We'll have to vote to extend borrowing, hate to say it but it's aforegone conclusion. Unfortunately we don't have a say in the vote. Our elected politicians are the only ones, and remember folks we voted them in.

Solutions - raise tax level on those earning over $250K per year back to what it was in year 2000, reform an aspect of Social Security (either reduce benefiets or raise retirement age by a year - maybe each state can pick their own preference), get the hell out of Afghanistan which will save $2 Billion per week - yes that is fact $2 Billion per week is being spent in Afghanistan!. Get anyone we have left in Iraq the hell out of there too for more savings. Close all tax loop holes for corporations - i don't have loop hole, nor should anyone else.

Funny that the Right-wingers on this post failed to mention that the CBO also has recommended returning income taxes to the 2000 rates. When the 400 wealthiest individuals have more than the bottom 50% off wage earners in this country, the argument doesn't hold water that if we raise their income taxes by 3% that they won't invest and it will hurt the economy. For these people, there never was a recession mindset, so it's just business as usual. Also, restoring the tax rates ironically helps wealthy individuals, because as the economy recovers middle class people increase spending and the banks raise interest rates, etc.

EASY TO FIX ALL OUR PROBLEMS:

1. Tax the rich like the countries with the HIGHEST standard of living in the world..

2. Tax corporate America- BIG TIME

3.TAX THESE CHURCHES THAT OWN BILLIONS IN REAL ESTATE!
FIXED!!!

Bless this oligarchy!

If you use true GAP (general accounting principles) the true debt is 148% of debt to GDP. This is according to a Wall Street Investment company CEO who acknowledges the corruption in the government's accounting practices that would put anyone in the commercial sector in jail. An untold story and national indictment of the political elite that continue to betray the country in their deliberations.

He also notes that Greece is at 121% debt to GDP. It is also interesting to note that it was suggested Greece lied in its application to the EU on its national financial balance sheet. Sound familiar???

Why isn't this being told by the media???

I see a lot of people are confusing the government with Wall Street. Wall Street has purchased our government - mostly the Republicans because they love the system and are in agreement with Wall Streets values - but they own both parties - yes even the tea party Republicans - the system has been set up so that candidates can't get elected without Wall Street.

Wall Street is never satisfied, they want your Medicare dollars, Social Security dollars, your 401K until there is nothing left - it is all consuming. They are counting on the stupidity of Americans to keep choosing R's of D's to bicker against each other and name call while they steal the rug out from underneath you but until we wake up - if we ever do - we will be responsible for our own demise.

Hell, the dems don't even have a budget but they shot down Ryan's plan!

Also, Obama has consistently rejected the CBO's recommendation...

Please, please, please tell me you are not voting for him next year...!

The fiscal crisis is self inflicted. Raise taxes and pay the bills. Not to difficult to solve.

What became a problem under Bush has become a crisis under Obama. With absolutely no one in Washington even willing to admit to the level of financial crisis this nation is facing, is it any wonder none of our political leaders are offering anything of substance for a solution. All the current administration wants to do is spend this country into oblivion, blame Bush for as long as the lemmings believe them, and use accounting gimmicks along with smoke and mirrors to delay the reality from awakening the masses.

Absolutely nothing short of an ironclad balanced budget amendment should even be acceptable to anyone. Neither congress or the president can be trusted any longer. They simply do not care who gets hurt, or who will be made to suffer for their fiscal insanity. There is so little time left to get this turned around, if in fact that is even possible, that we have to clean house in congress and the white house now. We cannot afford four more years of the spending insanity from an Obama administration, anymore then changing to another beltway insider is going to be the savior.

At the rate we are going, you will not have title to anything you think you own today. Just servicing the debt will keep everyone as an indentured slave to the government. There will no longer be an American dream, and our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on will spend their lives suffering for our opulence and there will be nothing to show for it.

We have idiots that vote for the idiots that run, and when they are proven to be idiots the same idiot voters re-elect them. Partisan politics will be the destruction of this country, but the politicians and those politically connected will be just fine. But will you?

How do you expect anything to change when BOTH sides keep re-electing the same jackholes to office. Pelosi and Boenher have held office for over 20 years. You want real change, vote Congress out, ALL OF THEM!! Republicans and Democrats alike. Write to your Senators and Reps. Use your voice America. Instead of writing angry post and yelling at each other, use that angst in e-mails to the people who actually have something to do with creating/solving the problem. Believe me, they will listen, you just need to take five minutes out of your day to do this. They are all worried about being re-elected, WE THE PEOPLE control the fate of this country. This is still a government for the People, by the People.

Soc. Sec. taxes at current rate can pay S.S. thru 2037; fair changes can make S.S. solvent longer. Changes: 1) remove top income limit ($106,800) for S.S. tax; 2) apply means testing to eligibility, deducting all other income from S.S. earning chart benefit amount (i.e. S.S. amount-$30,000 minus other income $8,000 = $22,000 S.S. benefit); 3) STOP S.S. LOANS TO GEN. BUDGET FUND-EARN MORE INTEREST & LOANS THAT GIVE CONGRESS MEANS TO CONTINUE OVERSPENDING GEN. BUDGET INCOME. VOTERS THOUGHT WE STOPPED CONGRESS SPENDING S.S. FUNDS IN 1983, BUT CONGRESS BYPASSED OUR WISHES. THIS IS WHY S.S. IS IN DANGER.- LOANS ARE DUE & CONGRESS HAS NO GEN. FUNDS TO REPAY LOANS. ON ACCT. RECORDS THERE SHOULD BE $2.6 TRILLION IN S.S. FUNDS - POLITICIANS WON'T SAY THAT. DEFICIT & NATL. DEBT ARE CAUSED BY CONGRESS. LET'S STOP THEM WITH OUR VOTE - VOTE AGAINST ALL CONGRESSIONAL INCUMBENTS THIS ELECTION & EVERY ELECTION ESSENTIALLY CREATING A ONE-TERM LIMIT. This will reduce influence of Lobbyists/PACS, reduce pensions (require 5 yrs. service), lessen power/greed of politicians, & get attention of Congress who might then listen to citizens. CITIZENS CAN MAKE THIS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE starting now in 2012 elections!!!!

Other nations have national health care. Ours can be corrected with advise from other nations who know problems , financial advisers, university professors -NOT POLITICIANS, LOBBYISTS & PACS. We need to stop buying political half-truths & deluge Congress with protests for truth, facts & laws for the majority.

We are trying to balance the budget affecting the vulnerable citizens, but leaving the big receiver of welfare out - businesses, hoping they will get generous enough to give us a return on our investment. We the people are at fault too, turning this rich country into a cheap mentality spender, not figuring that by saving a dime we were destroying our inland industry and loosing the blue collar jobs, therefore a big chunk of tax revenue. Now blame the politicians!

How about all of the big businesses who don't pay their taxes, like GE? 85% of big businesses in the US don't pay taxes; start with them first, then we'll see if we still need to raises taxes on the rest of us.

Say what you want about the Dem's, but the main issue, is the Bush tax cuts. They were unfunded, and meant to be temporary (until he got out of office, and wouldn't have to raise them back). He cut revenue, did not reduce spending, and left the next administration to clean it up. Now last year, in the face of the recession, the new administration had to look at raising taxes, or keep them as is. Raising taxes on the middle class during the recession would be disastrous. They tried to raise it on the top 2%, but were denied by Rep's, because they are the ones that create jobs. Guess what, they had 8 years to create them, and they didn't. Tax cuts to rich people, do not create jobs, sorry. All you hear from the right is about cutting speding, which I agree, the US needs to do. But to not even consider raising more revenue, is ridiculous, and just bad fiscal policy.

I've heard the talking point that the wars are causing the debt (admitted oversimplification). Then why didn't the Dems pull out the troops (WH) or cut funding (congress) while they had all the power? Get past the blame game and start solving the problem. Suck it up. Revamp the tax codes. Cut spending to the bone. Start building this country from the ground up on a solid foundation. Be truthful to my generation and tell us to pay for Social Security and tell us we aren't getting any. We aren't blind, and I don't know anyone my age that is figuring SS in our retirement plans because it won't be there. End the lies.

All you freaking whiners, on both sides, keep blaming each other is not going to do a damn bit of good. We need to start voting for real people not politicians that are in it for the money and not the good of the country, we are doing this to purselves and the coorupt politicians lead by lobbyist are pitting us against one another and winning. Until we realize this is their game we the people are the losers, weather your right or left they truly do not care and are using the passion of differing ideologies to make us confused to their real agenda for the big corporations.

Good luck, people we are falling rihgt into their trap and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right or left or so called tea party we all need to wake up.

Sorry, but today the head of the DNC is focusing on the question if the Republicans are fair to women? The state of the economy is not in her sights since it may point out that the recovery is not going well at all. So, she is busy focusing on other issues and hoping no one will notice 9% unemployment.

Am I missing something? Biden wants to cut spending, but increase the debt limit. What would be the point in raising the budget if you were going to reduce spending? That doesn't make any sense. Does someone understand this logic?

Debt nearing dangerous levels.I love the words these people use like DANGEROUS!

Ya dummies, you didn't see this coming?Keep going, being the Worlds Wonder Policemen.Fighting created wars that you dam well you KNOW couldn't of won, when you got in there.What a freaken Joke.Think of what ya could of done for this country, with all the money ya spent on those disasterous wars.

Hell keep spending,your all doing a HELL OF A JOB!NOW TRY AND PAY FOR ALL YOUR JOKES YA DUMMIES!

Mr. Curry...... STILL not reporting on "starve the beast" -- the GOP plan hatched under Reagan and now endangers the national security of the United States! You KNOW it was/is a DELIBERATE plan to cause a debt crisis so they could propose privatizing the entitlements. Well, they've starved the beast and then some. Now we DO hear about privatizing the entitlements!

It's time to STOP being an "independent" reporter and start being a PATRIOT!! JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE GOP HAS DONE SINCE REAGAN!!!!!

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Chart.html

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm

http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788

 Greece....Greece....Greece.....Grease.....Grease.....That's how you slip down this slope.  Raising taxes is a hollow mantra.  Take the wealthiest 20 people in the world, bankrupt them and take all of their money and you could run this government for how long???  A LITTLE OVER THREE DAYS!!!!  That's right, this government spends $360B per month ($12B per day) of which it borrows a third ($120B per month/$4B per day).  Stop the madness, stop the spending!!!

How did we get to this Sad State: Bush the great Decider and the Republicans squandered A large part of this countries wealth with:

1) His 2 war that cost a trillian dollars with the scantiest of hersey evidence((Just Added to the Debt)
2) His prescription benefits that we couldnt afford and (Just Added to the Debt)
3) His tax cuts for the rich that we couldnt afford and ((Just Added to the Debt)
4) HIs Letting 2/3 of largest corporations that make 10s to 100s of Billions pay no taxes thru outsourcing of our jobs. (Billions of Dollars Not Collect Because People are out of Work) ((Just Added to the Debt)

Why wer'ent the Republican screeming Bloody Murder when Bush was laying the seeds to Trillions of Dollars In budget deficits? Remember Cheney "Deficits dont matter"

Ill tell you why? Because The Republicans only care about their Greedy selves & Hell with everyone else.

And how will we pay for this now? With YOUR social security \ medicare money, of course!(That You paid Taxes Into and Now the Govtment wants to tell us its an "Entitlement") And huge national debts for our children and grand children as for as the eyes can see. Wake up people.youve where Had!

The Great Decider Decided all right. He decided to scr@w us and this country !!!

Keep electing Republicans into the White house voting for the Rich and expect the same lame results

Proof you can fix the budget, pay off the deficit in 10 years, and leave Social Security and other retirements alone.

The United States of America finds itself at a fiscal crossroads on a path that everyone can agree is unsustainable. That unfortunately is where everyone seems to stop agreeing. Looking at income taxes for the wealthy it is fact that from 1936 until 1982 the top tax rate was 70% or more. In 1982 it went down to 50% until 1987 when it went down again to closer to current levels. Despite the drop in the top tax rate during this time, the top 20% have been paying a larger and larger share of the total income tax paid in the US, but this is only fair in my opinion because they have been earning a larger and larger share of total income. This discussion is dealing with Income Tax, so arguing about other taxes paid does not address this topic. This is not about Capital Gains, Estate, or Use taxes; this article is about Income Tax.

When one looks at total revenues for the United States, the biggest revenue is for Personal Income Tax. If you want to resolve a fiscal crisis the size of the one the United States currently finds itself in, you have to look at the biggest sources to make adjustments. Corporate Income taxes are so small as to be found irrelevant for this discussion. As a matter of fact I would encourage that Corporate Income Taxes be abolished in the United States, if and only if the proposal for funding healthcare in this article is implemented. Otherwise, I believe that a Corporate Income Tax of 8.55% that cannot be reduced in any way should be implemented.

After a serious look at the total Revenues for the United States, it is clear that taxes alone are not going to be able to close the debt that we have created. Outlays will most definitely have to be cut, along with tax increases.

First, I think all expenses have to be put into perspective with the rate of inflation. For this, I use the CPI-U.
•CPI-U means the index of consumer prices developed and updated by the US Department of Commerce. As referenced in section 1927(c) of the Social Security Act, it is the CPI for all urban consumers (US average)

The CPI-U average from 1914 through 2010 is 3.37%. The CPI-U from 1990 through 2010 is 2.75% and from 2000 through 2010 is 2.49%.
Using these numbers, it is not unrealistic to put the annual increase of outlays at an average of 3%, but the reality is far from that. For the argument that this is unrealistic, I submit the argument that the average American has to live with the real world factors of the CPU-I and it is not asking too much that our government, which is funded by us, to live within those same numbers.

For the US average wage, I am using the National Average Wage Index calculated by the Social Security Administration. From 1951 to 2009, the Wage index has increased from $2,799.16 to $40,711.61. That is an average annual increase of 4.49%. For the years 1990 through 2009, it averaged 3.45% and from 2000 to 2009, the annual increase averaged 2.84%.

Discretionary Outlays.

Our total Discretionary Outlays have increased from 122.5 billion in 1971 to 1,349.2 billion in 2010, a total increase of 1101%. I want to break it down a bit to show when the huge increases occurred. From 1971 to1980, it increased 226%, from 1981 to 1990, we saw an increase of 163%, from 1991 through 2000, it increased 115%, and from 2001 to 2010, we saw an increase of 208%. Dollars were 122.5 billion to 276.3 billion for '71 to '80, 307.9 billion to 500.6 billion for '81 to '90, 533.3 billion to 614.6 billion for '91 to 2000, and 649.0 billion to 1,349.2 billion for 2001 to 2010.

To try to go back and adjust spending beyond a 10-year mark would be so devastating to the government and the economy that it is a non-starter. Because of this, I will us a 10-year model of adjusted spending.

Defense outlays have increased 225% from 2001 to 2011. It should increase by a maximum of 3% a year. In dollars, it went from 306.1 billion to 689.1 billion. With all the wars from 1971 to today, it has increased by 872%. In 1990 during the first gulf war, it was 300.1 billion. The cost of the current wars is about 2 billion a week or roughly 104 billion a year, so why the huge increase in Defense spending? It has increased by 483 billion a year since 2001. With the ongoing wars it should be reduced by allowing a 3% per year increase over the past 10 years and adding in the cost of the wars, (93.29 billion plus 104 billion), 197.3 billion over the 306.1 billion of 2001. That is 503.4 billion a year for defense, so let us be generous and round it up to 504 billion with a 3% per year growth cap. That would save 185.1 billion a year.

International outlays have increased 204% from 2001 to 2011. In dollars, it increased from 22.5 billion to 45.9 billion. While the American people saw the average wage increase by only 1.27% from 2000 to 2009, we increased our international outlays by more than 202% above that. It should be capped by 3% annually, which in dollars is an increase from 22.5 billion to 29.3574 billion. If we round up to 30 billion a year it is a savings of 15.9 billion a year.

Domestic outlays have seen the same type of unreasonable increases, going from 320.4 billion in 2001 to 614.2 billion in 2010. That is an increase of 192%. Applying the same 3% annual increase cap from 2001 levels, it should go from 320.4 billion to 418 billion. Giving the generous round up I applied to the other outlays it would be 420 billion a year with a 3% annual increase cap. That would save 194.2 billion.

The total savings from Discretionary outlays is 395.2 billion a year.

Now we turn to Mandatory Outlays.

Mandatory Outlays have increased by 2620% from 1971 to 2010, or from 72.9 billion to 1,909.6 billion per year. I will break it down in 10-year chunks. From 1971 to 1980, it increased 414%, from 1981 to 1990, it increased 188%, from 1991 to 2000, we saw an increase of 160%, and from 2001 to 2010 it increased 190%. Dollar figures for those periods are 72.9 billion to 262.1 billion for '71 to '80, 301.5 billion to 568.1 billion for '81 to '90, 596.5 billion to 951.5 billion for '91 to 2000, and 1,007.6 billion to 1,909.6 billion for 2001 to 2010.

Social Security outlays have increased 163% from 2001 to 2010. In dollars, it went from 429.4 billion to 700.7 billion. Our debt at the end of 2010 was over 13 trillion dollars. Given the vital importance to individuals on fixed income, changes to this outlay are very hard for me to justify, but I do not know if it is possible to close the 2010-budget deficit of 1.3 trillion and pay off the debt without changes to this metric. If we were to apply the 3% per year cap, it would break down to going from 429.4 billion per year to 560.3 billion, giving an annual savings of 140.4 billion. I want to see if we can get that from other places and leave this alone.

Medicare outlays have increased from 2001 to 2010 by 219%. The dollar amount of that increase is from 237.9 billion in 2001 to 520.4 billion in 2010. Applying the standard 3% per year increase would take the outlay from 237.9 billion to 310.4 billion. If we apply the generous rounding to 311 billion per year, it would cut 209.4 billion from the budget.

Medicaid outlays saw an increase of 211% from 2001 to 2010. Total dollar amounts are increased from 129.4 billion in 2001 to 272.8 billion in 2010. 3% per year increase adjustment takes it from 129.4 billion to 168.8 billion, with a rounding up to 170 billion. That would give us a savings of 122.8 billion a year.

Income Security outlays have increased from 2001 to 2010 by 306%. The dollar value of this increase is from 143.1 billion to 437.7 billion. Since this category included unemployment payments, that can be pointed to as the primary driver of the increase. Applying the 3% per year increase, it would make the increase from 143.1 billion in 2001 to 186.7 billion. This would provide 251 billion per year in savings.

Other Retirement and Disability outlays have increased by 149% from 2001 to 2010. In dollars, it moved from 93 billion to 138.9 billion per year. This category includes retirement for military and government workers, and like Social Security, my personal opinion is that it should not be touched. With that in mind, the 3% per year increase cap if applied would amount to going from 93 billion per year to 121.3 billion. Applying my rounding it would come to 122 billion per year and provide a potential of 16.9 billion per year. I also want to see if we can protect this outlay by getting the savings from other areas.

Other program outlays have decreased from 64.5 billion in 2001 to 23.3 billion in 2010. Obviously, this outlay provides no opportunity for saving from the budget.

The total savings from Mandatory Outlays is 475.3 billion not counting the retirement outlays. If there is no other way to find the savings it could be increased to 632.6 billion a year in savings.

Closing the deficit and Paying off the DEBT.

With changes to how we pay for healthcare.

Total ethical outlay savings is 870.5 billion a year. Of course if we were to implement my changes to healthcare we would cut a total of 793.2 billion from the Outlays budget, a new Income and Outlays budget would need to be created for public healthcare, but that should be operated independently from this budget. If the healthcare changes are implemented the total outlays savings in my plan would be 1,663.7 billion dollars per year. The current annual deficit for 2009 was 1,294 billion dollars; these cuts along with the healthcare changes would provide a surplus of 369.7 billion per year. To pay off the debt of 13,164 billion at the end of 2010 in a 10-year plan would require us to pay down 1,316.4 billion per year. Add the budget cuts to that and we need to increase Revenues by 946.7 billion per year.

Without changes to how we pay for healthcare.

Considering that, economists have projected that unemployment will not recover for the next 5 years; we have to look at the tax revenues we have currently. The current deficit is 1,294 billion dollars and the savings described are 870.5 billion, leaving a deficit of 423.5 billion per year. Considering the debt of 13,164 billion at the end of 2010, we should set a 10-year reduction plan. To pay off the entire debt we would have to pay down 1,316.4 billion per year. If you added the 423.5 billion still needed to make the annual budget balance, we would have to increase the revenues by 1,739.9 billion per year. The total revenues for 2010 were 2,161.7 billion and paying off the debt in 10 years would require an almost doubling of the current tax revenues. I will figure for 10, 15, and 20 years.

Flat tax increase.

With my healthcare plan.

For 10 years, the total revenue per year would require 3,108.4 billion, which is an increase of 143.8%. So when you do your taxes you would take the total tax, (1040a line 37, 1040EZ line 11), and multiply by 1.438. The US median household income for 2009 was $49,777, with the median adjusted gross income of $33,048. The standard deduction for a single person is $9,350 and for married filing jointly is $18,700 giving a taxable income of $23,698 for single filers and $14,348 for married filing jointly. The total tax on those is $3,133 for the single example and $1,433 for the married example. To cover the deficit and debt in 10 years it would increase to $4,506 for the single and $2,061 for the married.

My personal finances would be $117,589 adjusted gross income, itemized deductions of $19,349 and exemptions of $14,600, making my total taxable income $83,640. My total tax is $13,269, I have credits of $3099 making my total tax for 2010 $10,170. My increase for the 10-year plan would go to $14,625. For the class warfare that the politicians like to use, I compare my finances to the median figures. The median earner pays taxes of 2.9% of their wages for the married example and 6.3% for the single example. I pay 8.7% for my married income, which is 5.8% more than the median example. For the 10 year plan those number would change to 4.1% for the married example, 9.1% for the single example, and 12.4% for me.

For 15 years, the total revenue per year would require 507.9 billion more than the 2010 revenues for 2,669.6 billion, which is an increase of 123.5%. Using the same three examples the new tax would be $3,870 for the single, $1,770 for the married, and $12,560 for me. Percentage of income would move to 7.8% for the single, 3.6% for the married, and 10.7% for me.

For 20 years, the total revenue per year would require 288.5 billion more than the 2010 revenues for 2,450.2 billion, which is an increase of 113.3%. Using the same three examples the new tax would be $3,550 for the single, $1,624 for the married, and $11,523 for me. Percentage of income would move to 7.1% for the single, 3.3% for the married, and 9.8% for me.

Without my healthcare plan.

For 10 years, the total revenue per year would require 3,901.6 billion, which is an increase of 180.5%. So when you do your taxes you would take the total tax, (1040a line 37, 1040EZ line 11), and multiply by 1.805. The US median household income for 2009 was $49,777, with the median adjusted gross income of $33,048. The standard deduction for a single person is $9,350 and for married filing jointly is $18,700 giving a taxable income of $23,698 for single filers and $14,348 for married filing jointly. The total tax on those is $3,133 for the single example and $1,433 for the married example. To cover the deficit and debt in 10 years it would increase to $5,655 for the single and $2,587 for the married.

My personal finances would be $117,589 adjusted gross income, itemized deductions of $19,349 and exemptions of $14,600, making my total taxable income $83,640. My total tax is $13,269, I have credits of $3099 making my total tax for 2010 $10,170. My increase for the 10-year plan would go to $18,357. For the class warfare that the politicians like to use, I compare my finances to the median figures. The median earner pays taxes of 2.9% of their wages for the married example and 6.3% for the single example. I pay 8.7% for my married income, which is 5.8% more than the median example. For the 10 year plan those number would change to 5.2% for the married example, 11.4% for the single example, and 15.6% for me.

For 15 years, the total revenue per year would require 1301.1 billion more than the 2010 revenues for 3,462.8 billion, which is an increase of 160.2%. Using the same three examples the new tax would be $5019 for the single, $2296 for the married, and $16,292 for me. Percentage of income would move to 10.1% for the single, 4.6% for the married, and 13.9% for me.

For 20 years, the total revenue per year would require 658.2 billion more than the 2010 revenues for 2,819.9 billion, which is an increase of 130.4%. Using the same three examples the new tax would be $4085 for the single, $1869 for the married, and $13,262 for me. Percentage of income would move to 8.2% for the single, 3.8% for the married, and 11.3% for me.

Back to the political class warfare angle.

The increases for the 20-year model are much more palpable; however, in comparison this model shoulders the lower income earner with more of the burden. Let me explain. In the current 2010 model single, married, and me pay 6.3%, 2.9%, and 8.7% of income in federal taxes respectively. With my healthcare changes. For the 10-year model, it is 9.1%, 4.1%, and 12.4% respectively. For the 15-year model, it is 7.8%, 3.6%, and 10.7% respectively. For the 20-year model, it has 7.1%, 3.3%, and 9.8% respectively. Therefore, the difference is the gap between them. 10 year plan I pay 8.3% more of my income in taxes than the married median household example, while in the 15 year plan it goes down to a 7.1% difference, and in the 20 year plan it goes down to a 6.5% difference. Without my healthcare. For the 10-year model, it is 11.4%, 5.2%, and 15.6% respectively. For the 15-year model, it is 10.1%, 4.6%, and 13.9% respectively. For the 20-year model, it has 8.2%, 3.8%, and 11.3% respectively. Therefore, the difference is the gap between them. 10 year plan I pay 10.4% more of my income in taxes than the married median household example, while in the 15 year plan it goes down to a 9.3% difference, and in the 20 year plan it goes down to a 7.5% difference.

If you want to be fair it is still a 3% increase for all, but the percentage of income is drastically different. The numbers clearly show that the flat percentage increase across the board increases the difference between the percentage of income the median household pays and what I pay. Therefore, the flat tax application does make the higher income earner shoulder more of the burden.

One thing we have to consider is how I got to AGI for these examples. A quick rundown on how my income is broken down to AGI, compared to the median income examples I used. First, we have to look at how net income is reported for tax purposes. My wife is a teacher who is not eligible for Social Security credits from her job; therefore, she does not pay Social Security wages. She does have a teacher's retirement pension, but she pays 14.82% of her pay for that pension. She gets medical insurance for herself paid for by the school. She was paid 54,187 for the year and was taxed for 1.45% Medicare on that amount. For income taxes, the amount she paid into retirement is not counted as taxable income, so her taxable wages are only 46,157. For me I was paid 78,064, which I was taxed on for Social Security and Medicare. However, I put 6,645.72 (8.5% of salary) into a 401k, making my federal income taxable earnings just 71,418. Furthermore, my company matched 2,285.06 that also did not count as salary. My actual pay received was 88,867.57 for the year. So how did I get from 88,867.57 to 71,418? The 401k contribution is pre-tax, so is my contribution for medical for me and my 2 kids (my wife gets free healthcare, but my insurance plan is much better than hers so I cover our kids) which is 303.35 per paycheck or 7,887.10 per year. I also got reimbursements for health club dues, and some education cost reimbursement that does not count as income as long as it is fewer than 3,000 per year. So my total compensation combined with my wife's is 143,054.57, of that 117,589 is taxable income this year, 16,960.78 plus gains or losses from the stock market will be taxable in the future, and 8504.79 will never be taxed. Of that 8504.79, 7887.10 was for health care costs (medical, dental, vision) and 617.69 was untaxed reimbursements.

My plan to change how we pay for healthcare.

This year my wife and I paid $1,917.64 for Medicare as did our employers, for a total of $3,835.28. I also paid $7887.10 (This includes my copay and out of pocket requirements) for insurance for me and my kids and my employer paid a reported $8,994 for my children and me. I am not sure how much my wife's employer paid for her healthcare. However if I were to pay a flat 8.55% for healthcare, which was matched by my employer it would amount to $6,674.47 my contribution plus $6,674.47 for my employer totaling $13,348.94 for me. The 2.9% currently paid for Medicare would go to the General Revenue bucket to keep current receipts the same, making the new tax a flat 10% total (10% for employee and 10% for employer). In addition, for my wife an employer only contribution would be $4,632.99. The total for both of us would be $17,981.93 for healthcare per year. This should be able to cover the cost of universal healthcare for all when extrapolated throughout the working population.

So let us compare those numbers.

10% (8.55% for healthcare and 1.45% Medicare to General Revenue) for my employer and me is $15,612.80 ($7,806.40 each), which is less than both currently pay now ($1,131.93 + $7,887.10 = $9,019.03 my share and $1,131.93 + $8,994 = $10,125.93 my employer’s share). For my wife’s employer and her is $6,204.41 ($785.71 my wife’s share and $785.71 + $4,632.99 = $5,418.70 her employer’s share). Reducing the amount down to a 3.5% (2.05% healthcare + 1.45% Medicare) contribution for each for a total of 7% for lower income workers should make it affordable for both workers and employers.

So to summarize my changes, all outlays except for the retirement programs will be brought down to levels from 10 years ago, with a 3% annual increase applied, and a generous rounding up to get to the new level. On top of this, until the total US Debt is retired there will be a mandatory cap of 3% per year increase applied. There should also be a required constitutional amendment put to a vote to force an annual balanced budget. The Healthcare system in the United States should be funded by a 2.05% tax on income for all workers in the bottom 40% of earners and a 7.1% tax on all income for the top 60% of earners. The employer will match this tax; in exchange for this new tax, Corporate Income Tax will be eliminated. (Most corporations find a way not to pay any corporate income tax anyway, this new tax would be based off of salary paid in all forms. i.e. income, bonuses, stock options, etc.) Individual income taxes will be increased by 143.8% for all.

Not a word from the GOP when Wall Street was given four trillion dollars, now the GOP and Tea Partiers want to pay back debt on the backs of Social Security and Medicare.

The most ironic part of the entire CBO report is that they essentially tell the Congress and the White House what must happen; raise taxes and reduce entitlement expenditures. Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle are unwilling to even consider giving their "sacred cows" to the feast. Whether anyone likes it or not, tax revenue must be increased; period. Whether that's through the closing of the tens of thousands of loopholes that currently exist, raising any one (or several) of the various kinds of taxes that are collected, or a combination of all of them, expenditures must be increased. Yes, there are a lot of different 'taxes' out there. But history has proven time-and-time again that the citizens of this nation can pay significantly more in taxes, and continue to be able to succeed in whatever manner they choose. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans do enjoy and appreciate many of the things that the government created, has provided, and in some instances still provides. If we are to continue to have things like (relatively) affordable electricity, water, etc., then we have to pay the bills which ensure that they continue to (relatively) affordable, safe and necessary.

On the flip side, the government must do something significant to rein-in healthcare and other entitlement costs; period. The single worst thing that was ever done for or to the healthcare industry was to allow healthcare providers and health insurance companies to be "for profit" entities. The minute that happened, the overwhelming majority of companies engaged in those enterprises became infinitely more interested in increasing their profitability at any and every way imagineable. The biggest 'losers' in converting those industries to non-profit would be the highest paid executives who gain a significant share of their annual wealth from stock options and other related forms of compensation. We should really question the validity of having the industries which, in large-part, ensure our continued health as a society most concerned about making more profits than the year before. Like it or not, the specter of "death panels" is not something new; not in any way, shape or form. The first time that an insurance company said "no" to a necessary medical procedure is the day that "death panels" became a reality.

And with regard to Social Security ... it's been touted over and over again that the most simple and just way to fix the solvency issue for that program is to raise or remove the caps placed on incomes who have to pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes. I'm actually a bit surprised that more low and middle income wage-earners aren't a bit more upset about the fact that if they make around $100,000/year every penny of their income is taxed for Social Security and Medicare; while those making more than that do not. And let's not kid ourselves. While some may have a problem with those programs on some philosophical basis, those programs have contributed significantly to the health and welfare of senior citizens and those affected by disability. It would be nice if every family made enough to be able to support their parents in perpetuity after they retire or are unable to work any longer (and the same goes for those who are disabled). It would be nice if there were charitable organizations of sufficient size and scope that could/would be able to provide some measure of care/sustenance to those who do not have a family to provide for them. It would be nice if a whole lot of things were different. But they're not. And while some may claim to detest things like Social Security and Medicare, many of those same individuals are unwilling or unable (or both) to step into the void that would be created should those programs no longer exist. And what is one of the most hypocritical and sadly ironic things to come from the continued debate over these entitlement programs is that while many 'say' that they're against them, they sure as heck do not hesitate to take advantage of them at the first opportunity to do so. Sure ... they paid into it (most likely) ... so they should be able to use it when it becomes available. No argument there. But then don't turn around and say you want to do away with it. Because if you do, then you're doing serious damage to the validity of your own argument .... it's pretty hard taking someone serious about doing away with those programs if they're, at the same time, using/benefitting-from them.

And finally, with respect to the wars ... I agree with some, maybe many, that we need to take a careful look at the "how's" and "why's" of our various uses of military might around the globe. We need to turn away from the policy of "nation-building by force." And while I would like to think that we could stop being "the world's police," it's wishful thinking (if not just plain ridiculous) to think that the countries of the world will "get along" sufficiently well to not require someone standing behind them telling them to "behave!" All one needs to do is open a history book ... any history book ... even the Bible ... to know that that has not and will not happen. And while some might think it would be possible for us to "pull back" to within our borders and not be involved in any country outside the U.S. except when/if they directly threaten us, that's not a rational view on geopolitics either. There might have been a time ... perhaps back in the late 19th or early 20th century where the U.S. could just stand back and let other countries "have at" each other. But that's not the case any longer. Ever-increasing globalization of commerce makes nearly every little "flare-up" in some backward country that few know the name of a potential economic problem to us here in the U.S. Even piracy, something many most likely believed went out with ships that were powered solely by the wind, is once again becoming an increasing problem for our nation's economy. Yes ... we need to return to a foreign/military policy of some restraint and clear thinking ... and we also need to take a serious look at requiring payment for the "protection" that our nation provides others ... either in cash or "in kind" (meaning they give us goods instead of actual money). That may seem or sound barbaric and immoral to some. Sadly, our nation cannot afford to continue to ensure a reasonable quality of life for our seniors and the disabled, while also ensuring continued "safety from assault or invasion" to scores of countries around the world. Those countries that receive our 'protection' should pay for it ... or provide them own (allowing us to bring our men, women and materiale home).

There should be no doubt; this nation faces a fairly stark future if we do not start demanding our politicians act like reasonable and responsible adults. ALL of them! The blame for our current situation lies squarely with all of the politicians currently in-power and those of the past 4 decades. And yes, I mean every single one of them. Yes ... there have been some that have done good things. There have been some who were able and willing to look and act beyond their partisan and ideological boundaries in order to provide a better, more prosperous quality of life for ALL Americans. But many of those same individuals stood lamely to the side and allowed one stupid piece of legislation after another, suggested and promoted (at different times) by members of all political stripe, and didn't lift a hand, or their voice, to stop it. To address our current issues, we must learn to ignore those politicians who refuse to consider reforming and raising tax expenditures. And we need to learn to ignore those politicians who refuse to consider reforming entitlement programs. And we need to ensure that our politicians hear our voices first, foremost and always before they hear those being raised by some multinational corporation.