Supercommittee Admits It's Failed To Reach A Deal 21NOV11

HERE are some words of wisdom our government and nation should consider, and should be considering with today's announcement that the super committee and congress failed the people again....THIS is NOT saying the Democrats should have caved in to the demands of the Republicans....It is saying that with this failure we should not lie, deceive and manipulate the facts about why the committee failed and who is responsible. There is enough truth in the facts, that the Democrats finally took and stand, and remained united in their commitment to the poor, the retired, the working class and the middle class of this nation and defended them against what seems to be the insatiable greed of the rich, corporations, the banking-financial cabal and the military industrial complex. Finally someone took a stand and held their ground for the the 99%!
Work toward unity, and live in harmony with one another. Avoid thinking you are better than others or wiser than the rest; instead, embrace common people and ordinary tasks. Do not retaliate with evil, regardless of the evil brought against you. Try to do what is good and right and honorable as agreed upon by all people. If it is within your power, make peace with all people.
- Romans 12:16-18

by Eyder Peralta

Enlarge J. Scott Applewhite/AP Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, the supercommittee co-chairwoman, arrives to meet in the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Sen. John Kerry with other members of the deficit reduction panel on Monday.

The co-chairs of the Supercommittee made it official, minutes ago: They said they have failed to reach an agreement over a deficit reduction package.
The AP reports:

"Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling say that despite 'intense deliberations' the members of the panel have been unable 'to bridge the committee's significant differences.'
"The panel was established by this summer's budget and debt agreement to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the budget over 10 years. But the panel has been divided from the beginning over taxes and cuts to popular government benefit programs like Medicare."

In a statement, Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Sen. Patty Murray, the co-chairs of the commission, said they were "deeply disappointed" in their inability to reach a bipartisan deal.
They add:

Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve.

The legislation Congress agreed to in the summer stipulates that if the committee could not reach a deal, there would across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion — or 10 percent of the nation's collective deficit — over the next decade. Neither party wants that, because it would hit the defense budget hard, which Republicans don't want, and also hit domestic programs, which Democrats don't want.
That could happen, or NPR's Liz Halloran reports, they could change the rules.
We'll have more as this story develops.
Update at 6:02 p.m. ET. A Bit More On The Impasse:
Like the debt ceiling negotiations of earlier this year, the impasse of these negotiations was about taxes on the rich. The Washington Post captures that divide with rounding up interviews with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.):

Kerry said efforts ultimately foundered over the Republican refusal to accept any tax increases on the wealthy in exchange for spending cuts.
"This is a matter of fundamental fairness," Kerry told CNN. "We are stuck on this insistence of making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. I think the American people will judge that to be insane."
Kyl blamed Democrats for insisting that taxes on more affluent Americans be increased. "Our Democratic friends said we won't cut one dollar more without raising taxes," Kyl said. "That tells you a lot about the ethos in Washington. We went into the exercise to try to reduce federal government spending. What we get from the other side is, 'No, we won't make more cuts unless you raise taxes.' "

Update at 5:49 p.m. ET. Obama Says He'll Veto Rule Changes:
"One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit," said President Obama just moments ago. The president, making a statement in the White House press briefing room, said Congress still has time to reach a deal, but that he does not support changing the rules in order to avoid automatic cuts.
The president warned he would veto any legislation that did so.
Obama opened his statement, however, with sharp words toward congressional Republicans. He said Republicans have refused to give in on new revenue or letting the Bush tax cuts expire. He said Republicans are trying to "protect the rich" despite cuts to medicare and other social programs for the poor.
"Their refusal remains the main stumbling block," he said.
Obama said Congress needs to get back to work and "create a balanced plan."
"They have a year to to figure it out," Obama said.
Update at 5:18 p.m. ET. President To Make A Statement:
President Obama will make a statement at 5:45 p.m. ET. We'll bring you his comments as they happen.

Related NPR Stories

Four Reasons The Supercommittee Isn't So Super Nov. 21, 2011

With No 'Super' Deal, What's Next? Nov. 21, 2011

TIM KAINE IS WRONG ON THE SUPER COMMITTEE 18NOV11

While I support Tim Kaine's candidacy for the U.S. Senate I believe he is wrong on the super committee and the affect the mandatory defense budget cuts will have on the economy of the Commonwealth. This from PERI.....
"The simple truth is that, beyond war industry hype, military spending costs us jobs. According to the Political Economy Research Institute’s (PERI) 2009 study, when you compare it to other ways of spending the money, every $1 billion spent for military purposes costs us, at minimum, 3,222 jobs. At the upper end, war spending costs us 17,500 or more jobs per billion dollars. Military spending creates fewer jobs, both directly and indirectly, than every other kind of spending studied by PERI. So, given that we spend well in excess of $700 billion every year on war in this country, it’s fair to say that our obsession with war spending is sucking the life right out of our economy."
Read their report here
http://warcosts.com/2011/09/08/the-war-budget-is-burning-down-our-economy/
Gov Kaine needs to be concerned about the affect of cuts to the social safety net and the devastating impact these cuts will have on the poor, the working class and the middle class in Virginia and across the country. As President Eisenhower stated at the end of his administration
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." --Dwight D. Eisenhower

by Craig Carper

0.8811042629053099

• play

00:00

00:53

download

Former Governor and now Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate Tim Kaine is urging the bipartisan Congressional supercommittee to reach a deficit reduction plan by its scheduled deadline next Wednesday. Craig Carper reports.

Jon Kyl Threatens To Quit Super Committee Over Defense Cuts 8SEP11 & THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF MILITARY AND DOMESTIC SPENDING PRIORITIES: AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OKT 2009

BYE-BYE jon, bye-bye...the country doesn't need your obstructionist attitude. While you are controlled by the war pigs of the military-industrial complex we are hoping the rest of the committee will realize more jobs are created by tax dollars spent on desperately needed infrastructure projects putting people back to work repairing and building roads, bridges, schools, mass transit projects, and by funding for states to rehire teachers and employees of police and fire departments. So go jon, and sulk, and let the repiglican tea-bagger "leadership" replace you with someone who knows how to work well with others....Check this out from WarCost.com....
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_PERI.pdf
THIS from HuffPost....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/jon-kyl-super-committee-defense-spending-cuts_n_954590.html
WASHINGTON -- The No. 2 Republican in the Senate says he would quit the special deficit-reduction supercommittee if there is an effort to cut more from defense.
Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl made the remarks Thursday at a defense forum shortly after the first supercommittee meeting. Kyl said he is "off of the committee if we are going to talk about further defense cuts."
The debt-limit bill that Congress approved last month calls for $350 billion in military reductions over 10 years.
At the supercommittee meeting, Kyl had commented on a "sense of optimism" that the panel could succeed in cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit.
The forum was sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

THE WAR BUDGET IS BURNING DOWN OUR ECONOMY 8SEP11

CHECK out the campaign against the corrupting influence of the military-industrial complex. Click the links to see just how many jobs are lost with every billion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Click this link to go to warcost.com for more information...
http://warcosts.com/
Next Tuesday (13 SEP 11), military contractors plan to stage a "march to the Hill" to pressure Congress to protect their massive revenues from cuts by the new deficit committee and cash in on contractor contributions to committee members. We need your help to fight their influence.

By Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe

President Obama will talk jobs tonight. Good. That’s what we should have been talking about all year. Here’s all thirty-five words of our suggested script for the speech:

“Good evening. To get American working again, we must cut our massive war budget and find better ways to spend that money. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.”

This would be by far the shortest presidential speech on jobs ever given, and one of the most effective plans given in years to get people back to work.
The simple truth is that, beyond war industry hype, military spending costs us jobs. According to the Political Economy Research Institute’s (PERI) 2009 study, when you compare it to other ways of spending the money, every $1 billion spent for military purposes costs us, at minimum, 3,222 jobs. At the upper end, war spending costs us 17,500 or more jobs per billion dollars. Military spending creates fewer jobs, both directly and indirectly, than every other kind of spending studied by PERI. So, given that we spend well in excess of $700 billion every year on war in this country, it’s fair to say that our obsession with war spending is sucking the life right out of our economy.
War spending is good at making a few corporations very rich at the expense of the rest of us, however. Take Lockheed Martin, for example. Lockheed is the top contractor for both the Pentagon (.pdf) and the U.S. government in general (.xls), having made $35.8 billion off the taxpayer in 2010. Just to put that in perspective, if they were an “official” arm of the U.S. government, their taxpayer-funded budget, ironically, would be roughly three times the size of the Department of Labor (.pdf). Their CEO, Robert J. Stevens, made $21.9 million dollars last year, or $10,527.80 per hour. That’s a pretty sweet deal for the head of a company whose two marquee products, the F-22 and the F-35, have yet to see action in a war-zone because they aren’t safe or don’t work.
While Lockheed Martin and their buddies in the war industry are rolling in the taxpayers’ dough, the rest of us are choking on the ashes of the economy. The unemployment rate in this country as usually quoted in the press exceeds 9 percent. But, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, real unemployment exceeds 16 percent and has remained relatively flat for at least a year. Last month, the economy created zero jobs. Given this very nasty employment picture, there’s absolutely no justification for maintaining what’s essentially a job-killing corporate welfare program for war profiteers.
By coincidence, President Obama’s jobs speech takes place on the same day as the first meeting of the new Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. If the members of the committee are serious about doing what’s best for this country, they’ll focus on changes to the budget that have a chance of getting people back to work. Serious cuts to the war budget should be at the top of their list.
War industry corporations like Lockheed Martin know that if Congress does zero in on job creation, their days of living high-on-the-hog may be over. They’ve banded together under the banner of a front group, “Second To None,” to pressure the committee and other influentials on the Hill to protect their profits. [See Nick Turse’s excellent piece on AlterNet today detailing just who is behind the Second To None effort.] They plan to stage a “march to the Hill” on Tuesday, and with members of the so-called “Super Committee” having taken well over a million dollars in campaign and PAC contributions from these war profiteers, there’s a real danger that Second To None could “cash in,” corrupting the process to shield their job-killing profits.
Brave New Foundation’s War Costs campaign is working to put Second To None on the defensive. That’s why we’re running a full-page ad in Politico on Monday to call out Second To None’s deceptive spin on jobs and to tell Congress we need jobs, not war industry profits that are killing our economy. Please consider joining our effort.

Follow the War Costs campaign on Facebook, and follow Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe on Twitter to stay updated about War Costs’ latest actions to expose the true costs of our nation’s obsession with war spending.

 

Gates Says NATO Alliance Faces 'Dim' Future 10JUN11

IT is wrong for America to pay most of the cost for NATO, European members need to accept the cost and responsibility for their defense and the campaigns of the alliance and be fair partners. BUT, it is also true that the misguided policies of the bush administration in the operation of the Afghan war, unfortunately being continued by the Obama administration, have contributed to NATO members being reluctant and even refusing to participate in NATO campaigns because of the lack of a clear goal in the campaigns and mismanagement of the campaigns. The disarray of the alliance, the lack of participation in military actions, may also be a growing realization that war is not the answer, and more can be done to prevent and resolve conflict through humanitarian aid. A lot of members of NATO routinely budget a much higher percentage of their national budgets for humanitarian and economic aid instead of military aid around the world than the U.S. government does. A lesson is to be learned from all of this, and a nation can win more friends in a country, and do more to promote stability and human rights with non-lethal rather than military aid.

by The Associated Press

Enlarge John Thys/AFP/Getty Images U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized NATO during a speech to the Security and Defense agenda think-tank Friday in Brussels, Belgium.

America's military alliance with Europe — the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades — faces a "dim if not dismal future," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.
In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.
"Future U.S. political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank in Brussels, Belgium, on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Related NPR Stories

Read The U.S. Defense Secretary's Remarks June 10, 2011

Can The U.S. Find Success In Afghanistan? June 10, 2011

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.
Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now — Afghanistan and Libya — point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.

Future U.S. political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost.

- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress and in the American body politic writ large to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.
Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."
The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.
The war in Afghanistan, which is being conducted under NATO auspices, is a prime example of U.S. frustration at European inability to provide the required resources.
"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.
Gates, a career CIA officer who rose to become the spy agency's director from 1991 to 1993, is retiring on June 30 after 4½ years as Pentagon chief. His designated successor, Leon Panetta, is expected to take over July 1.
For many Americans, NATO is a vague concept tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today.
But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
Gates said this could spell the demise of NATO.
"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," he said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO - individually and collectively - have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a very different future."
Gates has said he believes NATO will endure despite its flaws and failings. But his remarks Friday point to a degree of American impatience with traditional and newer European allies that in coming years could lead to a reordering of U.S. defense priorities in favor of Asia and the Pacific, where the rise of China is becoming a predominant concern.
To illustrate his concerns about Europe's lack of appetite for defense, Gates noted the difficulty NATO has encountered in carrying out an air campaign in Libya.
"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference," he said.
His comment reflected U.S. frustration with the allies' limited defense budgets.
"To avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities," he said.
He applauded Norway and Denmark for providing a disproportionate share of the combat power in the Libya operation, given the size of their militaries. And he credited Belgium and Canada for making "major contributions" to the effort to degrade the military strength of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.
"These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution," he said.
But they are exceptions, in Gates' view.
A NATO air operations center designed to handle more than 300 flights a day is struggling to launch about 150 a day against Libya, Gates said.
On a political level, the problem of alliance purpose in Libya is even more troubling, he said.
"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there."
Afghanistan is another example of NATO falling short despite a determined effort, Gates said.
He recalled the history of NATO's involvement in the Afghan war — and the mistaken impression some allied governments held of what it would require of them.
"I suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacekeeping, reconstruction and development assistance - more akin to the Balkans," he said, referring to NATO peacekeeping efforts there since the late 1990s. "Instead, NATO found itself in a tough fight against a determined and resurgent Taliban returning in force from its sanctuaries in Pakistan."
He also offered praise and sympathy, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.
He seemed to rehearse his position in the coming debate within the Obama administration on how many troops to withdraw from Afghanistan this year.
"Far too much has been accomplished, at far too great a cost, to let the momentum slip away just as the enemy is on his back foot," he said.
He said the "vast majority" of the 30,000 extra troops Obama sent to Afghanistan last year will remain through the summer fighting season. He was not more specific.
In a question-and-answer session with his audience after the speech, Gates, 67, said his generation's "emotional and historical attachment" to NATO is "aging out."
He said he is not sure what this means in practical terms. But if Europeans want to keep a security link to the U.S. in the future, he said, "the drift of the past 20 years can't continue."

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