauren]

(Snip)

Um, I work for the Ontario Provincal Government, soon for the Canadian Federal Government.

I am well aware of the redundancy that can occur. I am also aware that nothing puts the tin-pot dicators that like to get into government jobs in place like a change in government policy.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I managed to do it by:
- Reducing nuclear spending.
- Cutting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015.
- Raising retirement age to 70.
- Reducing SS benefits for high income earners.
- Returning all taxes to Clinton-era levels.
- Increase payroll taxes.
- Taxing millionaires.
- Eliminating loopholes without cutting taxes.
- Reducing mortgage interest deductions.
- Imposing carbon and bank taxes.

EDIT:

Alternatively, enact malpractice reform and we can keep our ability to cleanse the world in NUCLEAR FIRE!!11

[Guardsman Bass]

I managed to balance the budget by

• Cutting federal worker pay by 5%
• Reducing the federal work force by 10%*
• Reducing the military to pre-Iraq War size
• Reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
• Increase Medicare Eligibility to Age 70.**
• Reduce the tax break for employer-provided insurance
• Raise the Social Security Retirement Age to 70***
• Return the Estate Tax to Clinton Era Levels
• Return capital gains taxes to Clinton Era Levels****
• Raising the Payroll Tax Cap
• Eliminating loopholes with the Bowles-Simpson plan*****
• Reducing Mortgage Interest Deduction and turning it into a credit
• Implementing a Carbon Tax

* Wouldn't cutting the military levels already reduce the federal workforce considerably?

** I figure raising Medicare eligibility and reducing the tax break for employer insurance as intermediate budget stops on the way to a more universal health care solution (like Single Payer).

*** I raised the Social Security Age, because A)people are living longer, into their 70s and 80s, and that will likely get better with newer medicine over the 21st century, and B)I'd rather we switch over to simply having a safety net that's accessible to all poor citizens and legal residents regardless of age, as opposed to having a highly expensive, wholly federally funded pension plan just for the elderly.

**** The Clinton era capital gains taxes will probably be okay, although I do have one reservation. I think in an era of serious job instability, investment income will be a very important crutch (at the very least) for people (I'm in favor of the "set up a savings account for every child at birth" idea).

***** The one reservation I have with cutting out most corporate tax loopholes is that this might favor large corporations, who can afford to do all the legal and business work involved in using overseas tax shelters to avoid corporate income tax. Smaller companies don't have that luxury, and will face the full brunt of the corporate income tax.

[LaCroix]

Socialist version

Easy one
Still have army, still have medic aid and all, the rich ones pay the burden. Nothing that really hurts...

[Ryushikaze]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=811kg6qv

My solution. A lot is redundant, but I'd like to actually reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit.

[Crossroads Inc.]

My question is just how realistic is all this?
Let us assuem you had absoulte control over the budget. If you put these changes into place would they, taking into account economy, spending changes and outside circumstances; would they actually balance the budget?

I guess the main question is it seriouslly this easy to fix our negative spending, and just no one has the balls to do it?

[Lagmonster]

I'm Canadian, so I like to just keep pressing the "enact national sales tax" button over and over and over again...

That said, this little exercise is terrifyingly simplistic. I'm not a world-reknown policy maker, but I get tears in my eyes when I try to picture the amount of short-term devastation I could bring about to certain interests and industries by some of these suggestions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=412jk5qz

Mine

Farm subsidies: Gone
Reduce Military to Pre-Iraq Size
Reduce Iraq/Afghanistan committment to 60k by 2015
Enact Malpractice Reform
Raise Social Security but NOT medicaid to 70
Use an alternative measure for inflation
Estate and Capital Gains Tax to clinton levels
Expire Bush Tax Cuts to wealthy and institute a millionaire tax
Kill Loopholes and cut tax rates less
Convert interest deduction to credit
Institute Carbon Tax, VAT, and Bank Tax

[Simon_Jester]

I'm Canadian, so I like to just keep pressing the "enact national sales tax" button over and over and over again...

That said, this little exercise is terrifyingly simplistic. I'm not a world-reknown policy maker, but I get tears in my eyes when I try to picture the amount of short-term devastation I could bring about to certain interests and industries by some of these suggestions.

If nothing else, it does serve to give a sense of scale: note how "eliminating earmarks" is barely a drop in the bucket compared to, say, reversing the Bush tax cuts.

[WesFox13]

Here is my solution

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=011485qn

Here is what I did:
*Reduced Military to Pre-Iraq war Levels
*Reduce number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
*Increased medicare eligibility age to 70
*increased Social Security Retirement Age to 70
*Return estate Tax to Clinton-Era Levels
*Return Investment rates to Clinton-Era Levels
*Allowed Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts for those that make 250,000 dollars or more
*Payroll Tax for some incomes above $106,000
*Millionaire's Tax on those who's income is above one million
*Eliminate Tax Loopholes but keeps tax rates slightly higher
*National Sales Tax

[Skgoa]

Its hilarious to see so many people would rather increase the retirement age and fire halve a million people than cut military spending.


The true socialist version:
- Eliminate farm subsidies
- Take everything under "Military", with troop reductions to 60k
- Enact medical malpractice reform
- Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes
- Existing taxes: Bush tax cuts stay for <250k households and choose the maximum for everything else
- New Taxes and Tax Reform: everything but sales tax
link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=43yj45qv

Why:
- With such high unemployment and so many people in debt, you simply CAN NOT fire anyone or rdeuce anyone's benefits.
- The US military is much larger than it needs to be. And its a diplomatic liability. (At least from a European's point of view ) I did not opt for the maximum reduction of deployed troops, because the US still has not won in Afghanistan and needs to provide stability in Iraq.
- No taxes that hurt the poor, but big taxes for the rich. I don't think this needs any further explanation.

I'm Canadian, so I like to just keep pressing the "enact national sales tax" button over and over and over again...

So you want to fuck over the poor for the rich people's benefit? I thought Canada was better than the US in that regard... :rolleyes:

[Bernkastel]

My plan, which is another to join the socialist plans already here.

Link

Essentially tax adjustment, primarily targeted at the rich, combined with the necessary act of raising social security retirement age to 70. There are also cuts to troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Thanas]

Just for fun:

one solving the deficit only with spending cuts


However, it is impossible saving the deficit by just increasing taxes, one has to have a few spending cuts.

[Skgoa]

My question is just how realistic is all this?
Let us assuem you had absoulte control over the budget. If you put these changes into place would they, taking into account economy, spending changes and outside circumstances; would they actually balance the budget?

I guess the main question is it seriouslly this easy to fix our negative spending, and just no one has the balls to do it?

The problem is that some of these things have a very big impact on "real people". Cutting social security (and e.g. raising the retirement age is just that) will lead to more people freezing to death sleeping under bridges. Firing halve a million people will mean halve a million more unemployed people. They don't consume, they cost money and the US has to many of them already. Introducing more taxes will reduce the amount of money people have and in this economic climate and ladden will a huge amount of private debt, I don't see the american public consuming as much as they would if they had more money.

Actually, trying to balance the budget at all cost right now is pretty stupid. While reducing the deficit is never a bad thing, it shouldn't be a priority when taking the trouble the US economy is in into account.