Online Exercise in Hard Choices

[divvy]

<snip>
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a bipartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public about issues that have significant fiscal policy impact. The Committee is made up of some of the nation's leading budget experts including many of the past Directors of the Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Federal Reserve Board.
<snip>

I see this as an exercise in reality. The Tea Baggers make budgetary discussions sound so simple, and the "make government a business" crowd of neo-republicans are easily as wrong. Both tend to believe that a Sunday school education in constitutional law and economics held weekly at a church is all that is required to run the country.

Ready to make a few decisions?

Click this link to access the simulator http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

Don't forget to envision the world you have just created.

[OHdem10]

1. Running the Government like a business.: It is the bottom line, Stupid.

People do not matter. The numbers matter. Research
and Development can be cut. The bottom Line, Stupid.
Investments in the future??? The bottom, Line Stupid.
The books must balance, no matter what happens to the
country.

[divvy]

3. I am by no means a conservative.

I agree with your viewpoint. It is about balance. The best way out is to grow our way out by creating well paying jobs.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Total unawareness of reality is a prerequisite for ALL tbaggers, and most repukes.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Businesses live & die by the bottom line

and cannot see much past the end of the next quarter. Is that how you really want government to be run? Rhetorical question, as teabaggers will ignorantly reply 'yes.'

[Warpy]

5. Nice Try

"You reduced the debt to 60% of GDP, but not until 2021. Hopefully, you have done enough to avert a fiscal crisis."

That was fun! I took an axe to military hardware and business subsidies, raised the cap on social security, initiated a jobs program (increasing the revenue stream), kept tax cuts for lowest earners, indexed to inflation, and generally supported the whole thing from the bottom up, figuring the top would take care of itself even with reduced income.

According to this particular model, that's what has to be done.

Some of the options were inadequate, like no option to lower the Medicare eligibility age at a 100% buy in for workers instead of starting a whole new public insurance plan. Likely that would have saved still more since a new infrastructure wouldn't have to be developed.

[Chan790]

15. I managed to get it to 53%

However, I'm evil. I cut every business subsidy, recouped the ARRA funds, raises taxes on the upper class mercilessly, funded public transit, cut foreign aid and highway funds and we're not going to Mars.

[Warpy]

16. I didn't cut highway funds, too much crumbling infrastructure.

I also didn't cut foreign aid, we need to respond to disasters, especially. I'd want to take over distribution of that aid, though, so food doesn't get loaded onto a dock on Monday and onto another ship on Wednesday, sold by the government to get hard currency for weapons while the people starve (true story).

As for the ARRA funds, I'd have been choosy and canceled the tax cut the ungrateful twits never noticed. Tax cuts never work for the bottom 95%, although having the bottom quintile pay taxes at all is obscene.

Anything that stimulated the bottom by providing jobs or through direct payments, I kept, since that also stimulates employment. I don't think the effect of increased employment on the revenue stream was accounted for.

[Unvanguard]

6. Some of this is misleading.

E.g., a jobs bill proposal increases the debt up front, but might also increase growth, which would have the opposite effect.

[existentialist]

9. .Of course,

One can't put together a program like this without some guess work.

There will be feedbacks which are difficult to assess, and you correctly point out a good example.

Still, I found this to be a useful exercise.

[Unvanguard]

10. It is a very useful exercise, and I'm glad I did it. n/t

[existentialist]

7. Thank-you

K & R

[Scuba]

8. Where are the other options? Like ....

... taxing the top few percent until they're only "fabulously wealthy".

[Warpy]

11. Right, it left a lot out

but probably because it took into account the fact that government is clogged with conservative dead wood who would never realistically do that sort of thing.

Spending at the bottom always increases growth and that increases the revenue stream.

[Scuba]

12. So the survey should be called "what parts of my plan do you agree with?", not "what would you do?"

[existentialist]

13. There were some options on raising taxes on the richest.

I chose most of them.

[Old and In the Way]

14. A very important educational tool.

I managed to get below the 60% threshold - the key here is repealing the tax cuts. Otherwise, there's no way to realistically contain the deficit from growing. This would be a great teaching tool in schools and i hope this goes viral. The so-called "conservatives' ought to explain how their cut taxes/grow defense spending will reduce the federal debt. I hope they continue to refine this model and add more variables within the choices so the user can fine tune their decisions (ie - not really much line item detail in the Defense budget). Still, it's a great tool to expose the core hypocrisy with Republican/Tax Party rhetoric.

[divvy]

17. There are huge differences in veterans benefits

There are huge differences in veterans benefits through the years. There were no discernible benefits for the Civil War Veteran, and the WWI veteran got a 30 day free membership at the YMCA.

Today, Veterans enjoy lifetime health insurance, early retirement, a college education, and special help with housing just to name a few perks. It would be political suicide, but it seems that this compensation has been enriched beyond the norm.

The true cost of the military goes far beyond wages and hardware for active service employees.

[quaker bill]

18. Not enough choices

many choices I would make do suffer from political reality making them unrealistic, but a better simulator would give additional options. Bigger cuts to defense spending would have been a nice option to have.

[Greyhound]

19. Piece of cake. Increased domestic infrastructure spending, expanded benefits for those on the bottom...

and reduced the debt to 58%. All without hurting anyone except the DoD and the "investor class". Of course a couple of sacred cows were killed and I can't expect to be elected to a second term, but I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Two things; 1. they've conflated and combined SS income and expenses throughout this exercise which should not be allowed. And 2. there are many, many win-win options not even considered.

[divvy]

20. kick