Poverty, economic growth for the middle class, and universal healthcare are concepts I hold dear. We need those things. We simply cannot continue to run more deficits, so if we are to have those things we must figure out how we will pay for them.
Our deficits are going to result in more poverty, which will result in more people unable to afford healthcare. We must get our spending under control. There is simply no excuse for the meteoric rise in the budget over the past 6 years. Take away all the war costs and you still have a huge rise in deficit spending.
The bottom line is this: Candidates are going to need to make tough decisions on spending. We are in a pickle, and we simply cannot afford to go further into debt. The only way out of this debt, if we allow it to continue, will be a massive devaluation of the dollar - similar to what happened during the great depression.
We need universal healthcare. We need to fight poverty. Where in our government are we going to CUT SPENDING so that we can pay for it?
What sort of WASTE can we cut? Look at a simple tax structure - the IRS can then be slimmed down. Cut corporate subsidies. Cut welfare. All the things that are going to make you uncomfortable - you need to start thinking about what sort of future you want for your children.
How can we reduce our TRADE DEFICIT?
We can either make tough decisions now, or we can make desperate decisions later. The bottom line is that we are going to eventually pay for the mismanagement of our government - both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans) have really set us up for failure. There is NO EASY WAY OUT.
Democrats have inherited a real mess. But we simply cannot allow anyone to make it worse.
The question isn't what you want to spend money on - we all know the answer. My question to everyone is what will you STOP spending money on? Real leaders will have an answer to that question - and will have conservative numbers (ie not Bushonomics) to back them up.
It is really that bad. And the worst part is most people just don't get that. This is a national crises.
This isn't about politics - but economics. Take off your political cap and put on your thinking cap.
Look at the numbers, carefully. Don't give me the political line - how do you reconcile the numbers?
What you have said so far (energy, minimum wage hikes, savings, etc) is not likely to have a significant impact on our defict. Not that your ideas won't help - not saying that. However, you need to find a way to close a trillion dollar gap in the budget. You are talking billions right now. You need to think bigger.
Show me the money. What in our budget would you change to close the gap - and still deliver universal healthcare and significantly reduce poverty in the US? Now back it up with math that we can all understand.
We need to be thinking surplus right now - to pay for past debts. You, and Edwards, are still talking deficits.
Show me the money. Where is the math? Enough politics, time for basic addition and subtraction. Can we still do that in this country?
Second you do the math yourself. Here are some sites to work with. When you get done the figures will far surpass the 500 billion I quoted for oil.
For information on Bio Fuels try this site.
Before any one comments back about bio fuels and the cost of gas at the pump, let me say that I do not believe bio fuels will lower the price of gas. It may even raise it a little. But the benefits far out distance the disadvantages.
My primary choice is Edwards also and then the General Election. Some states are proving the other statements I made, like VA child health care and NC programs. With more planning there is no reason the nation cannot do the same.
I am on Medicare and the amount of money I pay each month and had previously paid in proves a national health care system would work. If the Government would stop taking that money and SS and invested it, it could be sustained.
And I will repeat my previous comment. Edwards said Health Care and getting People out of Poverty was worth going into debit was just "A statement to prove how important it is to accomplish that goal"
First, can we start with the numbers? Just like any accountant, let's do this the credits and debits way. You have ideas that will save us money - ie energy independence. A low estimate for the budget deficit is $319 billion a year. That uses "Bushonomics" so really, it is much higher than that. Let's start with Bush's fantasy numbers and see if we can break even.
So, here are the annual debits:
Trade: $725,000,000,000
Budget: $319,000,000,000
Total: $1,044,000,000,000
For the credits - if we can become 100% independent of foreign oil each year, that would save us a ton. No doubt. I don't think it is humanly possible to do that over a 1 year period. I think doing that over 10 years is incredibly aggressive. So let's say that you can get 10% more self-reliant year one of the Edwards administration in oil in year 1, increasing at 10% a year until we are 100% independent.
This is so aggressive, if you asked Edwards if we could do it I bet he says no. Obviously, long term energy independence is key to our long term balanced economy - so your idea on energy independence is spot on from that aspect. Also, another way to become energy independent is to use less energy, of course. Let's focus on the trade side - and assume for now that our consumption remains the same.
To keep things simple, let's combine credits of both trade and budget - in the end they all go into the same country anyways.
So here are the credits - the goal is $1.044 Trillion:
11.8 million barrels imported each day @ $60/barrel = $254,880,000,000. Using my optimistic numbers, I believe we can become produce 10% more energy ourselves. So lets take 10% of that number - and make a credit this year of $25,488,000,000
So take away that $26 billion in year one (I rounded up) from the $1.044 trillion and we need to find $1.018 Trillion more to break even.
So to summarize:
Debits: $1,044,000,000,000
Credits: $26,000,000,000
New Total Deficit: $1,018,000,000,000
So we are heading down. Any other ideas? My idea is as follows: pressure China and India with the threat of tarriffs if they don't trade their currencies on the open market. If the threat doesn't work, follow with gradually escalating tarriffs. Renegotiate NAFTA and if that fails, quit NAFTA. Make sure trade agreements consider the environment and labor.
When I have more time, I'll do the numbers on that. If you have other ideas, or think my numbers are wrong on energy for year one - please provide and explain numbers you believe are more accurate.
An Item I would work on in lowering the trade deficit, are the countries that charge a high tariff on our goods, but want a low tariff on their goods. Even the playing field. What they charge we charge or we don't trade. (I think I wrote that right). The figures are to difficult to get on a dial up service.
After reading those predictions and comments, I wonder what will really work?
Thats a great blog you forwarded me to - the numbers are very clear and the graphs are great. Someone was arguing at the end of the blog in a comment that the nation didn't vote on economics and the deficit, they voted on the war, and that because of this the deficit shouldn't be our top priority. I agree that the war was probably driving the vote, but I don't think economics was very far behind. The deficit is one of those boring topics, and very hard to get people to care about - it's like getting kids to eat their vegetables.
The bottom line is that they are going to one day care about it - but when that day comes it will be too late. I think we must prepare the nation of the pain that is to come. Certainly not a popular political move.
The Republicans have damaged our finances so badly I don't know how we do this without causing pain. I think that fair trade deals - and you mentioned that also - would help reduce the pain. I think goal one should be to stop the bleeding - ie no more deficit spending. Goal two should be to reduce the deficit, and we should be able to do that slowly over time. It will probably take our entire lifetime to pay off an 8 trillion dollar debt, and that is predicated on the notion that they get spending under control.
The blog also mentioned that foreign holding of our debt has increase over 400% since 1990. Very scary - that 2 trillion of our 8 trillion in debt is foreign financed.
Democrats hate poverty - and for good reason. If the imbalances aren't solved they will soon find themselves confronted head on with what they despise.
As to reducing agencies like the IRS, Reagan stripped the IRS and it turned out to be a huge mistake, and an invitation to fraud. When you cut the office that brings in income, income decreases. The Federal government is most often more efficient than private industry. No Ken Lay-like salaries, excellent economies of scale, and other benefits. Yes they make mistakes but there are enough of those to go around.
As to reducing "welfare," most welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Most of that is food stamps, and most of that benefits farmers at least as much as the poor. Kraft and ConAgra would fight you for the right to spread high fat cheddar cheese over anything that started out healthy and feed it to schoolchildren.
Here's another state report:
Recent evaluations of the California Health Service Plan (CHSP) confirmed that financing health care through a single government payer can provide universal coverage—while saving significantly on health care spending—to a degree unparalleled by alternative approaches. Public ownership of the delivery system can further provide authority and accountability for critical reforms that improve the population’s health and quality of care, including coordination of the delivery system.
Bush says he can have a balanced budget by 2012. Why couldn't he continue the balanced budgets that Clinton started? Oh, and that so-called balanced budget includes Bush's crack pipe economic numbers. For an administration lead by an MBA, they sure have poor math skills. This is basic addition and subtraction.
In any event, Republicans have left us in a pickle, without a doubt. We could act like Republicans and blame them for the next umpteen years for screwing it up - or we could just do the right thing and clean up their mess.
I would also point out that the 1% of the people in this country with 99% of our wealth should have the greatest role in this clean up. There should be a special golden-parachute tax for all these CEOs getting fired from their companies, yet collecting over $200,000,000 in severance. The arrogance of these people!!! The United Healthcare CEO left with $1 Billion USD. Yes $1,000,000,000. I just got a letter from them raising my premium, by the way.
This is a culture of corruption. I am encouraged that Democrats plan on going after lobbying reforms and ethics reforms during the first 100 hours. I think they should spend that amount of time devoted to just that topic. Maybe without the influence of big business, Congress will start making sane decisions.