Esquire Magazine put together a commission to balance the budget. You may not agree with all their decisions, but at least they did it. If you want to skip to the detailed results, they are here. They did it with a combination of sensible spending cuts with a small amount of tax increases.
-
‹ Home
Info
-
Subscribe
-
-
Users
Links
- About.com Political Humor
- Adam Zyglis
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- August J. Pollak
- Bad Mouth
- Barry Deutsch
- Bart Cop
- Bearman Cartoons
- Big Fat Whale
- Brown Man Thinking Hard
- Bullseye Rooster
- Capitol Steps
- Cartoon Blog
- Centrist Zealot
- Colbert Nation
- Cracked
- Creators Syndicate
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Dissociated Press
- Eclectablog
- Ed Stein
- Editorial Cartoonists
- Far Left Side
- Fark Politics
- Free Wood Post
- Friends of Irony
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Griper News
- HuffPost Comedy
- Humor Gazette
- In My Humble Opinion
- Indecision Forever
- Jim Hightower
- John Jonik
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Bors
- Matt Davies
- Matt Taibbi
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- Mighty Heaton
- Mildly Relevant Thoughts
- Mox News
- News Corpse
- News of the Weird
- Penrose on Politics
- Political Carnival
- Political Disgust
- Political Humor Abroad
- Political Relief
- Politics (Un)Seriously
- Politicususa
- Prose Before Hos
- Pundit Kitchen
- Ranker Politics
- Satirical Political
- Saturday Night Live
- Self Deprecate
- Serum Magazine
- Slowpoke
- Stonekettle Station
- Subnormality
- Taibblog
- Ted Rall
- The Beast
- The Big Empty
- The Impolitic
- The Onion
- The Strip
- This Modern World
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- Troubletown
- True/Slant
- Untravel
- Visible Mystery
- Washington Fancy
- Weird Universe
- What Now Toons
- Yellow Daily News
-
Categories
-
Tags
Abortion Banks Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Deficit Deficits Democracy Democrats Drugs Economy Education Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration McCain Media Military Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terror Terrorism Terrorists Torture Unemployment Unions War
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
You are visitor #
5 Comments
Because Esquire isn’t worried about being re-elected or trying to look important.
Having only looked at the results, all I can say is that this is interesting. I think some of their savings are a little optimistic. I’ve seen plenty of studies on malpractice reform and I’ve never seen a good study project national savings anywhere near the billions. Hundreds of millions, but not billions.
I’m surprised they did not take on frivolous lawsuits by businesses targeting individuals or other businesses that do actually cost the federal court system billions of dollars.
They did this using many of the same assumptions in the NY Times deficit balance game that IK posted a link to earlier this week. Malpractice reform in health care (according to the NY times game) saves something like $8B per year now and $13B per year down the road, so it’s noticeable – but not the biggest chunk.
It’s very possible to balance the budget, but you just can’t leave Medicare, Social Security AND Defense off the table to do it. Eventually perhaps people will come around to the idea that we can still have the world’s best military but not spend quite as much as we’re spending now to get it.
Especially since we spend more on health care per capita than anyone else, and yet we don’t have the best health care system in the world.
Why is it that Republicans get it that you can’t always just throw money at a problem to solve it, and yet they insist on just throwing money at the military?
On the military piece it’s probably because so many manufacturers and business are needed to support the military. From the people who make the boots, to helicopters, tanks, guns, bullets, food, clothing, etc. It’s an enormous industry and very beneficial locally for those with defense industry comp’s in their districts. It equates to good jobs and political contributions. Many of the businesses that support the military are also “small” businesses that get lumped in with the wealthy, which may be another reason why they are stubborn on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy fall.
Think about it. In the military there are troops, between all 5 branches (yes the coasties are a branch), active, reserve and guard there may be 2 million + members. They all need 4-6 sets of uniforms, 10-12 sets of socks, T-shirts, etc. A minimum of 2 pairs boots, dress shoes, dress uniforms, 3 meals a day X 365 days, at least 1 weapon each, ruck sack, helmet, body armor, and on and on. Much of that gear has relatively short life spans, especially in combat.
All the gear and supplies is bought on the market, all is american made. It a huge business broken down into many small companies. Each falls into some congressman’s district and when they get business, congressman get contributions and votes.