VIDEOS Bill Maher Exposes Right-Wing Euphemism For "Rich People" & Bill Maher Demystifies Socialism & Compares the American Model with the E

BILL MAHER on "job creators" and "American Socialism". LISTEN UP AMERICA!!!!

http://youtu.be/EZ5B0BKTkIY

http://youtu.be/W8SsFkSdG_s

Mitt Romney says “redistribution” has “never been a characteristic of America” 20SEP12

mitt robme romney, for all his pious religiosity, doesn't hesitate to lie, deceive, mislead and manipulate when it comes to the facts. His claim that redistribution has never been a characteristic of America is completely false, and proof id provided by this from PolitiFact......

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"Redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America."

Mitt Romney on Wednesday, September 19th, 2012 in remarks in Atlanta

Mitt Romney says “redistribution” has “never been a characteristic of America”

Share this story:

Speaking in Atlanta on Sept. 19, 2012, Mitt Romney said that “redistribution” has “never been a characteristic of America.”

After getting criticized for saying that 47 percent of Americans are "dependent on government" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them," Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign fired back by accusing President Barack Obama of supporting redistribution of wealth.
First, a 1998 tape of Obama surfaced in which he said, in part, "I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Then, Romney brought up the topic during a Sept. 19, 2012, appearance in Atlanta.
Romney said that Obama "really believes in what I’ll call a government-centered society," according to an account in POLITICO. "I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America. There’s a tape that came out just a couple of days ago where the president said yes he believes in redistribution. I don’t. I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all."
Romney continued, "This idea of redistribution follows from the idea that if you have a business you didn’t build it, someone else did that. It’s the same concept. … The government is responsible for everything that’s gone on here. And therefore government can take and give as it chooses. It’s an entirely foreign concept that will not work, that has not worked. That has never worked anywhere in the world. And what we have to do in America is not to make us more like Europe, but to make America more like America...."
We wondered whether Romney was correct to say that "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America." So we checked with historians and economists. Most agreed that Romney was ignoring the fundamental structure of the nation's progressive tax system, which has been redistributing wealth for a century, as well as a host of other policies, some of which predate the nation’s founding.
A progressive tax system is one that takes a larger share of the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. Since this revenue is spent on government programs -- which benefit people other than just the taxpayer whose income is taken -- a progressive tax system is essentially by definition redistributive.
Indeed, the U.S. system, at least if you look at the official rates, has been far more redistributive in the past than it is now, with a top federal income tax rate of 35 percent.
Just looking at some previous Republican presidents, the top tax rate was over 50 percent under Warren Harding, over 60 percent under Herbert Hoover, over 90 percent for Dwight Eisenhower’s entire term, 70 percent or higher for Nixon’s entire term, and 70 percent under Gerald Ford, said said Daniel N. Shaviro, professor of taxation at New York University Law School. (Shaviro has written in his blog that he supports Obama over Romney.)
And once this money comes into the federal treasury, it’s quickly redistributed. As we have noted previously, some states send more money to the federal treasury than they get back, while some states receive more money than they put in. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, crunched the numbers back in 2007 and reported that New Mexico got $2.03 for every dollar it sent to Washington, while New Jersey got just 61 cents.
The approach of redistribution dates back to colonial times, when the colonies levied property taxes on landholders. Since not everyone owned land, but because everyone benefited from at least some of the fruits of that revenue, such taxes were inherently redistributional. Not to suggest that Americans were always happy about this. "Settlers far from markets complained that taxing land on a per-acre basis was unfair and demanded that property taxation be based on value," wrote Glenn W. Fisher, an emeritus public administration professor at Wichita State University.
Indeed, early efforts to expand infrastructure such as roads and canals -- championed in the 1820s by Sen. Henry Clay --  stumbled over disputes over using general taxpayer money to fund projects with local benefits. Later, subsidies for building transcontinental railroads began in the 1860s but eventually devolved into major corruption scandals. Such funding was, in effect, a redistribution from the public to big business.
In the second half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, the government added one redistributive program after another -- Civil War benefits and a veterans’ health system took money from the young and gave it to the old; public education and land-grant colleges took money from the old and gave it to the young. Social Security redistributed money from workers to retirees, while agricultural subsidies redistributed funds from non-farmers to farmers.
"You could argue that a true welfare state didn’t take shape until the New Deal, but even that was 80 years ago, so it doesn’t support the claim that redistribution has ‘never’ been characteristic of America," said Rutgers University historian David Greenberg. "The notion that redistribution is some recent, Obama-led fanaticism, as opposed to a normal, reasonable, widely accepted way of running a large, complex nation, is just silly."
Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California at Davis, says redistribution is an essential function of any government. "At the most profound level, any choice about how to run a country redistributes well-being from some to others," he said.
Several experts we interviewed cautioned that while Romney’s claim is factually incorrect, it’s important not to overlook his larger point -- that too much redistribution can be a bad thing.
Douglas J. Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, said that because America has generated so much upward mobility over the years, redistributing too much will "kill the goose that lays the golden egg."
And Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute, said that "we have income-based redistribution in our means-tested programs and, to a lesser extent, age-based redistribution in our social insurance programs, but we're not Europe." Mitchell added, however, that "we are heading that direction, which Romney, in his typically inarticulate fashion, was trying to explain."
Still, on Romney’s specific claim that "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America," experts agreed that he ignores longstanding fundamentals of our system of taxing and spending.
"Not to sound intemperate here, but the claim is completely ridiculous and false," said Shaviro, the NYU tax professor. "This goes way beyond hyperbole. Romney is trying to rewrite and falsify U.S. history."
Our ruling
Romney said that "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America."
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of it, but redistribution has been a basic principle of the U.S. tax system and many federal programs, including some such as veterans benefits that have long attracted support from Republicans. Pants on Fire!

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, September 20th, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Subjects: Economy, Federal Budget, History, Taxes
Sources:
POLITICO, "Romney: I can help the middle class, Obama can't," Sept. 19, 2012

ABC News, "Romney Says Everyone Cares About Poor People, But Only He Can Help Them," Sept. 19, 2012

NBC News, "In rest of '98 clip, Obama speaks of 'competition' and 'the marketplace,'" Sep. 19, 2012

Tax Foundation, "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005," Oct. 09, 2007

Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates," accessed Sept. 20, 2012

Harvard Business School Historical Collections, "Triumphant Democracy: US Railroads," accessed Sept. 20, 2012

PBS, "The Credit Mobilier Scandal," accessed Sept. 20, 2012

PBS, "The Race to Utah," accessed Sept. 20, 2012

Glenn W. Fisher, "History of Property Taxes in the United States," Feb. 1, 2010

New York Times, "U.S. Income Gap Rose, Sign of Uneven Recovery," Sept. 12, 2012

PolitiFact, "'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars," Jan. 26, 2012

PolitiFact, "Santorum says when his grandfather came to the U.S. in 1925, 'there were no government benefits,'" March 6, 2012
Email interview with Lawrence J. White, economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, Sept. 20, 2012
Email interview with Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Burdett Loomis, political scientist at the University of Kansas, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Peter Lindert, economist at the University of California at Davis, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Douglas J. Besharov, public policy professor at the University of Maryland, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Daniel Mitchell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with David Greenberg, historian at Rutgers University, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Bruce Bartlett, columnist for Tax Notes, Fiscal Times and the New York Times' Economix blog, Sept. 20, 2012

Email interview with Daniel N. Shaviro, professor of taxation at New York University Law School, Sept. 20, 2012
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Bill Adairhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-redistribution-has-never-been-cha/

What Would Jesus Tax? from SOJO 14APR11

JUST imagine if we had elected officials with the courage to present and pass a moral budget, one that required the wealthy and corporate America to pay it's fair share, one that ended corporate welfare and cone that challenged the power of the military-industrial complex and made real, necessary cuts to the Pentagon budget.....

photo © 2011 John Morgan | more info (via: Wylio)In the face of state and federal budget cuts, many of us have been fasting and contemplating the question: “What would Jesus cut?“ In light of tax day, however, we might equally contemplate: “What would Jesus tax?”
After all, a great deal of our budgetary stress is the result of declining revenue, thanks to the economic downturn and decades of tax cuts.
A new report that I co-authored, “Unnecessary Austerity,” argues that before we make draconian budget cuts at the federal and state level, we should reverse huge tax cuts for the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.
The Jesus I know would be concerned about the extreme inequalities of wealth and power that have emerged in our communities. He would rail against principalities and powers that rig the tax rules so the privileged pay less.
He would lament the destruction of God’s creation through excessive consumption and pollution. And, he would be alarmed about financial and commodity speculation driving up the cost of food and worsening hunger. (In today’s world of high finance, someone would be hedging investments on how quickly Jesus could multiply loaves and fishes.)
In my recent Sojourners magazine article, “Taxes and the Common Good“, I argue that new “sin taxes” should focus on discouraging financial speculation and environmental destruction — while reducing the huge canyon between rich and poor. A good first step would be to reverse some of the more irresponsible tax breaks of the last generation.
When we hear our lawmakers lament that “we’re broke,” consider this fact: If corporations and households with $1 million income paid at the same levels they did in 1961, the Treasury would collect an additional $716 billion a year — or $7 trillion over a decade.
There are two important explanations behind our current budget “squeeze.” First, income and wealth have become extremely concentrated in the hands of the super wealthy. The richest 1 percent of households own more than 35.6 percent of all private wealth — approximately $20 trillion. The number of households with incomes exceeding $1 million has grown from 15,753 in 1961 to 361,000 today, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, the middle-class standard of living is collapsing and poverty rates are at a 15-year high.
Second, we’ve dramatically reduced taxes on the wealthiest households and global corporations. Congress and special interest lobbyists have made mincemeat of our tax code, losing hundreds of billions in revenue. Worse, lawmakers have averted their eyes as corporate lobbyists drill new tax loopholes and extract new corporate welfare subsidies.
That’s how a profitable company like General Electric legally and aggressively avoids taxes. Since 2006, General Electric has reported over $26 billion in profits, yet paid not one penny in U.S. taxes.
Other huge global companies such as Verizon, Boeing, ExxonMobil, and Federal Express also pay no or very low taxes. In his new book Treasure Islands, journalist Nicholas Shaxson describes how these artful tax dodgers use accounting gymnastics to move money to overseas tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Ireland. They pretend to earn their profits offshore and then report their paper losses here in the United States — reducing their responsibility to the commonweal.
Our “Unnecessary Austerity” report identifies over $4 trillion in potential revenue over the next decade. Closing offshore tax havens could generate an estimated $100 billion a year. Adding new top tax brackets for millionaires could generate another $60-80 billion. Instituting a financial transaction tax could generate $150 billion a year.
No doubt, we will need to reduce government expenditures in a responsible way. There are some farm subsidy programs and military expenditures I have on my list. But if our lens is entirely focused on the expenditure side of the equation, we’re going to miss a huge part of the solution. The prophetic Jesus would turn our head in another direction.
Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He is co-author, with Mary Wright, of The Moral Measure of the Economy (Orbis Books) and with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes (Beacon).

Five Progressive Deficit Reduction Ideas That Both Obama And The House Republicans Failed To Endorse from THINKPROGRESS 15FEB11

HERE are 5 proposals for cutting the deficit, not on the backs of the poor, the working class and the middle class but by making those who brought about the worst recession since the great depression pay and by cutting the grossly bloated, wasteful military budget......from ThinkProgress....

In the past week, House Republicans unveiled their fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the operations of the federal government while President Obama announced his 2012 budget request.
Both of the economic plans contained within these documents take aim at the budget deficit in different ways. The House GOP’s CR has far deeper cuts to public investments and social services, including terminating $5 billion in high speed rail funding, $86 million in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and $40 million from the Green Jobs Investment Fund.
While the Obama budget does far more to maintain public investment and does endorse some progressive means of deficit reduction — like ending billions of dollars of taxpayer support for the oil industry — it also includes a number of cuts to social services that assist working class and low-income Americans. Included among these cuts is a $100 billion reduction in the Pell Grant program that involves ending grants for summer classes and terminating federal subsidies “that pay the interest on graduate students’ federal loans while they’re in school” and cutting billions of dollars from the LIHEAP program, which funds energy assistance for low-income Americans.
Yet there are a number of progressive ways to reduce the deficit that both President Obama and the House Republicans failed to endorse. These policies, unlike deep cuts to public investment, education, and social services, would have a minimal impact on employment and job growth, and would go much further in actually closing the budget deficit. Here are five such ideas:

1. Rein In The Military Budget: Neither the president’s budget or the House CR cuts the overall level of defense spending. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s request for the Pentagon budget is a whopping $553 billion — “the largest request ever” by the Pentagon and the largest adjusted for inflation since World War II. CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb has laid out $1 trillion in defense reductions that can be made over the next 10 years by phasing out outdated programs and resizing our military. This comes out to roughly $100 billion a year, which is approximately how much funding is being proposed to be cut from the Pell Grant program.
2. Reduce Or Eliminate Subsidies To Big Agribusiness: The federal government “paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009.” “Just ten percent of America’s largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths” of these subsidies. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has proposed — as a part of her progressive deficit reduction plan — a fifty percent cut in federal direct support for agriculture, which would save $7.5 billion in 2015.
3. Reduce Or Eliminate Wasteful Tax Expenditures: The CAP paper “Cracking the Code: A Closer Look at Tax Expenditure Spending” notes that “special credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and preferential tax rates provide more than $1 trillion in subsidies intended to support public objectives,” yet are ineffective and should be reduced or eliminated. Eliminating this tax expenditure could save $100 billion, for example.
4. Enact A Financial Transactions Tax: A “0.25 percent tax on trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other Wall Street financial instruments” would do little to nothing to reduce commerce or productivity but would generate “between $50 billion and $150 billion annually,” according to a CAP analysis.
5. Empower Medicare To Negotiate For Lower Drug Prices: One of the main drivers of the growing U.S. budget deficit is health care costs. While there are a number of things that can be done to streamline the efficiency of our health care system, like introducing a public option or even moving towards a Medicare-for-all system, one policy option that would be very simple to enact and would not require any sort of increased spending or expansion of government would be to simply allow Medicare to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) estimates that doing this could save as much as $156 billion over 10 years.

While gradually reducing the U.S. budget deficit over time is a worthwhile goal, it’s important to remember that the deficit was not caused by funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, students taking summer Pell Grants, or the LIHEAP program. Rather, the U.S. budget deficit is largely a result of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, two prolonged wars, an ever-expanding Pentagon budget, and a recession caused by Wall Street. It is only fair that those who caused the problem are those who have to pay to fix it.

Three Steps Toward a Balanced Budget from SOJO 18NOV10

WITH so many people of faith, so many claiming Christianity as the guiding force in their decision making, adopting budget cuts based on the morality of Christianity shouldn't be difficult. Will our Christian politicians follow the teachings of their faith or continue their worship of wealth and power? Click the header to go the the NY Times deficit puzzle to make your own choices, see the puzzle options below and click the link to see my choices to solve the deficit problem. From SOJO...
There has been a lot of talk about deficits lately. This is for good reasons. Our personal and national relationship to debt is indeed a moral issue. Leaving our children to pay the bills for excessive spending cannot be justified. But, if a budget really is a moral document, how we reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. Our budget should not be balanced on the backs of the poor. Cuts should not come from the services and programs that people rely on now more than ever. The reality is that we have a lot of wasteful spending in our federal budget, but most of it does not come from things that help the most vulnerable people in our society. I still believe that targeted investment can help spur job growth and lessen the length of our downturn, but at the same time, it is necessary to examine the places we can cut spending. The good news is that in three easy steps, we can head much closer to a balanced budget and quickly reduce the deficit to a more sustainable level. There is an added bonus: We can also significantly reduce extreme poverty.

So here are the three steps:

First, it's time to cut needless military spending. The Pentagon currently takes up more than half of our country's discretionary spending. This does not include the billions spent on other military related expenditures or most of our spending on homeland security. Defense Secretary Gates has identified $100 billion in cuts, and the recent report from the co-chairs of the deficit commission shows that they were also able to come up with $100 billion in savings. If by 2013 we reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 30,000, by 2015 another $86 billion could be saved from the deficit. Here is more good news: Those are the small proposals for where the military budget could be cut. Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul came up with a plan that they say would leave our country just as safe but save us $960 billion by 2020! Even with these cuts, we would still be by far the world's most dominant military. When you list the countries in the world by order of their military expenditures, the United States tops the list and spends more than the next 13 countries combined.

Second, return tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton-era levels of 39.6 percent from the Bush top level of 35 percent. Under Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent -- that was clearly too high. From JFK until Reagan it was 70 percent and that was still too high. But, when Warren Buffet declares it wrong that his secretary pays a larger portion of her income in taxes than he does as a multi- billionaire, our tax system is now clearly imbalanced. There are now more millionaires living in New York City than there were in 2007 before the crash. Maybe they could pitch in.

Third, eliminate farm subsidies. These subsidies manipulate market prices so that farmers in developing countries often can't sell their goods in their own country, let alone compete in a global market. These subsidies keep some of the world's poorest people in poverty, while primarily enriching large agribusinesses in our own country. It's time to do the right thing and get rid of them. Simply eliminating these subsidies would save taxpayers the equivalent of getting rid of every last earmark from our budget.

This past Sunday, the New York Times put a "budget puzzle" up on their website. It lets you make some decisions on how you would balance the budget. There are many proposals out there that aren't included in the exercise, and it's not a perfect representation of the choices that need to be made, but it is a useful tool for figuring out our priorities. I believe that a budget is a moral document, and based on the values I hold from scripture, the decisions we need to make are easy. When I checked off the list with these priorities, I solved the puzzle. So, do the New York Times budget puzzle or create other tools to enable you, your friends, your small group, or your church to take a long hard look at the moral choices involved in deficit reduction. Let's create more ideas that would help us all be more responsible with our debt. Think about your values and priorities, and then try it yourself.

Published: November 13, 2010

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

Today, you’re in charge of the nation’s finances. Some of your options have more short-term savings and some have more long-term savings. When you have closed the budget gaps for both 2015 and 2030, you are done. Make your own plan, then share it online.
Related Article | Behind The Times’s Deficit Project | Printable PDF Version | Room for Debate: 16 Ways to Cut the Deficit

You solved the deficit!   Share Your Plan on Twitter or share this link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dmt045qm

(Below are all the options on the table, click the link above to see my choices to solve the deficit problem, click the header of this post to go to the puzzle to make your choices.....it isn't easy!)

Domestic programs and foreign aid		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
	Cut foreign aid in half At a time when the United States is facing large deficits, some budget analysts argue that the country should significantly reduce the money it spends helping other countries. Others say that foreign aid already represents a smaller share of the budget here than in other rich countries and that it expands American influence.	$17 billion	$17 billion
	Eliminate earmarks Earmarks are lawmaker-directed spending items, often to finance local projects favored by a member of Congress.	$14 billion	$14 billion
	Eliminate farm subsidies Many economists argue that farm subsidies distort the workings of the market and largely flow to big agricultural businesses. As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, advocates of reducing the subsidies argue that doing so “could help small farms indirectly, slowing the rate” of consolidation. Supporters argue that the subsidies help preserve the American agriculture industry.	$14 billion	$14 billion
	Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent “During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.	$14 billion	$17 billion
	Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent This proposal would reduce the size of the federal work force by 200,000, from its current level of more than 2 million. The chairmen of the fiscal commission noted that the federal work force peaked at about 2.3 million in the late 1960s and fell to a low of 1.8 million in 2000. “Under this proposal, the government could hire two new workers for every three who leave service,” the chairmen said. The proposal would not take effect until 2012.	$12 billion	$15 billion
	Cut 250,000 government contractors In the past decade, both the number of federal employees and the number of contractors rose. Recent estimates suggest that contractors outnumber federal employees by millions. The chairmen wrote, “While contractors provide useful services — sometimes at a lower cost than the federal government — their numbers are simply too high in light of the current budget deficit.”	$17 billion	$17 billion
	Other cuts to the federal government The chairmen called for a series of smaller cuts, including eliminating some agencies, cutting research funds for fossil fuels, reducing funds for the Smithsonian and the National Park Service, eliminating certain regional subsidies, and eliminating the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.	$30 billion	$30 billion
	Cut aid to states by 5 percent In the past decade, even before the stimulus bill, state aid rose significantly, as a share of the economy. In 2005, it equaled 3.4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 2.3 percent in 1990 and 3.3 percent in 1980. Cutting state aid, advocates say, would persuade states to spend more efficiently and reduce waste. Opponents worry about the effects on education, poverty and public safety.	$29 billion	$42 billion

Military		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
	Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending Would reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Would also reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and funding for nuclear research and development, missile development and space-based missile defense.	$19 billion	$38 billion
	Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe “This option,” according to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, “would cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia at 100,000 personnel, which is 26 percent below the current level and 33 percent below the level planned for the future. All told, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn.” The option would also reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.	$25 billion	$49 billion
	Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets Under this option, the Navy would build 48 fewer ships and retire 37 more ships than now scheduled. Overall, the battle fleet would shrink to 230 ships, from 286. In addition, the Air Force would retire two tactical fighter wings and reduce the number of fighter jets it planned to purchase.	$19 billion	$24 billion
	Cancel or delay some weapons programs This option would cancel the purchase of some expensive equipment, like the F35 fighter jet and MV-22 Osprey, with less expensive equipment that the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force judged to have similar capability. It would delay other purchases. Research and development spending, which the task force considered a relic of the cold war arms race, would be reduced.	$19 billion	$18 billion
	Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises. The military would also reduce the length and frequency of combat tours. No unit or person will be sent to a combat zone for longer than a year, and they will not be sent back involuntarily without spending at least two years at home.	$23 billion	$51 billion
Foreign troop levels: Choose one or none
	Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Today, the United States military has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq. The Obama Administration plans to reduce these numbers in coming years but has not specified troop levels. Defense and budget experts say this 60,000 option would be faster than what is now planned. The savings is the difference between the administration's projected spending and the spending under this option.	$51 billion	$149 billion
	Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013 Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030.	$86 billion	$169 billion

Health care		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
	Enact medical malpractice reform Many doctors believe so-called defensive medicine – ordering tests and procedures to avoid lawsuits – is a major reason health costs are so high. This option would begin to reduce the chances of large malpractice verdicts, and supporters believe, also reduce rising medical costs. Opponents say it could reduce doctors’ incentives to avoid errors. The savings estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office.	$8 billion	$13 billion
Medicare costs: Choose one or none
	Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 68 Those who favor raising the eligibility age for Medicare often say that Americans are living longer and should work longer. And, some say, the new health-care bill will allow people in their late 60s without employer-provided insurance to buy a policy through an exchange. Opponents say that low-income workers have experienced the lowest increases in longevity, and they need Medicare the most.	$8 billion	$56 billion
	Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70 This option would save nearly $50 billion more than increasing the age to 68 would.	$8 billion	$104 billion
	Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance This option would reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, by slowly adjusting the cap, so that it increases at the rate of economic growth, rather than the growth in health costs – which tends to be significantly faster. Over time, more employer spending on health insurance would be taxed.	$41 billion	$157 billion
	Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 This option would cap the Medicare growth at G.D.P. growth plus 1 percentage point, starting in 2013. Among other things, this would crack down on many hospitals and doctors with the highest costs.	$29 billion	$562 billion

Social security		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
Changing the retirement age: Choose one or none
	Raise the Social Security retirement age to 68 The increase in longevity has caused some to favor higher eligibility ages for Social Security. This option would gradually raise the age from the currently planned 67 to 68. Supporters say that the change would go a long way toward fixing Social Security’s shortfall, by reducing benefits and by encouraging people to work (and thus pay payroll taxes) for longer. Opponents say that longevity increases have been smallest among low-income workers, who need Social Security the most.	$13 billion	$71 billion
	Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 This option would gradually raise the age to 70, potentially saving an additional $175 billion.	$13 billion	$247 billion
	Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes “Currently, initial Social Security benefits are determined in a way that allows them to grow with economy-wide wage growth,” says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a private group in Washington. Under this option, workers below the 60th percentile of the lifetime earnings distribution would continue to have their retirement benefits grow over time with average wage increases. But the benefits of top earners would grow more slowly – with inflation – while benefits for workers just above the 60th percentile would grow at a rate between inflation and wage growth.	$6 billion	$54 billion
	Tighten eligibility for disability The costs of the disability insurance program, which is administrated by the Social Security Administration, have been rising rapidly. This option would cut disability spending by 5 percent by focusing on states with the loosest standards. Supporters note that growing numbers of workers are classified as disabled, though the average job is less physically taxing. Opponents worry that injured or ill workers with few good job prospects would be harmed.	$9 billion	$17 billion
	Use an alternate measure for inflation Some economists believe that the Consumer Price Index overstates inflation, giving Social Security recipients larger cost-of-living increases than necessary. This option would use a different, lower inflation measure both for Social Security and in the tax code (thus pushing more households into higher brackets over time). Supporters say the lower measure is more accurate. Opponents say it is less accurate for the elderly, who buy a different mix of goods and services than other households.	$21 billion	$82 billion

Existing taxes		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
Modifying estate taxes: choose one or none
	The Lincoln-Kyl proposal For the first time since early in the 20th century, there is no estate tax in 2010 – a feature of the 2001 Bush tax cut. (The tax is scheduled to return in 2011, but this exercise assumes the cut will continue.) A proposal by Senators Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, is the most moderate of the estate-tax options here. It would exempt the first $5 million from any taxable estate and index this level to inflation over time. Any estate value above $5 million would be taxed at a 35 percent rate.	$12 billion	$20 billion
	President Obama's proposal President Obama's proposal is more agressive than Kyl-Lincoln, but would still cut the estate tax when compared to the Clinton years. The Obama plan would exempt the first $3.5 million from any taxable estate. Any estate above $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate. These are the same provisions that applied in 2009, as part of the 2001 Bush tax cut.	$24 billion	$45 billion
	Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels Under President Bill Clinton, the estate tax exempted $1 million from any taxable estate. This level would not grow with inflation over time, subjecting more estates to the tax. The rate would start at 18 percent and climb to 55 percent, as it did in the 1990s. The 55 percent rate would begin at $3 million. If Congress takes no action, this would become law on Jan. 1, 2011.	$50 billion	$104 billion
Investment taxes: Choose one or none
	President Obama's proposal Capital gains and dividends are now untaxed for couples with incomes below $68,000. For everyone else, the tax rate is 15 percent. This option, proposed by President Obama, would raise the rate to 20 percent for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.	$10 billion	$24 billion
	Return rates to Clinton-era levels This option would return rates to their level under President Bill Clinton: 10 percent on capital gains for low-income households and 20 percent for everyone else, while dividends would again be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.	$32 billion	$46 billion
The Bush Tax Cuts
	Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year This option would allow the expiration, on Jan. 1, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.	$54 billion	$115 billion
	Allow expiration for income below $250,000 a year This option would allow the expiration, on Jan. 1, of the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or less. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.	$172 billion	$252 billion
	Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax When the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.	$50 billion	$100 billion

New Taxes and Tax Reform		Projected Savings to Deficit in:
		2015	2030
	Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million Currently, the top tax brackets starts at about $375,000. In past decades, it started at much higher income level, after inflation is taken into account. This option – which the House passed last year but the Senate did not – would create a new 5.4 percent surtax on income above $1 million.	$50 billion	$95 billion
Closing tax loopholes: choose one or none
	Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan) The deficit commission proposed a series of tax overhaul plans. Each one would reduce tax breaks for companies and individuals, while lowering tax rates. On the whole, the plans would raise revenue. One plan would cut all tax breaks other than the child and earned-income tax credits and those for mortgages, health and retirement benefits. The corporate tax would then be cut to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while individual tax rates would be cut for all brackets too.	$75 billion	$175 billion
	Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.	$136 billion	$315 billion
	Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households The benefits of the mortgage-interest deduction (and several other tax breaks) flow mostly to high-income households – because they tend to have larger mortgages and have marginal income-tax rates. This option would reduce the value of some of those breaks to high-income households.	$25 billion	$54 billion
	National sales tax Nearly every other rich country has a tax on consumption, also known as a value-added tax or national sales tax. This option would impose a 5 percent consumption tax, exempting education, housing and charitable giving.	$41 billion	$281 billion
	Carbon tax This option would tax carbon emissions, starting at $23 per ton of CO2. The tax rate would increase at a constant annual rate of 5.8 percent, from 2012 through 2050.	$40 billion	$71 billion
	Bank Tax This option would tax banks based on the size of their holdings and the perceived riskiness of those holdings. Larger, riskier banks would pay more tax, both to discourage them from taking big risks and to help cover the costs of future financial crises.	$73 billion	$103 billion

Notes: These suggested cuts would need to be implemented gradually over the next 20 years, some taking effect well before 2030 in order to keep the deficit, and thus interest payments on the national debt, at a manageable level between now and 2030. All figures are adjusted for projected inflation and expressed in terms of 2010 dollars. The baseline for this exercise assumes that all current policies continue, even those scheduled to expire, like the Bush tax cuts.

By SHAN CARTER, MATTHEW ERICSON, DAVID LEONHARDT, BILL MARSH and KEVIN QUEALY/The New York Times |

Sources: New York Times analysis of data provided by Alan Auerbach and William Gale; Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; Tax Policy Center; Congressional Budget Office; Sustainable Defense Task Force; Cato Institute; Economic Policy Institute; National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; Joint Committee on Taxation; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Social Security Administration Close