As part of the Spy’s continued coverage of the Democratic Party primary race for the 1st Congressional District, we have asked the candidates to respond to specific questions from our readers. Each week, the Spy will be asking the candidates to provide a summary of their positions.
This week “Ask the Candidates” focuses on the the recommendations by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform chaired by Erskine Bowles and
A few years ago, President Obama commissioned a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to reduce the national budget deficit. The Simpson-Bowles recommendation to the President and Congress was the following:
1. $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by10%.
2. $100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals, such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.
3. Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation, in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.
4. A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.
5. Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.
Do you agree with these recommendations and would you actively seek their adoption by Congress if you were to be elected in November.
John LaFerla
While I agree with the need to bring out deficit under control, I don’t believe we should be making drastic budget cuts at a time when we are struggling to emerge from our worst recession since the Great Depression. I also don’t agree with their recommendations to cut Medicare benefits and raise the retirement age. Also, while I agree that we need to reform our tax code, I don’t agree with many of their specific proposals. For instance, elimination the mortgage interest deduction would put home ownership out of reach for most middle class families. I believe we need to make our tax system more fair and lower the tax burden on low and middle-income families.
Wendy Rosen
The Simpson-Bowles recommendation are a hodgepodge of policy initiatives that are not, and should not, all be related. As such they need each be considered on their merits rather than taken as a whole. Many of the recommendations represent sound thinking and are necessary in order to reduce the deficit. Others are nothing more than capitulation to conservatives in order to create the illusion of bipartisanship- true bipartisanship does not result from throwing various ideas from both sides into a blender and hoping the results are good, it comes from well conceived compromise with the understanding that the majority of this country is not interested in extreme ideological rhetoric and are left waiting for meaningful solutions to serious problems. Each of the proposals that came out of the Simpson-Bowles Commission need to be considered separately and here is how I feel about each one:
Proposal 1.) $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by10%.
While the elimination of earmarks would not have nearly the impact on our deficit that the rhetoric surrounding it often suggests it is a necessary step to restore faith and trust in Congress. Closing 1/3 of overseas military bases would do a great deal not just to cut the deficit but also to improve our economy at home and is an idea that needs to be seriously considered; so much of the salaries relating to these bases wind up being spent in foreign countries- we would be better served if this money were spent at home.
Cutting the federal workforce by 10% is an entirely arbitrary suggestion. Much more effective is the President’s proposal to merge many federal organizations. This will eliminate redundant positions and responsibilities and make our government more efficient as well as less expensive.
Proposal 2.) $100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals, such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.
There is no doubt that increased revenue has to be a part of whatever we do to reduce our nation’s deficit. However, it seems to me that the place we need to start is with the legislation that has added more to our federal deficit than any other. We need to do away with the Bush era tax cuts for those households making more than $250,000 a year.
I think raising taxes on gasoline at this point in time would be particularly problematic. With estimates that gas prices could reach as much as $5.00 a gallon in the coming year we have to consider that in many cases people are spending as much as 12% of their income on gasoline. Until this country makes a dedicated effort to increase fuel efficiency, increase access to effective public transportation, and put an end to Wall Street speculation, raising the tax on fuel would be just another attempt to balance the budgets on the back of working Americans.
Proposal 3.) Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation, in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.
The CBO estimates regarding the costs of health care reform show that it will actually have a positive effect on the deficit. Ultimately, for the good of our country, we need to move closer to Universal Healthcare. However, we already know this is going to do a lot to reduce our deficit.
Proposal 4.) A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.
This proposal is the perfect example of what happens when we do not have true bipartisanship. Not all entitlements are created equal and cannot be treated as such. While farm subsidies so often go to pad the profit margins for big agricultural companies, student loan subsidies are necessary for productive students to continue their education in the face of ever rising tuition costs. Additionally, I find it to be incredibly callous that we would be talking about a cut to military pensions after all that our military and their families have gone through over the last decade or more.
As a military wife I know firsthand how much the members of our military, and their families, sacrifice for their country. We need to be doing more for them, not less.
Proposal 5.) Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.
There is a far easier method of fixing Social Security and reducing the deficit. The simple solution is to simply eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. This is another place where the members of the 1% are not paying their fair share and it is time for them to start. Raising the retirement age and other modifications to the Social Security program are only necessary if we continue to ignore this simple truth. Another thing that we have to remember when talking about the federal deficit and Social Security is that 17.9% of the federal debt is actually owed to the Social Security Trust Fund; as of 2010 this is almost twice the amount of our debt that is held by China.
With all of this in mind I would not support legislation that simply enacts all of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. However, I would support cutting farm subsidies, closing some overseas bases, and ending the Bush Era Tax Cuts. I would also be in favor of tax reforms that close loopholes and make our tax system easier to understand.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.