$9 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan - Back in Black

[LesGovt]

Coburn deficit plan offers $9 trillion in savings

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Monday released a plan that he says would achieve $9 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through a combination of far-reaching spending cuts, entitlement reform and increased tax revenue.

“This plan offers the American people 9 trillion reasons to stop making excuses and start solving the problems in Washington,” Coburn said at a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the 600-plus-page plan. “I have no doubt that both parties will criticize this plan, and I welcome that debate. But it’s not a legitimate criticism until you have a plan of your own.”

Coburn deficit plan proposes $9 trillion in savings - The Washington Post

I just received the plan in my email. I have yet to review very much of it, but this contains a huge amount of details. It is my understanding that this plan will not make everyone happy, but it contains elements that both political have said they want. Look it over and advise your thoughts.

Here is the link to a section by section of the report:

Back in Black: A Deficit Reduction Plan - Tom Coburn, M.D., United States Senator from Oklahoma

Here is a link to the summary of the savings:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ac3f0d39-1cc2-4bac-b170-42fc20111974

 

[LesGovt]

Dr. Coburn's plan to reduce our nation's long-term deficit saves roughly $3 trillion from entitlements, $3 trillion from discretionary and other accounts, $1 trillion in defense, $1 trillion from ending some spending in the tax code, and about $1 trillion in interest costs. This plan would gradually reduce the size of government by about 25 percent and balance the budget within ten years.

Conservatives, what concerns you with the above numbers?
Liberals, what concerns you with the above numbers?

Education Recommendations: Reduce, Empower, and Innovate
In order to return more control to the local level, funding for all elementary and secondary programs should be combined into a single funding stream and reduced by 50 percent. The remaining federal assistance should be given to states, which would retain complete authority this funding. The assistance should be divided among states based on a percentage of school-aged children, where state and local education departments can direct funding toward their own priorities and goals. This system will allow states to design individualized education plans to fit their unique education needs
and goals. In the place of a single, disconnected federal agency, there will be 50 states incubating educational innovations, with an exponentially greater chance of discovering the best practices that can be used as design models by other states.
These changes would save $25 billion in the first year and $280.2 billion over ten years by consolidating the following programs.

Click on Education link for details. http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ddc51d23-1518-4209-80d5-285a65c52fbe Thoughts?

 

[Thunder]

why not have a plan to reduce the debt $1 trillion per year?

 

[LesGovt]

why not have a plan to reduce the debt $1 trillion per year?

I don't know. I guess $900 billion was a round enough number for the Senator.

 

[Thunder]

I don't know. I guess $900 billion was a round enough number for the Senator.

i want the debt down to a reasonable number...maybe even gone.

though, borrowing money isn't bad....to a limit.

 

[LesGovt]

i want the debt down to a reasonable number...maybe even gone.

though, borrowing money isn't bad....to a limit.

Coburn's plan eliminates the deficit. Beyond the ten years, we can work on the debt.

More cuts: Energy

Ten Year Savings (billions)
EERE 24.59
Fossil 7.32
Office of Science 11.00
Nuclear Energy 8.59
NNSA/EM 33.53
EDER 14.95
Energy Star .63
Indian Energy .06
PMA 1.10
Total $101.77

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TEN YEAR SAVINGS
Discretionary: $101.77 billion
Total: $101.77 billion

http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=00fa3979-9428-4232-be8c-af33d9fcd1b3

 

[Thunder]

id rather we cut less spending and close more tax-loopholes for the greedy rich

 

[LesGovt]

id rather we cut less spending and close more tax-loopholes for the greedy rich

This plan has over $1 trillion in revenue.

 

[cpwill]

and he went straight from this to the disastrous Gang of 6 proposal? sad.

 

[LesGovt]

and he went straight from this to the disastrous Gang of 6 proposal? sad.

Well, who knows what he is up to. He just sent this out yesterday. He may be attempting to sell it to the gang of six or he may have done this for self-promotion. I cannot read his motives.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

The liberals will never, ever support this.
Why?
The massive reduction in government handouts will greatly reduce their voter base.

If we do not spend a penny more per year than in FY2009 (which we all know will never happen), over the next 10 years we will spend:
>$35.18T total
>$22.88T on entitlements
Cut $3T from entitlements? Not enough.

I do not understand why some people continue to refuse to accept the fact that out-of-control entitlement spending, 65% of all federal outlays, is the root cause of our deficits -- the INCREASE alone in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009- just the INCREASE - was $500B.

 

[LesGovt]

The liberals will never, ever support this.
Why?
The massive reduction in government handouts will greatly reduce their voter base.

If we do not spend a penny more per year than in FY2009 (which we all know will never happen), over the next 10 years we will spend:
>$35.18T total
>$22.88T on entitlements
Cut $3T from entitlements? Not enough.

I do not understand why some people continue to refuse to accept the fact that out-of-control entitlement spending, 65% of all federal outlays, is the root cause of our deficits -- the INCREASE alone in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009- just the INCREASE - was $500B.

I'm concerned that some will allow these programs to stay as they are until it is too late to save them or too late to save the nation. Personally, I would like to see an orderly transition to a more secure approach for the future, but the liberals will never agree with my approach, so.....

 

[PzKfW IVe]

I'm concerned that some will allow these programs to stay as they are until it is too late to save them or too late to save the nation. Personally, I would like to see an orderly transition to a more secure approach for the future, but the liberals will never agree with my approach, so.....

At this point in time and space, the only way to curb the deficits is to simply not allow the Federal government to borrow any more money.
Over the long term, it is irresponsible to follow any other course of action.

 

[LesGovt]

At this point in time and space, the only way to curb the deficits is to simply not allow the Federal government to borrow any more money.
Over the long term, it is irresponsible to follow any other course of action.

We are in total agreement.

 

[LesGovt]

I am stunned that the Dems here are not dancing up and down with joy over Senator Coburn's proposal. After all, what we have heard here day after day, after day, is that what needs to happen is that taxes should be raised and the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" should be ended. Well, Coburn's proposal does both. Where is the joy Dems?

 

[PzKfW IVe]

I am stunned that the Dems here are not dancing up and down with joy over Senator Coburn's proposal. After all, what we have heard here day after day, after day, is that what needs to happen is that taxes should be raised and the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" should be ended. Well, Coburn's proposal does both. Where is the joy Dems?

The liberals will never, ever support this.
Why?
The massive reduction in government handouts will greatly reduce their voter base.
:wink:

 

[LesGovt]

The liberals will never, ever support this.
Why?
The massive reduction in government handouts will greatly reduce their voter base.
:wink:

Surely, they are not being disingenuous. They said they wanted to end the tax cut for the "wealthy" and this has been their signuature song for months or years now. Now, a conservative comes along and proposes to do away with those tax cuts and what do I see here? Silence! Total silence.

 

[LesGovt]

Surely, they are not being disingenuous. They said they wanted to end the tax cut for the "wealthy" and this has been their signuature song for months or years now. Now, a conservative comes along and proposes to do away with those tax cuts and what do I see here? Silence! Total silence.

Pzkfw, I'm beginning to believe that the non-conservatives here are being disingenuous about doing away with the "evil" Bush tax cuts. Here is a proposal to eliminate them and, after more than 24 hours, not one non-conservative has said they are pleased that this proposal does exactly that. Truly sad, I tell you, truly sad. And, it may be very telling. *sigh*

 

[Opteron]

Hey, I'm liberal and this is a good plan. It doesn't axe one program or another. The Ryan plan, although it was the first plan, axed medicare and didn't touch social security. This plan addresses everything, looks pretty good. We definitely need to balance the budget and address serious steps in getting there. This thread hasn't got much replies though, I don't know what most people think of the Coburn plan.

 

[cpwill]

this is worth another thread but - the Ryan plan does not "axe" Medicare. it saves Medicare. current law "axes" Medicare.

 

[d0gbreath]

Swap the 3T savings in social programs with the 1T savings in military expenditures and I'll sign off on it. The DoD still burns through money like **** through a tin horn.

 

[Zyphlin]

Considering that entitlement spending is almost double the spending of DOD and are is likely to raise at an exponentially higher number over the next few years I'd say a 3:1 break down is correct if we want to be serious and is relatively even in regards to percentage. Entitlement Spending (SS, Medicare/caid, Unemployment/Welfare, SCHIP) made up 55.85% of all federal spending in 2010. The DOD made up 19.63% of all federal spending. Together, those two grouping...Defense and Entitlements...accounted for literally 75% of our spending.

By cutting both by 25% we'd actually reduce our spending, as a whole, by 20%. If we cut them by 33%, a 1/3rd slash, we would actually save more money than if we eliminated every other piece of government spending including our debt payments. Even then, they'd still make up 67%, more than 2/3rds, of our federal spending.

If we don't deal with Entitlements which makes up a little over half our spending, and defense that makes up almost a quarter of our spending, then we're ignoring the elephants of the room.

IFrom the little I've looked at his plans, I like it. Getting us to deficit neutral and a balanced budget in 10 years would be good, as it would then allow us to FINALLY start honestly attempting to deal with the debt.

To be quite honest, I'd be up for a 1% sales tax on everything over that 10 year period. That tax would be colected and would go ONLY to the debt payments we make. Our debt interest payment alone in 2010 was 164 billion dollars. A 1% tax on spending would've generated about $141 billion in revenue. This would allow us to essentially double down on our debt payments every year while we work towards balancing the budget. Meaning that in 10 years not only should we be at a balanced budget and no longer running up debt but that our debt should be significantly lowered because we'd have been actually paying money towards the principle of our debt rather than just continually covering the interest.

 

[Zyphlin]

Just as a further interesting note...

If we cut the entire DOD budget, dropped it to 0, spent nothing on the military...we'd still be running a 756.3 billion dollar deficit.

If we cut EVERYTHING except for leaving entitlements and payment on our debt interest....we'd still be running a 43 billion dollar deficit.

And just for fun, if we were somehow to cut all our entitlements completely...we'd be running a 589 billion dollar surplus.

If we raised our revenues by 25%, we'd still be running a 890 billion dollar deficit. If we raised our revenues by 50%, we'd still be running a 355 billion dollar deficit. We would need to up it by about 67%, to bring enough revenue in to be deficit neutral. Even if we were to completely cut the DOD's budget all the way to $0 dollars you'd still need to raise revenues by about 35.5% to not run a deficit.

 

[Misterveritis]

At this point in time and space, the only way to curb the deficits is to simply not allow the Federal government to borrow any more money.
Over the long term, it is irresponsible to follow any other course of action.

IT is not too late for the Republicans to walk away. It will hurt in the short term.
We need a balanced budget amendment to force the Congress to balance the budget. No gimmicks. Balance.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Swap the 3T savings in social programs with the 1T savings in military expenditures and I'll sign off on it. The DoD still burns through money like **** through a tin horn.

By this standard, entitlement spending burns thru money like **** thru 3.5 tin horns.