Howard Schneider

Howard Schneider
Location
Parsippany, New Jersey, United States
Birthday
February 02
Bio
I am a 54 year old financial services professional. I graduated from Wagner College in 1980 with a B.S in Economics & Business Administration with a minor in Sociology. My interests beyond economics lie in politics, literature, theater, music, and sports. I have always enjoyed writing and I look forward to writing on my varied interests to express my views and interact with others and explore their views. I invite differences of opinion and I am open to having my mind change. The only permanence is change.

Howard Schneider's Links

Salon.com
JULY 24, 2011 12:47PM

A Progressive Answer To Paul Ryan's Path To Social Oblivion

Rate: 1 Flag

I was anxiously awaiting Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan "The Path to Prosperity" a couple of months ago. Many other people were doing the same. Ryan is the Republican House Budget Committee Chairman and he had a reputation for being a responsible budget cutter. I expected extremely sharp cuts in most programs but not a draconian social re-engineering of our entire social safety net. Medicare and Medicaid as we know them are completely eviscerated by Ryan’s plan and are turned into voucher programs. He would also repeal the new Healthcare Reform program just passed in 2010. He claims he will drastically cut corporate welfare by ending bailouts and dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Curiously he refuses to touch tax breaks that benefit immensely profitable corporations such as oil companies. Many programs are eliminated or slashed that have the broad support of the Democratic party while leaving intact programs that are favorites of the GOP. These programs represent a negligible percentage of the budget and thus are simply partisan political cuts. The middle and lower classes have been effectively stripped of most of the social programs that they rely on in his budget plan. To add insult to injury, he included tax cuts for the wealthy and added tax breaks and incentives for Corporate America while making those social safety net cuts. I agree with Rep. Ryan that we urgently need to close this massive budget deficit. It threatens to destroy our country's creditworthiness and will saddle our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. Unfortunately Rep. Ryan has proposed a plan that is a cruel insult to the working class of the United States. If implemented it will drop millions into poverty and leave millions more extremely vulnerable. We can do better than this and I have my own plan to start significantly cutting the budget deficit without endangering the welfare of the vast majority of our citizens. I will address only the three largest parts of the federal budget because they are the only areas that will yield significant savings or revenue to address this massive deficit. These areas are Defense and Homeland Security, social entitlements, and the tax code. These components will yield the savings and revenue that will put the United States on the road to fiscal solvency without sacrificing the working class of our country.

 

The United States military complex has been growing exponentially since the end of World War II. President Dwight Eisehhower warned the nation about the dangers of this phenomenon at the end of his second term. This rapid growth continued on unchecked whether there was a war being conducted or not. The Cold War was the usual reason given for this growth until the Soviet Union fell apart in the 1980's. Yet this growth continued through the 1990's without a war to justify it. Then the 9/11 attacks occurred in 2001 sending military and homeland security spending soaring. Combine this with the subsequent Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and defense spending went through the roof. Military spending for 2012 is scheduled to total 680 billion dollars. Total defense spending including the Homeland Security departments will total 881 billion. The spending for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars will be 118 billion. These runaway expenditures must be cut sharply. Serious cuts may be achieved through a continuation of Secretary Gates' proposals for sharp reductions in redundant weapons systems and military bases. I also believe there should be sharp reductions in troop levels in Europe and Asia. Nuclear weapons expenses should also drop as a result of the new nuclear arms treaty with Russia. I believe we can achieve 80 billion dollars worth of savings annually by way of these cuts. By 2015 the U.S. war commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq should be down dramatically leaving only advisory and support troops. Expenses should be down to a total of 30 billion dollars per year at a maximum. That will save us 90 billion dollars annually. This makes my final estimate of defense savings for military, defense, and homeland security 170 billion dollars a year. It will take a lot of political muscle and tenacity to navigate this plan through Congress, the military brass, and the defense contractor lobbies. If done correctly it will strengthen our economic security without lessening our national defense.

                                   

Now let us turn to the area where Paul Ryan was the most controversial and cruel. This would be entitlements spending. The four main programs involved here are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the new Healthcare Reform plan. Let's start with Social Security. I constantly hear that this program is broken. Nonsense! Demographics caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers will be causing a shortfall in this program for a few decades. The fix is a simple one and long overdue. There is an income threshold where social security deductions can be withheld from employee paychecks but no higher. Currently this income level is $106,800. Social Security has not undergone a major change in its structure since 1983. I believe now is the time for a change especially with so many Baby Boomers retiring. The retirement benefits eligibility age has already been pushed higher a couple of times. I think it is now time to raise that income threshold to $120,000. My estimate is that this change will generate an additional 50 billion dollars a year into the Social Security fund.  Let us then turn to what is probably the thorniest entitlements program. That would be Medicare. A large amount of savings in the Medicare program has already been included in the Healthcare Reform bill which will start in during the year 2014. I believe another 20 billion dollars annually in waste and fraud can be extracted out of this system. Unfortunately these cuts are not enough. Medicare spending is expected to total 468 billion dollars in 2012. Only 57% of this total is now financed through Medicare withholding taxes. The government withholds 1.45% of an employee's wages per check for Medicare as well as taxing his or her employer the same amount. These rates have been in effect since 1987. This was many years before the retirement of the Baby Boomers was due to transpire. The time has come to accommodate this major demographic shift. I propose that this rate be raised to 1.75%. This change would raise approximately another 56 billion dollars annually bringing the percentage of Medicare spending covered by Medicare withholding taxes up to 70%. The balance of Medicare funding comes from general revenues. Medicaid is fully funded by general revenues in the budget. The estimated 2012 expenditures for Medicaid are 269 billion dollars. I believe that 20 billion dollars of waste and fraud could easily be found in this massive yet essential program for the poor. Much skepticism has been leveled at the new Healthcare Reform plan both during its creation and subsequently after its passage. Many predict it will cause the budget deficit to skyrocket. This is why Rep. Ryan wants to repeal this hard fought for new program. I totally disagree with his premises and his conclusions. My belief is that it was a carefully crafted plan and was designed to be budget neutral. I also believe it will remain so as long as its critics are unsuccessful in their attempts to have it significantly altered. Finally there are also several other mandatory programs that are estimated to cost American taxpayers a total of 598 billion dollars in 2012. I believe we can also find savings in these various programs of 60 billion dollars in fraud and waste without much problem. All told I have come up with 206 billion dollars in savings and tax rate hikes in our various entitlement programs that can be applied to the budget deficit.

 

The final aspect of the federal budget that I would like to address is the United States Income Tax Code. My budget deficit solution in this area comes in two parts. The first is very simple. Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012. The expiration of these tax cuts would yield the Treasury an extra 325 billion dollars annually. These cuts were foolishly passed in 2001 due to the large budget surpluses the U.S. was running after years of deficits. My belief is that these surpluses should have been applied to retiring much of the debt that we had incurred during previous years. The economy was humming along and did not need the stimulus that these tax cuts would provide. President George W. Bush promised these cuts in an effort to get himself elected during the 2000 Presidential election. I guess this should put to rest the myth of Republican economic common sense. We went back into a budget deficit almost immediately. Then the terror attack of 9/11 took place and all bets were off. The subsequent spending for homeland and national defense swelled the deficit even further. Then we entered into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and our national budget deficit hit levels never imagined before. Yet President Bush never asked the American people for any sacrifice to fight this "War on Terror" that he had declared. I propose we now eliminate these Bush tax cuts to help balance the budget and return us closer to the fiscal sanity of the 1990's. Finally I would like to address some corporate tax breaks and some individual deductions. The two industries that I would like to focus my proposals for ending corporate welfare tax breaks on are oil and farming. These sectors are flourishing and are generating immense profits. It is hard to justify continuing their tax breaks in this dismal budget environment. The oil industry gets 21 billion dollars a year in tax breaks while they earn much more than that quarterly. These subsidies are almost one hundred years old and are clearly no longer necessary. The industry is now completely mature. Besides, we are attempting to transition to alternative renewable energy sources. The farm subsidies are an anachronism from the Great Depressio era when a huge amount of small farmers were going bankrupt. American farming is now dominated by massive corporate farms which are commanding record profits. It is difficult to argue that they have a real need for the 20 billion dollars a year in subsidies that they currently receive. I would also propose the elimination of the 3 billion dollar ethanol subsidy. Ethanol utilizes almost as much energy to create it than the energy it replaces. Therefore I consider this subsidy to be a total waste of money. I would also eliminate the state and local income tax deduction which costs the U.S. Treasury 50 billion dollars a year. This deduction always seems to be on the chopping block only to be saved at the last minute. I believe the time has come to finally strip this deduction out of our tax code. The deficit is too massive to allow it to continue. I would also place some restrictions on the home mortgage interest deduction. This deduction was abused in recent years helping to fuel the housing bubble. It helped finance many second homes, summer homes, and home equity loans. My restrictions would only allow this deduction for primary homes worth 1 million dollars or less. All other mortgages and home equity loans would now be ineligible for this deduction. The restrictions on this deduction will save the U.S. taxpayer approximately 25 billion dollars a year. All told my changes to the Federal Income Tax Code will generate an additional 444 billion dollars a year and cut the budget deficit by over 40%.

 

The estimated Federal budget deficit for 2012 without any changes stands at 1.1 trillion dollars. The combination of cuts and taxes that I have proposed in this article totals 820 billion dollars annually. I tried to formulate spending cuts and tax changes that made sense and were practical to at least one side of the political aisle. I state this because the Democrats seem unwilling to entertain most spending cuts and the Republicans are repelled by the mere suggestion of any tax hikes or tax break eliminations. Thus it seems impossible to please both sides on any one aspect of my plan. The biggest piece of my proposal is the elimination of the Bush tax cuts which would return us to the last era of fiscal sanity and prosperity. My proposal for Social Security and Medicare paycheck withholding increases will give these vital programs the ability to withstand the assault on them by the retirements of the Baby Boom Generation. The elimination of unnecessary tax breaks for the flourishing Oil and Farm industries are long overdue. At the same time I am asking for severe and painful cuts to entitlement programs totaling 100 billion dollars. This is in addition to 170 billion dollars worth of defense spending cuts. Rep. Ryan estimates that his plan will achieve deficit savings of 4.4 trillion dollars over ten years. My plan would save 7.725 trillion dollars over the course of ten years. I expect increased revenues will be coming into the U.S. Treasury coffers as a result of the economic recovery. This amount should total around 200 billion dollars annually once the economy hits its peak levels. It will probably take around three years for the economy to ramp up to this level. My plan combined with this economic and revenue resurgence should put the budget in balance or near balance by 2015. Rep. Ryan's plan leaves the deficit very far from balanced. His "Path to Prosperity" is heavier on cuts than mine but includes no additional tax revenues. Ironically it includes large tax cuts for the wealthy and Corporate America. This is just not fair and is a spit in the eye to working class America. This bears the classic imprint of Grover Norquist. Grover is president of the group entitled "Americans For Tax Reform". He is against any tax increases and any tax subsidy eliminations. His entire philosophy is quite simple. Starve government to shrink it. Norquist fights all lawmakers tooth and nail to prevent any added tax revenues from entering the U.S. Treasury in any form. He has had virtually all Republicans sign his pledge to never raise taxes. He holds each and everyone of them to it and will campaign strongly against them if they renege on this promise in any way. I feel that my plan is much more fair to all citizens of the United States. It is more effective than the other plans I have read about and probably more politically palatable. The Far Left and the Far Right will most likely howl at my plan. I will take this as a sure sign that I am on to something good if that occurs. Most importantly, the elderly of this country will not be left to secure their own healthcare insurance coverage in a private market that will surely price them out of it. They cannot be asked to bear this price when they are at their most vulnerable stage of their lives. The middle and lower classes will pay more to ensure that their social programs are not pulled out from under them. Everyone will have to pay more and receive a little less. The wealthy will not be getting the tax breaks that Rep. Ryan proposes. They do not need them and they will only increase the wealth gap in our society. Fairness and shared sacrifice are the key phrases that I would use to characterize my long term budget plan. We are all in this great American society together. One for all and all for one. I know that all plans are tweaked and I am fully open to debate on all of my points. The key for me is that fairness and protection of all of our citizens is maintained. Maybe the tax code needs to be changed to stimulate more investment and job creation. Maybe there are more significant cuts that can be found without hurting our most vulnerable citizens too significantly. I hope my plan sparks a lively debate and yields some innovative new ideas. We have little time before our national debt swallows us up and we are put on a permanent road of economic backwardness. Time is running out for not only us but for generations to come.

 

 

Author tags:

open+call, politics, economy

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
As one of the few conservitives on this site let me say that there are things about your plan I like.

First you are cutting now. Who cares what their 10 year plan is? Did you ever notice all the savings in these plans are in years 8-10? I wish someone would do a study on how often they come true. We are going to be short $1.1 trillion this year. Tell me what we are cutting this year!

As for your tax plan, we need to go to the Fair Tax. It ends the games Congress can play with the tax code. It also srops hurting those on the bottom with hidden taxes that in what we buy. Look at gasoline. The governments are making more money on a gallon than the oil companies.

A friend of our has a son who is at his first job and got his first paycheck. We asked what he earned at our Saturday BBQ. When his dad pointed out that the amount he told us was his check amount and not his gross he was pissed. He then realized how much he got withheld.

One of the instant things they can do to move the debt ceiling is if money has been authorized, but not spent, like the balance of the TARP money, it's clawed back and no longer available. Money that is carried on the books and not spent may not be a true savings right now but it will keep someone from using it to reward a friend or buy a favor.
As one of the few conservitives on this site let me say that there are things about your plan I like.

First you are cutting now. Who cares what their 10 year plan is? Did you ever notice all the savings in these plans are in years 8-10? I wish someone would do a study on how often they come true. We are going to be short $1.1 trillion this year. Tell me what we are cutting this year!

As for your tax plan, we need to go to the Fair Tax. It ends the games Congress can play with the tax code. It also srops hurting those on the bottom with hidden taxes that in what we buy. Look at gasoline. The governments are making more money on a gallon than the oil companies.

A friend of our has a son who is at his first job and got his first paycheck. We asked what he earned at our Saturday BBQ. When his dad pointed out that the amount he told us was his check amount and not his gross he was pissed. He then realized how much he got withheld.

One of the instant things they can do to move the debt ceiling is if money has been authorized, but not spent, like the balance of the TARP money, it's clawed back and no longer available. Money that is carried on the books and not spent may not be a true savings right now but it will keep someone from using it to reward a friend or buy a favor.
Thank you for your comments Catnlion. I am glad to receive input from a conservative. I agree that we need measures taken that cut the deficit now. Part of the reason that they backload it is because the economy is so weak that they do not want to drag it down now. But more needs to be cut now. I am willing to listen to Fair Tax offers but there must still be a sharp delineation in rates between the wealthy and poor. The disparity between the two is becoming obscene and growing. Eliminating all tax breaks would be wonderful in such a plan or any plan. Also the resulting plan should truly raise revenues significantly because we need it to balance this budget. I agree that the remaining TARP money should be clawed back. One idea that might be good, though I believe you may disagree, is for the Infrastructure Fund the President would like to create to both stimulate jobs as well as completing necessary infrastructure repairs. It should be a dedicated fund with strong Congressional oversight. Finally I consider the Gas Tax to be important in cutting our demand for oil and gas and to fund alternative renewable energy sources. Our dependence on foreign oil and the danger of global warming requires this. Once again I appreciate your comments and I wish Republicans and Democrats could debate our issues civily and productively like we are doing here.
Howard,

The Fair Tax collects money from the who spend it.

Fuel tax hurts people who can't afford it. I get paid twice for pulling a load. Once for the load and once as a fuel surcharge. Currently I get fifty cents per mile. So if i bring a load of food to the east coast, say apples, 38 cents per pound of those apples is fuel surcharge. Cost of fuel goes down so does the surcharge and the amount that is added to what the public is chargedt
Who gets hurt by transportation charges? Lower income. So when the first lady wants to improve nutrition the policy of running up fuel price is hurting her program.

You want to go to a different type of fuel, find me one that I can currently use and let's go for it. However, we are going to need diesel fuel for a long time. So which would you rather have high fuel prices and starving children or health people and drill baby drill?
Catnlion,

We disagree on the fair tax. A tax based on spending will hurt the poor and middle class much more disproportionately than a progressive tax such as the Income Tax. We need to get rid of all the tax breaks in the Income Tax so the wealthy stop getting away with paying very little. There may sometime be a Value Added Tax that will place a tax on all aspects of a product's production. I still believe we need the gasoline tax. We also need to invest in recharging stations for electric cars. You may not believe it but they will end up in much wider use when the technology brings the prices down. Many will also use both electric and gas. Now this will be a problem with trucks for people who pull loads such as yourself. I cannot see electric trucks coming online any time soon. Therefore the price of food is a little higher due to the gas taxes. No one though will be starving because of it. The true reason for high gas prices is the greatly increased demand in China and India. Thank you again for commenting.
Thanks for interesting ideas, nice to see someone actually looking at the situation in a manner that is productive as opposed to nihilistic. I used to be a conservative until conservatism was taken over by objectivist radicals, fundamental religious fanatics and believers in the governmental exceptionalism that allows the government to say and do things directly counter to the welfare of the citizens of the US. I guess that makes me a reluctant progressive.

That being said, I think the removal of the social safety net is very deleterious to the greater good. Social Security and Medicare have been made necessary at least in part by the congresses failure to keep a handle on the avarice driven financial and health insurance industry. By destroying the value of private pension plans, and underfunding public pensions at both the state and the federal level retirees no long have any chance afford to live and get health care on their own.

The solution to the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls is blatantly evident. The cap on FICA and Medicare taxes should be lifted and all income including dividends and capital gains should be subject to the taxes. If the employer part of the tax is thought to be onerous then keep the cap on employer contributions at its current level. The idea that I who makes a bit under twice the current limit should not pay FICA and Medicare taxes on half my income absurd. I will probably collect more than I have put into the system over the 30 years I am retired, and I am willing to pay more to make sure that others are not pushed farther in poverty than they already will be. Although, I do not have the figures currently available I think it likely that this measure would more than make up for any deficit in these 2 very valuable programs.

All income should be subject to Federal taxes including churches and the religious establishment as well as corporate income. Corporations, who have the rights of persons should be subject to the same responsibilities and limits. Amongst other things these taxes should allow for public financing of political campaigns and put an end to the corporate control of congress which is rapidly moving the US toward third world status by destroying the infrastructure that has educated us and built the community and social structure that has made our country the greatest engine for progress in science the world has ever seen.

As a further note, I would disagree with Catnlion's comments about the fuel tax. Our transportation fuel taxes are not high enough to force economical use of fuels or to pay for the transportation infrastructure. I live off the road system in SE Alaska and am dependent on a ferry system that has to pay for itself and air transport. A 100 mile trip to the nearest city costs well over $100 no matter how I go, and its $600 to $1,000 to get to Seattle to shop and travel on a highway system that is falling apart because the money is not available to fix it. Transporting bulk goods and commuters over the highway system is not a good use of resources, and is not sustainable in the future. But because our fuel taxes are much lower than tose in the rest of the industrialized world there is no incentive to develop the means that are sustainable.

There are solutions to our problems but I do not think that the people currently writing (or not) the laws that run the country have either the ability or will to fix the problems. To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." In my not so humble opinion no sitting member of congress should be reelected, we need to send a message to those who feel they have the need to govern that we, the people, want to live in a better society.
Nitejazz,

Let me first say that I thank you for your comments and views. I also thank you for your willingness to sacrifice more for those who make little or have fallen on hard times. I have found very few who are willing to and I do not understand why. The gap between the wealthy and poor is exploding astronomically. I agree with everything you wrote about including the need for public financing of election campaigns. Unfortunately the current Supreme Court would shoot your idea down as evidenced by the Citizens United decision from January 2010. We are in total agreement that this country should continue its social contract with all its citizens because it is the proper and correct role of government. I am working on another article that will state my ideas for more spending on programs that advance our future because balancing the budget will slow down our economy further. I will make these new programs budget neutral by either other spending cuts or new revenue increases. Thank you for your wise comments.
Nitejazz,

Let me disagree with your statement about not being high enough to force a better way of shipping.

I'll agree you are in a different world up there. If you live in NJ and you go to the store and want to buy an Idaho potato 20-30% of the price is transportation. You could put trailers on trains. You will see them all the time. I still have to take it to the rail yard then to the business at the other end. The other problem is that train ride takes so long, juck the price up again for spoilage.

Here is the challenge for you. Name 1 thing in your house that all or part of it did not ride on a truck. Now pick one item and tell me how you could have gotten it without a truck.
The Fair Tax is an inclusive tax so if you now pay $1.00 for an item you will still pay a $1.00for the item.State taxes are still going to be up to the states.

Every person will get a prebate each month to cover the taxes in the poverty level. So on top of anything else the are given they will get a check for living.

So if a dollar item is still a dollar how will it hurt them?
Catnlion,

You were not clear to me at all in your latest description of the Fair Tax. It still sounds like a sales tax to me. The income tax is fairer because it is progressive and causes the wealthier to pay more for the less fortunate. Nitejazz is not from up North here. He lives in Alaska so he is from an energy state. He knows energy will run out and is ruining our environment. Yes gas will cost more but that is inevitable anyhow. Thank you again for your comments.
It is a tax collected on sales, that's what makes it progressive and makes the rich pay more. Are you saying you spend as much money as Bill Gates in a year? No, then he pays more in taxes than you do.
Catnlion,
The percentage the poor and middle class spend on sales is hugely higher than the wealthy. That is why it is a regressive tax. Their percentage is almost 100%. This tax would crush them.