Reduce the deficit, um, just not on me

Posted by Al Lewis on December 11, 2010
Washington
Cara Eastwood Baldwin

Former Republican U.S. Senator Alan Simpson and President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles have laid out a bold plan for reducing the national debt.

I just had to give them an earful about reducing or eliminating my mortgage deduction. This would represent a huge tax increase on me – not to mention my fellow members of the middle class.

Simpson and Bowles just laughed me off, as you can see from this photo.

Bottom line: Nobody is going to like everything about this plan, but without it, America is surely going to be belly-up broke. Simpson and Bowles hope that as they eliminate cherished deductions they can also lower tax rates and broaden the tax base.

There’s a lot of harsh but needed medicine in their plan. I don’t like it. But I am afraid we need it.

And I laud Simpson and Bowles for keeping their solution to 57, very readable pages when many commissions can’t even stop at 1,000. Click here to read their report.

And Click here to read my column on the Simpson and Bowles.

4 Comments to Reduce the deficit, um, just not on me

Dave Sprecace
December 11, 2010

Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction would be disastrous for the middle class. In essence, we’d be making the middle class homeowners pay the lion’s share of the deficit while relieving the wealthy (who own unencumbered homes) of paying for part of it. It would shift the burden to the middle class. It would also further drop the home-builder and other related industries into the hole–who would buy a home, even when they put 20% down, when they get no deduction? Also, people like me in the middle class bought a home in reliance of that deduction–should the government be permitted to change the rules of the 30-year game in the middle of it?! This is serious. I hang around Republicans, and I’m dismayed that a lot of people actually think it should be seriously considered, saying things like “Europe doesn’t have it”, and “People need to be more responsible about what they spend for a home.” Either of those, as I’m sure you know, are easily refuted. We really need to ween ourselves off the China crap and get more jobs here, NOT hurt the middle class and deepen this recession.

Robert Goldhamer
December 12, 2010

Yes, the mortgage interest deduction is a long-standing, cherished deduction. And eliminating it would be painful to LOTS of people. But here’s another perspective: the tax code rewards homeowners at the expense of non-owners. While I have personally benefited from this and other deductions, a question arises: is that fair?

To me, a fair approach would be a flat tax rate with no deductions for anything. And I do mean ANYthing. The tax rate could be calculated to cover estimated government expenditures in the coming year. Plus an additional amount toward paying down the deficits.

Deficit spending seems like dishonest economics to me. What’s wrong with paying our bills? I don’t see how the law of economic gravity can be repealed. We either pay our debts or repudiate the debt and declare bankruptcy. This is my view, unencumbered by any economic education or sophistication.

madmilker
December 18, 2010

Well, after 100 years you would think someone would come up with a way but the only thing Clinton did was stir bloomer pudding with a limp cigar and siphoned from trust funds to be able to say he balance a budget.

Only problem, the debt went up each year he was stirring that bloomer pudding. America only had a $2.6 billion national debt in 1910 and just in hundred years it has mushroomed to over $13 trillion. Only one 10 year period the debt went down 1920-1930.

Now, here we have another bunch of stiff-shirt self-centered asinine “my sh!! don’t stink” turnips shouting out another way of camouflaging the reality that America is $57 trillion in the hole.

Only takes a few minutes of a persons time to read this paragraph from “The Flow of Trade in a Global Economy”….

“Now let us look at Wal-Mart again; you buy a product there, 6% goes to the employees, 10-18% is profit to the company, 25% goes to other costs and 50% goes to re-stock or the cost of goods sold. Of the 50% about 20-25% goes to China, a guess, but you get the point. Now then, how long will it take at 433 Billion dollars at year for China to have all of our money, leaving no money flow for us to circulate? At a 17 Trillion dollar economy less than 40-years minus the 1/6 they buy from us. Some say that if we keep putting money into our economy, it would take forever, but if we do not then eventually all the money flow will go. If China buys our debt then eventually they own us, no need to worry about a war, they are buying America, due in part to our own mismanaged trade, so whose fault is that? Not necessarily China, as they are doing what’s in the best interests, and we should make sure that trade is not only free, but fair too.”

and spend a few weeks on Michael W. Hodges “The Grandfather Economic Report series” web site to understand just how elephants and jack@sses acting like turnips have put this great union in this mess.

There are now only five nations on this earth left without a Rothschild-controlled central bank: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, and Libya. Weren’t Iraq and Afghanistan numbers six and seven? Where do you think the next war will start?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

God Bless America!

Made In America……………….priceless!

Denver Todd
December 19, 2010

If there is a way to call the deduction a stimulus, the Democrats will vote for it and Obama will take credit for it.