How We Won’t Eliminate the Deficit
Last week the Congressional Budget Office issued a new edition of Budget Options, its biennial publication detailing hundreds of proposals that would raise or lower taxes and spending. Numbers in the revenue chapter of the nearly-300-page book show just how difficult it will be to raise the taxes needed to fill the huge deficit hole that we’ve dug for ourselves.
Back in June, CBO’s Analysis of the President’s Budget projected a $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009 and a cumulative $9.1 trillion deficit over the subsequent decade if Congress enacts the president’s budget proposals. The smallest annual deficit would occur in 2012—only $633 billion. And that ignores the fact that Congress has already given away 85 percent of projected revenues from the president’s cap-and-trade proposal and turned thumbs down on his proposed sources of revenue to fund healthcare reform.
Let’s focus on 2012, the easiest year, and look for revenue options to cover that year’s deficit.
How about boosting all income tax rates by one percentage point? JCT (it runs the tax numbers for CBO’s revenue proposals) estimates that move would yield just $44 billion in 2012, enough to fill about 7 percent of the budget hole. Quintuple the rate hike to 5 percentage points across the board and you might cover a third of the deficit—ignoring behavioral change and the political impossibility of getting that change through Congress.
How about going after itemized deductions? They disproportionately benefit the rich because tax savings are proportional to tax rates. One CBO option would limit their value to 15 percent—thus raising taxes on itemizers in tax brackets above that rate—and bring in nearly $130 billion in 2012, about a fifth of that year’s deficit. Given the howls with which Congress and lobbyists greeted President Obama’s proposed 28 percent cap on deductions, you can guess how popular this idea would be.
Maybe we could take a suggestion from President Bush’s tax reform panel—eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes. JCT says that will get you about $90 billion in 2012. It would also eliminate what amounts to a revenue sharing program for state and local governments at a time when their budgets are in worse shape than the federal fisc.
Of course, we can always go after today’s bad guys and tax carried interest as ordinary income. All but the die-hard anti-taxers might buy that one. And it would raise all of $3 billion in 2012.
It’s like the old joke about skimpy meals in bad restaurants: nobody likes the proposals and they aren’t big enough. There’s just not enough low-hanging tax fruit to wipe out the deficit.
So it’s back to the drawing board. How about another round of tax reform like in 1986? Or maybe it’s finally time to get serious about a VAT.
I'll agree to a consumption tax if you'll agree to a prebate of $500/month per dependent – else no deal. Also it must be unnoticable to consumers, at least for the most part, include a high income surtax and continue to exempt government spending.
Taxing government spending in wartime with a Fair Tax while not increasing budget line items by the same percentage borders on disloyalty.
They were higher under Clinton and going up would be salutary as they take out Market Rent paid to business owners who underpay their employees in monopsonistic labor markets. That Rent is used for speculation, which gives us the bubbles we have experienced.
… but it can't hurt to have the CBO wave the facts in our faces.
I have long believed that tax revenues were near the maximum achievable, at the balance point from which increased tax rates would damage the economy so much that revenue would decline. Even if they could be enacted, it's possible that the CBO's tax increases would backfire by keeping the economy down.
There is only one way out: retire Treasury debt with printed money. Political considerations block all other approaches, not that they would be any less painful. We'll have to learn to live with inflation, at least until the baby boomers die off.
As Churchill said of democracy, this is the worst possible solution, except for all the others.
Comprehensive tax reform is our only way out, with a VAT. You are very correct in your analysis. In the end, it may be needed to pass healthcare.
great post! How about this radical idea… reduce government spending by 20%.
Since the great whore called our government would never do that…
I think a consumption tax is the best way… and it will make it (more) fair for all involved, while revenues would be much more predictable in times of down swings.