I solved the deficit

With extra room just in case. Can you do it?

The New York Times has a graphic up that lets you pick and choose how to solve our national deficit. Yes, it might be a bit simplistic, but it proves the point that someone (ahem, you elected) needs to get busy.

My choices can be found at this link. Are they what you’d expect?


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    This is an interesting puzzle solver. The big elephant in the room is that we can solve it rather easily because we don’t have to run for re-election. I’m not sure what that says about our system but it is a reality that will not go away.

    Here is one misleading statement by the NYT author(s) that caught my eye. The explanation given for inacting a Value Added Tax:

    Nearly every other rich country has a tax on consumption, also known as a value-added tax or national sales tax. This option would impose a 5 percent consumption tax, exempting education, housing and charitable giving.

    What is a “rich” country. I assume they are referring to the Denmarks, Switzerlands, Japans, etc. of the world. They fail to point out there are over 130 countries with a VAT that include many more countries in deep doo-doo economically–like Greece, Ireland, Germany, Australia, United Kingdom,Venezuela, Russia, etc.

    Also there has been one state in the US that tried a true VAT– Michigan– (and Louisiana has tried a sorta one). Michigan is presently 50th out of 51 (includes D.C.) in unemployment with a rate of 13.0%. Their other economic issues are well chronicled.

    What I do like is that with a quick overview one can observe the relative amounts involved in our economic issues. I’m gonna play.


  2. Couple quick notes:

    Letting the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans would close the budget deficit gap by $700 billion over the next decade. Maybe I’m missing something but the NYT uses $168 billion over the next 20 years. That’s wrong. Actually, that’s not even close.

    Capping medicare costs at 1% above GDP after 2013 sounds great. I have no idea how we do that but it sounds wonderful.

    The rest of those cuts are like trying to drain the Pacific with a 5 gallon bucket.

    P.S. You sure took a chainsaw to our military spending Lorax. Ouch man. Your cuts just lengthened the time it would take us to sink the entire Chinese navy from 5 days to 7 days.

  3. J. Strupp, so you are right and they are wrong. Period. Because you said.

    Sigh. I’d love to be you since you’re always right about everything. Life would be so much easier.

    Wanna pick a car for me?

  4. yeah – i’m that guy. i think that we really can make our military a lot more lean. especially since I do truly believe that we are living on a new paradigm of combat/war and that our ways of thinking about arming and defending ourselves are vastly outdated (and expensive!)

    but I think Strupp is right that they underestimate some of the stuff. then again, they are only estimates so who knows.

    Cindy, i’d love to help you choose a car. we could even go test driving together and stop off at goolsby’s and tie one on. haha.

  5. Lorax:

    You and Gates are of the same opinion.

    Cindy, all I’m saying is that NYT’s estimates of future revenue losses from extending the cuts don’t seem correct based on estimates widely publicized. Over $600 billion wrong. Something doesn’t seem right.

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    Maybe it’s because it’s Monday. Maybe I’m just having a stupidity attack. Somebody please explain to me why the projected savings to the deficit, if we cut foreign aid in half, is the same in 2015 and 2030. Same if we eliminate earmarks. Help me out here.