Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure

[dbackjon]

One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets
http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9 ... 45582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

What? No criticism, Jon?

Must be gay neutral.

[Ivytalk]

Coburn has the virtue of being intellectually honest, regardless of whether you agree with him. Grover Norquist, on the other hand.....

[dbackjon]

What? No criticism, Jon?

Must be gay neutral.

Funny T-man...

It is a good starting point for discussion. The fact that it includes tax increases, makes it a valid proposal, instead of the usual one-sided approach.

[Ivytalk]

What? No criticism, Jon?

Must be gay neutral.

Funny T-man...

It is a good starting point for discussion. The fact that it includes tax increases, makes it a valid proposal, instead of the usual one-sided approach.

Coburn is an anti-spending Nazi, which makes him fine by me. If the Feds don't mess with tax rates, they can close as many loopholes or stop any "tax expenditures" that they want. That's actually what I believe will happen to get a deal done.

[BlueHen86]

There are a few things in Coburn's plan that I like.


Especially the proposal to raise the age that people can collect Social Security benefits.

[D1B]

Do it. Let's just get it over with so we can all be friends again.

[CID1990]

I am a fan of more pain sooner plans to reduce the deficit.

That said, Cobrun is no fan of the Foreign Service, and I happen to know some deep cuts he wants to make to my pay structure. If it happens, I'll have to find another job. (I've sought greener pastures before, I am sure I'll seek them again.)

[houndawg]

There are a few things in Coburn's plan that I like.


Especially the proposal to raise the age that people can collect Social Security benefits.

Ouch says the 57 year old....

[AZGrizFan]

One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets
http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9 ... 45582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Raise SS age - check
cut farm subsidies - check
cut medicare - check
cut student aid - check
cut housing subsidies - check
cut community development grants - check
redesign veteran's benefits - check
close tax loopholes - check
mortgage deduction limitation - check

Now, if he'd add in returning all departments to 2006 spending levels and eliminating HLS, Education, EPA and a host of others, we could accelerate that decade to about 4 years.

I've said all along I'm fine with tax changes if they were in conjunction with REAL cuts. My fear is that congress won't "save" that money, they'll just find some OTHER porkbarrel project to spend it all on and 10 years from now we'll be left with higher taxes AND a $15 trillion deficit.

[CID1990]

One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.

The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets
http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9 ... 45582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Raise SS age - check
cut farm subsidies - check
cut medicare - check
cut student aid - check
cut housing subsidies - check
cut community development grants - check
redesign veteran's benefits - check
close tax loopholes - check
mortgage deduction limitation - check

Now, if he'd add in returning all departments to 2006 spending levels and eliminating HLS, Education, EPA and a host of others, we could accelerate that decade to about 4 years.

I've said all along I'm fine with tax changes if they were in conjunction with REAL cuts. My fear is that congress won't "save" that money, they'll just find some OTHER porkbarrel project to spend it all on and 10 years from now we'll be left with higher taxes AND a $15 trillion deficit.

Absolutely. Congress never met a surplus it couldn't figure out a way to spend.

it is just legalized vote buying.

[OSBF]

Any proposal that looks at both sides of the ledger, revenue and expenditures, is worth at least considering.

[AZGrizFan]

Any proposal that looks at both sides of the ledger, revenue and expenditures, is worth at least considering.

Show me you can live within CURRENT means, before asking me for more.

[OSBF]

Any proposal that looks at both sides of the ledger, revenue and expenditures, is worth at least considering.

Show me you can live within CURRENT means, before asking me for more.

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation. If we want our tax rate to remain as low as mexico's, we give up the right to bitch when all the same problems plauging mexico arrive here.

2) The adjusted for inflation tax revenues collected by the feds are at their lowest post WWII rates.

When you can live TODAY on what you were making in 1945, I'll beleive additional revenue streams are not necessary.

Because that is essentially what we are asking the govt to do. And we ain't tryin to pay for P-38's P-51's, or Sherman's anymore. The world is a little more expensive place today than it was in 1945.

[OSBF]

As an example, a brand spankin' new P51d "mustang" fighter costs the US govt right at $50,000

Adjusted for inflation, 50K in 1945 is "only" 600K in 2010

Anyone feel comfortable defending the US with a fleet of $600,000/unit fighter planes?

[89Hen]

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation.

An awful lot of socialized nations out there OB. Also interesting that you want to compare personal tax rates to other countries but aren't you one of the guys who cries about corporate breaks when the US corporate tax rate is higher than most?

[GannonFan]

Show me you can live within CURRENT means, before asking me for more.

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation. If we want our tax rate to remain as low as mexico's, we give up the right to bitch when all the same problems plauging mexico arrive here.

2) The adjusted for inflation tax revenues collected by the feds are at their lowest post WWII rates.

When you can live TODAY on what you were making in 1945, I'll beleive additional revenue streams are not necessary.

Because that is essentially what we are asking the govt to do. And we ain't tryin to pay for P-38's P-51's, or Sherman's anymore. The world is a little more expensive place today than it was in 1945.

On point #2, didn't we just have a thread the other week that showed that revenues aren't any lower now than they were in the 70's, and that they are going up as '09 was the real down year? And on point #1, what does that include? Just federal income tax? Does it include payroll taxes, state income taxes, local real estate tax, school tax, and sales tax? Just asking.

[OSBF]

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation.

An awful lot of socialized nations out there OB. Also interesting that you want to compare personal tax rates to other countries but aren't you one of the guys who cries about corporate breaks when the US corporate tax rate is higher than most?

too many people flippantly throw around the word "socialism" that really have no idea what it means.

Freedom isn't free, STFU and pay your taxes. (bumper sticker i saw the other day)

EVERYBODY needs to pay their share, individuals, small business, family business, corporations, etc etc etc.

SOAK EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ASUG8]

Show me you can live within CURRENT means, before asking me for more.

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation. If we want our tax rate to remain as low as mexico's, we give up the right to bitch when all the same problems plauging mexico arrive here.

Our government ran on much less in past years, and we can do it again. The deficit spending over the past several years has never been approached before.

2) The adjusted for inflation tax revenues collected by the feds are at their lowest post WWII rates.

We're running nearly 10% unemployment, plus those who simply checked out of the job market.

When you can live TODAY on what you were making in 1945, I'll beleive additional revenue streams are not necessary.

Because that is essentially what we are asking the govt to do. And we ain't tryin to pay for P-38's P-51's, or Sherman's anymore. The world is a little more expensive place today than it was in 1945.

No kidding ....you can't measure 2011 vs. 1945 in absolute dollars, but rather in percentages. Nobody is asking to go back to 1945 levels, especially since our population (and proportionate taxpayers) has increased by 175 million people.

[89Hen]

EVERYBODY needs to pay their share, individuals, small business, family business, corporations, etc etc etc.

SOAK EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not a true Liberal then. Not everybody needs to pay their share in Obama's plan.

[OSBF]

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation. If we want our tax rate to remain as low as mexico's, we give up the right to bitch when all the same problems plauging mexico arrive here.

2) The adjusted for inflation tax revenues collected by the feds are at their lowest post WWII rates.

When you can live TODAY on what you were making in 1945, I'll beleive additional revenue streams are not necessary.

Because that is essentially what we are asking the govt to do. And we ain't tryin to pay for P-38's P-51's, or Sherman's anymore. The world is a little more expensive place today than it was in 1945.

On point #2, didn't we just have a thread the other week that showed that revenues aren't any lower now than they were in the 70's, and that they are going up as '09 was the real down year? And on point #1, what does that include? Just federal income tax? Does it include payroll taxes, state income taxes, local real estate tax, school tax, and sales tax? Just asking.

I'm pretty sure the source I pulled that from was referencing total tax and fees burden, including property taxes, sales taxes, and other types of user fees and the like.

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will equal 14.8% of the gross domestic product, or GDP, lowest level since Harry Truman was president. In Bush's last year in office, tax receipts equalled 17.5% of GDP, just below their 40-year average.

[GannonFan]

On point #2, didn't we just have a thread the other week that showed that revenues aren't any lower now than they were in the 70's, and that they are going up as '09 was the real down year? And on point #1, what does that include? Just federal income tax? Does it include payroll taxes, state income taxes, local real estate tax, school tax, and sales tax? Just asking.

I'm pretty sure the source I pulled that from was referencing total tax and fees burden, including property taxes, sales taxes, and other types of user fees and the like.

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will equal 14.8% of the gross domestic product, or GDP, lowest level since Harry Truman was president. In Bush's last year in office, tax receipts equalled 17.5% of GDP, just below their 40-year average.

But according to those same White House numbers receipts will be back up to historical average by next year and then will be well beyond historical averages (19% vs hist avg of 17%) past that. However, outlays, this year projected to be 25.3% of GDP, which is the highest outlay, by far (well, excluding 2009, which was 25%) excluding the war years. Historical avg has been 19.9% and even the most optimistic projection for spending reduction by the White House is around 22.5% going forward. We can argue tax receipts all we want, but we've never run this many consecutive, huge deficits before and we've shot our load in that regard. Spending 25% of GDP (as we've done for almost 3 years running now) is never going to be sustainable. Tax receipts start to take care of themselves as people get back to work. Spending wildly hasn't helped that to happen so logic follows that we need to significantly cut spending while we wait for jobs to come back so that people can pay taxes. We're almost 6% over historical avgs for outlays, vs GDP, and about 3% under receipts - isn't hard to see that spending cuts is going to be the lionshare of how we fix that imbalance.

[houndawg]

1) The US personal income tax rate is one of the lowest of any developed nation.

An awful lot of socialized nations out there OB. Also interesting that you want to compare personal tax rates to other countries but aren't you one of the guys who cries about corporate breaks when the US corporate tax rate is higher than most?

Very little of which is actually collected.

[GannonFan]

An awful lot of socialized nations out there OB. Also interesting that you want to compare personal tax rates to other countries but aren't you one of the guys who cries about corporate breaks when the US corporate tax rate is higher than most?

Very little of which is actually collected.

Certainly one of the drawbacks of a high corporate tax rate - profits get shuttled to lower tax rate regions and the tax revenue goes to someone else.

[OSBF]

Very little of which is actually collected.

Certainly one of the drawbacks of a high corporate tax rate - profits get shuttled to lower tax rate regions and the tax revenue goes un collected.

fixed for accuracy