Solution to the Federal Deficit

[MrFun]

Relocate all Iraqis to other countries, and turn Iraq into a vacant, gigantic sandbox.

[Victor Galis]

The problem with Social Security is that advances in medical sciences mean there are more old people now, than when Social Security was implemented (IIRC, the avg. life expectancy in those days was 65). This means more and more seniors must be supported by fewer and fewer workers. This is the only unsustainable part, and to fix this, the retirement age needs to be bumped up. Face it, a 65 year old these days is in much better shape than a 65 year old when SS was first started.

[mrmitchell]

Yes, VG. Something like "Benefit age will be 85% of the standard life expectancy average recorded at the previous Census" would be nice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why tax marijuana? There's plenty of money to be saved simply by ending the War on Drugs - investigations, busts, raids, court costs, DEA salaries, prison costs, etc. No need for a silly, punitive tax.

Well what about other drugs? In order to save money, you'd have to deal with Medicare and other costs for drug rehabilitation. Having the political power to end the War on Drugs doesn't necessarily lead to the power to end Medicare spending, etc.

In the end the savings are less than you'd expect, I'd imagine.

--

I'd end the NEA, and slash all federal spending by 10% except SS (the McCain plan as Oerdin said). And somehow try to keep spending down (just about impossible, I know). Stop pork projects (even harder).

[David Floyd]

The other budget leaks are not charitable or generous, thus they go first.

Actually, charitable and generous federal programs should go first. I can see the value and benefit of a highway system, even if I don't agree with the federal government being involved in it. I think the highway system is more valuable than some charity program. Let's leave the charity where it belongs - with individuals.

Let's face it, though, the only reason anyone panders to the old people is because old people vote. If enough 20 year olds voted, I bet they could push through a program redirecting SS to college students.

Imran,

Well what about other drugs?

I don't think any drugs should be taxed. Including heroin and cocaine.

In order to save money, you'd have to deal with Medicare and other costs for drug rehabilitation.

I have a solution - end federal funding for both.

In the end the savings are less than you'd expect, I'd imagine.

Sure, this is possible, unless we do what I suggest and COMPLETELY turn off the funding spigot to these programs in every way, shape, and form.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have a solution - end federal funding for both.

Can I have a practical solution please?

[David Floyd]

You think cutting federal spending by a significant amount is practical to begin with?

[MrFun]

I still say my sand box idea tops everyone else's ideas.

[Skanky Burns]

So you admit that the tax would simply be punitive in nature? And, I might add, an encouragement to greater federal spending, something that by definition we want to avoid if we are serious about cutting the deficit.

No. I specifically remember saying that "More money is its own reward" - which made no comment in regards to whether such a tax would be punitive or not. I am curious, though, on how a new revenue source would lead to a greater deficit as you seem to imply.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think cutting federal spending by a significant amount is practical to begin with?

Yep... if Reagan could come in and cut taxes so significantly in 1981, I think a candidate can sweep in under a platform of cutting federal spending by 10% (like McCain).

[DanS]

While the deficit looks impressive, it's not that large, if the general magnitude is temporary. Further, we are no worse off on our total debt than most large industrialized nations. And much better off than several.

[David Floyd]

Skanky,

I am curious, though, on how a new revenue source would lead to a greater deficit as you seem to imply.

What's the point of getting new revenue, if not to simply spend it? When it comes to governments, there is no point. And spending inevitably leads to more spending.

Imran,

Yep... if Reagan could come in and cut taxes so significantly in 1981, I think a candidate can sweep in under a platform of cutting federal spending by 10% (like McCain).

Maybe. But I think 2003 is different from 1981, too. In any case, every politician in Washington will support cutting spending, until it turns out that we'll have to close their pissant little military base, or axe their dam project back home.

[Skanky Burns]

What's the point of getting new revenue, if not to simply spend it? When it comes to governments, there is no point. And spending inevitably leads to more spending.

And here I was thinking the point of it was to decrease the deficit.

[David Floyd]

OK, but I don't think this will reduce the deficit, in the long term. Any plan that reduces spending also has to include a plan to get the money out of federal control. This means tax cuts.

[Case]

Originally posted by DanS
While the deficit looks impressive, it's not that large, if the general magnitude is temporary.

Actually, a lot of economists are freaking out in concern that it might not be temporary - Bush's tax cuts knocked something like 15% off the US government's revenue base, meaning that the government's long run ability to pay for it's spending is reduced. That's a permanent structural change, not a temporary one.

If the deficit was merely due to war and bad economic times no experts would be too worried. What is worrying people is that larger deficits seem set to continue after the economy recovers and the war ends.