PROPOSED SPENDING REFORMS

Reforming our tax system to make it more fair an effective is only one side of the coin. Taxation is government income. Reform of government expenditures - using that tax income sensibly - is also critical to the future of our nation.

Below are the proposed Spending Reforms that should accompany the Fair Share Tax Reform. The proposed spending cuts, once fully implemented, would reduce total government spending (federal, state, municipal) by about 16% below current projected spending (assuming simple 3% annual increases from 2007 levels and the end of our two wars). Under this Fair Share Tax proposal, total government taxes (revenues) would in the end be increased about 7%, although taxes on the typical taxpayer (in fact, the bottom 80%) would be reduced substantially. Thus the spending-cut to increased-tax ratio is about 2 to 1.

Combining the Fair Share Tax Reform with these Spending Reforms, deficits could be eliminated by 2015, and the national debt could be paid off completely by 2040. (see the Debt evaporate)

      
[A bit of history: President Clinton's tax increases - which had the wealthy pay something closer to their fair share - balanced the federal budget and produced our first federal surplus in decades. When President Clinton fought for it, Republicans warned again and again that the tax increases would "kill jobs." (Sound familiar?) Instead we had 8 years of the best economy and lowest unemployment in our history. The Republicans then cut taxes on the wealthy, started running up the national debt, and we now have the worst economy and bleakest employment prospects in 80 years.]

MILITARY SPENDING CUTS
 
This year the United States spent $965 billion dollars on our military. This is is more than 10  times that spent by the next most militarized country, China. We could easily cut spending by 35% and still be spending 5 times more than China spends. Enough said. My calculations phase in the 35% cut over 5 years and phase out spending on the Iraq an Afghanistan wars over the same period. [If we spent $30 billion on sustainable world hunger programs every year for 10 years - less than 3% of what we spend on the military - we could permanently eliminate world hunger. This might be more effective at changing hearts and minds than trying to do so at the point of a gun.] (WashPost link)

HEALTH-CARE SPENDING CUTS
 
This year the United States federal government spent $760 billion dollars on health care (Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP). Health-care spending per person in Japan and the western Europe is about half of what we pay here, AND they have better outcomes with better life expectancies. Within the United States, around the the city of Seattle and at the Mayo Clinic, they spend about 30% less per Medicare patient than the national average, AND have better results. Some regions spend twice as much per Medicare patient as do other regions and have worse results. Certainly we can achieve a 35% cut over 5 years. States pay about one-third of all Medicaid costs and should realize similar savings on those expenditures.

How are these cuts achieved while improving the quality of care? Patients, especially the chronically ill, need their care to be better integrated. Physician incentives to profit more from every test and procedures they prescribe must be blunted. Physicians are now paid by the visit, the test, and the procedure rather than for example the "care of an angina patient." This creates a bias to do the extra stress test, cardiac catheterisation, additional testing, and cardiac bypass, when perhaps adjusting medication could produce a better health outcome. Further, often the procedures are done in centers that the physician owns, so he gets both the hospital fee and procedure fee. Where possible the decision to test or treat should be made by one physician who does not profit from that decision. Perhaps physicians need to be paid with generous annual salaries rather than per test and operation. Governments should certainly negotiate with drug companies for the costs of medications. Studying the systems that cost much less would point to further savings. (NYTimes link)

NOTE: The cuts to military spending and health-care spending will create an outcry from military contractors, some doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and health insurance companies ... and their lobbyists. They and their supporters in government will of course try to scare the public with imagined catastrophic results ("Chinese invasions!" "Death Panels!"). If we wish to save this nation from economic disaster, we simply need to end the unrestrained and wasteful transfer of taxpayer money to the military-medical-industrial complex.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
 
The Fair Share Tax reform plan saves the working poor and middle class thousands and year. If a small part of that was invested in the taxpayer's simple tax-free account (for education and retirement; established automatically for all employees, with an opt out provision), then almost all workers would retire in great shape. Social Security could be viewed as a safety net to assure that no-one who contributed to the economy over a lifetime lives their retirement years in poverty. Full annual benefits, starting at age 68 would be $16,500 for an unmarried person or $27,500 for a married couple. (in 2011 dollars; These are the 110% the 2%-taxed poverty line of the proposed tax reform and roughly equal the current average benefit.) Eligibility for disability benefits would be tightened.

Under the Fair Share Tax Plan the regressive and indirect current payroll (Social Security) taxes are ended. Instead Social Security benefits are paid out of general revenue. Eligibility for full benefits would require 40 years of filing a tax return with an income corresponding to at least full-time work at the minimum wage OR a lifetime declared income of $1.6 million (with at least 10 years of filing a at-least-minimum-wage tax return). Partial benefits are prorated down to 25% for 10 years of at-least-minimum-wage work or $400,000 lifetime income.

The plan would be delayed until 2022, to give workers the opportunity to adjust their retirement planning accordingly. It would reduce Social Security spending by about $50 billion (about 4%) that year and going forward.

VARIOUS FEDERAL SPENDING CUTS
 
Below are selected federal government spending cuts derived from the Simpson-Bowles report as described at the New York Times website.  I have selected the spending cuts that look sensible to me and excluded those that are covered under the spending cuts outlined above. The values listed are the expected savings for 2015 if the cuts were enacted and total $124 billion for that year.

[THE FOLLOWING ARE COPIED DIRECTLY FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES WEBSITE]
"
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
    
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
    
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
    
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
    
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

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
    
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
"
[THE ABOVE ARE COPIED DIRECTLY FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES WEBSITE]


FEDERAL  SPENDING INCREASES
 
Over the last 30 years federal non-discretionary spending as a percent of GDP has been cut in half to about 2.5% of GDP. Non-discretionary spending funds things like basic science research, road and railways, environmental protection, energy research, education, and job training, - all critical to future economic growth. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D. To ensure future economic prosperity, the federal government's spending on infrastructure, research, and the environment should be doubled, costing an extra $145 billion in 2012 and 3% more each year going forward.

 
STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING
 
The biggest threats to state and local government budgets are that there are  over-generous salaries, benefits, and retirement plans for some government workers. Those workers should have the right to unionize and negotiate work rules and compensation. Governments must honor commitments already made but should request give-backs (eg to avoid layoffs) where appropriate. Going forward, statute should limit total compensation to those available for equivalent work in the private sector.

State and local governments should improve public education, especially in the worst schools. This would involve increased spending, but subject to the compensation guidelines above.