Give me some links to those numbers - not debating them - just need a link so I can write this damn paper.

So what if we spend more on Defense than everyone else? I think we should but how we spend it is what is wrong, don't you think? You made some great points in a prior discussion as did Ty about the incredible costs of the F-35B as just one example, we will need something like it (V/STOL) but not at 150 million a copy! Imagine if we spent that much more on training troops via ammo, range time, etc....?
As for the Counter-Insurgency Comment, they take at least 10 years on average unless you want us to become the ruthless monsters some posters have implied the military is on this blog. I am all for better DoD spending and wish we would go with cheaper, simpler large dollar items (tanks, planes, ships, etc....) but that is something that would also require a cultural change but not as much in the DoD as Congress. How many times has the DoD stated it did not want something and yet Congress got it anyway? The DoD is a lot like a sports team at a big college, it is going to ask for the world for funding and hope for the best but if the school keeps giving them the money they are going to spend it one way or the other and why wouldn't they?
Another point is that we spend 60% of the entire budget on entitlements and that is only going to rise up to an estimated 80% via the Congressional Budget Office, long term how do we solve that?

The Economist recently sought to answer the question, "Who are the world's biggest employers?"
(http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/employment)

Number one is U.S. DoD

Sure thing, here's one: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending

and another: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/factsheet2010

and another: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending

These seem to be all in roughly the same ballpark though there is no way of telling whether they include the intelligence services or not.

ERIC, I have no problem with the US spending more on the military than do other nations. But that spending has to be realistically balanced with other needs in our society. It also has to be structured around the defense of our vital interests and not speculative wars of choice.

Entitlements are not going away irrespective who controls the White House and Congress. Fortunately, SS is readily fixable by removing the payroll cap, tweaking eligibility and means testing. Medicare is vastly more difficult to repair (unless doctors, hospitals and the drug industry are forcibly coerced) and is not going away either no matter what the Tea Party would wish. The mass constituencies of these entitlement programs make the constituency for military spending look like pikers in comparison.

The American population is aging and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to sell the public on the idea that we spend money on the military and poorly conceived wars at the expense of civilian expectations and needs. This is particularly true when we conduct expensive wars that contribute little to ‘real’ national security or have an identifiable strategic rational that the public comprehends and supports.

With a sick economy that is in ‘relative’ decline and a population unwilling to tax itself to pay for those things they want something has to give. Congress is the prime offender in this situation but the military also must share the blame.

Firstly, the US military has a tendency to promise more than they can deliver. This is particularly true regarding their performance in asymmetrical wars and secondly, for their obsession with big-ticket gold plated procurement programs at the expense of troop training, readiness, support and more rationally price weapons systems.

Lastly, the American public does not have the unity, stamina and will power for expensive long-term inconclusive wars, which are impossible to conclude within a reasonable time frame by their measure not the military’s measure. Even John McCain this week recognized that fact in his public statements.

What the US public will support is a very powerful US military that is fiscally sustainable and used for purposes they can readily relate to. Unless, invaded by Martians they will NOT give up their entitlements (reform them yes) in order placate the military’s desire for a blank checkbook and Congress’s desire to pork barrel the defense budget for their own selfish motives.

Of course their budgets are buried there. There are ways to guesstimate some of them, but it was allot of work when I was an editor in a previous life.

You can be assured that "black" programs are in their. I think some of the NSA and NRO budget items are more easily spotted. When NASA launches a spy satellite, whose budget is that in? {;*))

Still, what's $10 billion here or there?

JPWREL,
Entitlements need to change, radically, even if the people do not like it or we as a country will be done for, say what you want about military spending but it is discretionary, entitlements are not. Think about it, before the health care bill was passed the CBO estimates that entitlements will be 80% of the entire Federal Budget by 2020, what do you think it will be if we go Gov't Program Single Payer? It has to change or the seniors of today are screwing the kids over.

"Entitlements are not going away irrespective who controls the White House and Congress. Fortunately, SS is readily fixable by removing the payroll cap, tweaking eligibility and means testing."-

I do not want SS to go away but if it keeps on it's current course it will go away. They need to get it off it's current gov't burden, put it in the market and base what you can choose for investments on what the Thrift Savings Program (TSP) offers. Means testing is IMO terribly unfair, a private SS system that is managed by the gov't but the money is invested in private accounts with only a re-balanced target fund, a Treasury Fund or Fixed Income Fund to pick from would give those people when they retire more money, prevent Congress from borrowing out of it, increase our GDP as much as 2% (via "The Economist" estimate), allow you to leave it to someone, donate it, whatever and would take the burden off the gov't. IT needs to be done and those who want to keep it in it's current form are acting in a selfish manner and not thinking long term.

"Medicare is vastly more difficult to repair (unless doctors, hospitals and the drug industry are forcibly coerced) and is not going away either no matter what the Tea Party would wish. The mass constituencies of these entitlement programs make the constituency for military spending look like pikers in comparison."-

I agree with you on this, it will be hard to fix but I think it can be fixed, they could save an estimated 20% a year alone if they reformed the administrative costs and who knows how much the ripple effects of savings would have if we had tort reform?

"The American population is aging and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to sell the public on the idea that we spend money on the military and poorly conceived wars at the expense of civilian expectations and needs. This is particularly true when we conduct expensive wars that contribute little to ‘real’ national security or have an identifiable strategic rational that the public comprehends and supports."-

That is fine and dandy when talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan and while agree we need to radically overhaul the DoD and it's spending (except for us of course ;) ) Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan's location play a big part in that conflict.

"With a sick economy that is in ‘relative’ decline and a population unwilling to tax itself to pay for those things they want something has to give. Congress is the prime offender in this situation but the military also must share the blame."-

The military does what it is told, the only thing they should share the blame for is the obvious corruption that goes on at the highest levels of the Pentagon with the seamless transfer from Military Retirement to working for a Defense Company.

"Firstly, the US military has a tendency to promise more than they can deliver. This is particularly true regarding their performance in asymmetrical wars and secondly, for their obsession with big-ticket gold plated procurement programs at the expense of troop training, readiness, support and more rationally price weapons systems."-

Ehhh...not so sure about making a promise they cannot deliver on, most fought against OIF behind closed doors, Rummy fired a bunch, the threat is bigger than you see on the news and as for performance, at the tactical level it has been great it has been at the Strategic Level where the slips up have occurred, I would look to our civilian leadership to take a seat that table of blame right with us.

"What the US public will support is a very powerful US military that is fiscally sustainable and used for purposes they can readily relate to. Unless, invaded by Martians they will NOT give up their entitlements (reform them yes) in order placate the military’s desire for a blank checkbook and Congress’s desire to pork barrel the defense budget for their own selfish motives."-

I agree with you, DoD needs to change but that is easy, getting Congress to change is the hard part.

I'm not sure the CBO projects entitlements to be 80% of the federal budget by 2020.

As I read the Office's budget documents this month, it is projecting that federal debt held by the public could reach 80% of GDP if certain policies are continued. These policies include not imposing cuts in Medicare physician reimbursement now scheduled for the end of this year under current law, and extending income tax rate reductions enacted in 2001 and 2003 beyond their current expiration dates.

CBO is very clear that entitlement spending is the single biggest category of expense in the federal budget now, and will become relatively more important as time goes by, the population ages, and health care costs continue to increase. The Obama administration (correctly) identified this last factor as the most important to our long-term budgetary future and sought to address it in the 2009 health care reform legislation, through steps that will not be fully implemented until 2014. Unhappily, while administrative costs are significant in the American health care system, meaningful reductions in the rate of federal outlays will require major substantive changes both in the kind of health care delivered to seniors and in the lifestyles of Americans in general.

As far as military reform is concerned: a) it is not easy, not even relative to entitlements. b) It is going to require some hard choices about subjects that the military community would rather not talk about -- one of these is the cost of health care provided to service personnel and their families. c) It is going to require we place a time limit on efforts to redeem the mistakes of the Bush administration and the military's leadership in Afghanistan particularly. d) It is going to require a smaller Army and Marine Corps, a realistic assessment as to the naval and air assets required to preserve freedom of navigation in the Western Pacific, and subject to that assessment a increase in naval strength for that purpose and reductions in resources devoted to other purposes.

Finally, military reform and rationalization is necessary for other than fiscal reasons as well. I regret to note the conceit evident on the part of the military community, after nearly 10 years fighting two wars that have not been won, that the American military has never been stronger, is better in every way than it was ten years ago, and is building on a record of success. Also that the military only does what it is told, and every... suboptimal successful outcome is the civilians' fault.

Very likely, it is only the low regard in which so many other American public institutions are held that has sustained the reverence for the military expressed by public officials and the media. Expect that reverence to be temporary if the military fights to maintain the increased budgetary resources devoted to it by the last administration.

Actually, the GAO also estimates it to be even more than 80% of every federal dollar by 2020, that is in Federal Revenue though, ie; taxes, not GDP, big difference.

As for these comments-

"Finally, military reform and rationalization is necessary for other than fiscal reasons as well. I regret to note the conceit evident on the part of the military community, after nearly 10 years fighting two wars that have not been won"-

Who is going to sign the peace treaty on these exactly? Tell me where at the tactical level we are losing? Insurgency/Counter-Insurgency last an average of at least 10 years and the goal is to get the insurgents to the level that they can be handled by the locals or militia's, but we will try to make what things happen on your time table in the future.

"that the American military has never been stronger, is better in every way than it was ten years ago, and is building on a record of success."

I am no fan of the lumbering regular Armies culture but even they have improved since the wars started and Hmm...I think they have adapted, again, back up your points, show me where they have not improved in their counter-insurgency skills? SOF is actually making in-roads via VSO (although we should have been doing this since 2003) and the Marines are doing pretty well themselves but I guess if you do not see a Paris Peace Accord, Treaty of Westphalia or at lest something that one can frame on a wall no successes can be marked?

"Also that the military only does what it is told, and every... suboptimal successful outcome is the civilians' fault."-

I must have missed it where the Military is now dictating policy and strategy, even at the strategic level for the wars all we do is make suggestions, civilians make the call and that has the way it has always been. The military shoulders blame for advice it gives and the flags officers for not having the political courage to resign and speak out but in the end the calls are still made by the civilian leadership no matter what we advise. But hey, perhaps you know something I don't? Did the Military want to go to Iraq? Did the Military want to ignore Afghanistan for almost a decade?

"Very likely, it is only the low regard in which so many other American public institutions are held that has sustained the reverence for the military expressed by public officials and the media. Expect that reverence to be temporary if the military fights to maintain the increased budgetary resources devoted to it by the last administration"-

I do not expect it to change whatsoever and if you expect it to change because Flags will continue to ask for the world when it comes to budgets you have not been following the news the last 30 years and most certainly have not been following Congress who have kept programs alive or attempted to revive others purely for their own needs. The military is held in high regard because it is under a different set of rules, does what it is told by elected officials and we do a job most do not want to do not because everyone else in gov't is held in "low regard" as you imply, but hey maybe you know something I don't?

One more point, you talk of conceit in the Military yet your post drips with arrogance but it is also full of ignorant commentary, while I can be snarky at times at least I know what I am talking about.

Actually, I apologize for that last paragraph, it was not needed and I should avoid that kind of thing on here. Cheers.

I have no doubt that Eric Stratton thinks he knows what he is talking about.

As best I can make out, GAO made a presentation in 2007 estimating that mandatory spending -- that is, entitlements plus interest on the national debt -- would exceed revenues, estimated as a percentage of the gross domestic product, sometime between 2030 and 2040 based on current trends. Such spending would approach 80% of projected federal revenues sometime after 2020.

This is not the same as entitlements alone making up 80% of the federal budget, a point I make here only because Tom Ricks' main post was an expression of support for the Obama administration's (very limited) proposals to, in effect, raise the revenue line by making changes in tax law, including tax rates for the very highest income earners. Were the administration's proposals enacted, and other things remained equal, the percentage of federal revenues represented by spending on entitlements (or on anything else) would decline, but the percentage of federal spending represented by entitlements would not.

For the record, the share of federal spending represented by entitlements as of FY2010 was approximately 55%. Large projected increases in Medicare spending would be partially offset by future reductions in spending on such things as food stamps and unemployment insurance as economic conditions improve.

As to the other issues Eric Stratton raises in his last post, I am sorry to say his remarks tend to reinforce the concerns I raise upthread. However, we are very late into this thread. This conversation will have to be continued at a later time.

Just before the great depression, the wealthy also had a large share of the GDP and very low marginal tax rates. Prior to that, I think the wealthy's share of GDP grew to it's predepression peak as a result of the economic changes caused by the industrial revolution and the rise of manufacturing. I'd also argue that we might want to emulate the period of time in which our infrastructure, quality of life, scientific advances, and global power improved the most.

I wonder to what extent the factors that led to that shift are repeatable? Rhetorically we have all but surrendered the notion that the government is an effective force for good even while it provides the framework for us to enjoy an astoundingly disproportionate share of global resources. Beyond a decimated global manufacturing capacity, I don't see the broad support for labor nor the rage toward industry and pro-industry cabals (Minnesota Commission of Public Safety) that I would argue were crucial to the reforms that led to the robust middle class we've come to expect.

To your question: not this generation. It seems clear to me that we don't root for the little guy anymore.

I think his series begins with the implementation of a federal income tax, no?
Best,
Tom

1. If you compare the percentage of income earned that's actually spent on goods and services, the bottom 80% spend a much higher percentage of earned income than the top 20%. Given that one major cause for the current dismal economy is a lack of demand, it makes much more sense to tax income that isn't going to be spent (create demand) than to tax income that will be spent.

2. Another significant cause of the dismal economy is the high level of household debt, largely caused by loose lending practices and the collapse of the housing market. This is a problem that's confined to poorer and middle class families, so reducing their tax burden will also allow them to pay off their debt more quickly, which will also increase demand and improve the economy.

3. The combined wealth of the wealthiest 400 people in America is about $1 trillion larger than the combined wealthy of the poorest half of Americans.

4. The percentage of the population living in poverty has grown for the last three consecutive years. One sixth of the population is currently below the poverty line.

Points 1 and 2 are the economic reasons that it makes sense to tax the rich more heavily. Points 3 and 4 are more about the character of the nation in which we live. Personally, I don't want to live in a nation with a few ultrawealthy individuals and a large impoverished class. It's not consonant with my conception of what our nation should be. I'd also add that social mobility in America has been decreasing steadily over the last decade, whereas it peaked during the era of the Great Society.

Sure, they pay 38%, but have 42% of the wealth. So you think that the other 99% can better afford to pay a higher percentage of their lower income?

Don't even come back with the whole "job creator" BS, the contrasts between corporate incomes and the unemployment rate speaks for itself.

You make a lot of good points yet taxing the rich more will not solve the problem of the middle class, we could tax them at a 90% rate and it would not really do much for the debt or help narrow the gap that much. A big part of the problem that has killed the middle class is the loss of manufacturing jobs that once provided a nice chunk of our jobs, they are no more. The questions are how do we get the manufacturing jobs back without offering huge tax cuts to Corps (over 2 trillion parked overseas due to our ridiculous Corp Tax rate at 36%)? If we cannot get the manufacturing base back and if it continues to shrink does that not also affect our National Security long term? Is there something we can replace the manufacturing base with that would expand the middle class again?
As for increasing taxes or making cuts for the rich, I would just like to see them (The Gov't) spend the money they have now more efficiently and reform Social Security and the Tax Code itself before we start jacking up the tax rates.

The consensus view within the modern Republican Party is that every last inefficiency must be wrung out of non-defense spending and every irrationality (or every one without a constituency) purged from the tax code before higher marginal income tax rates can even be considered. And even then, higher marginal income tax rates cannot be considered.

To regard this as a product of ideological fervor and discipline requires that we disregard as motivating factors the importance (and ease) of raising campaign funds from rich people, and from corporations controlled by rich people and now able to make nominally independent campaign contributions; the fact that elected officials are often in need of careers after they leave politics, and desirous of jobs that pay more than does government work; and the fact that quite a few politicians are wealthy enough themselves not to want to pay higher taxes.

The importance of maintaining party-wide message discipline -- no tax increases, ever -- is a technical issue pertinent to campaign tactics. It might not outweigh the ideological commitment of a few GOP Congressmen or Senators. It would be a motivating factor only for those Republican politicians immersed in permanent campaign politics.

My impression, very honestly, is that among many Republicans there is an additional factor to consider: a kind of emotionally-charged deference to, even reverence for, very wealthy people. The rich are the job-creators, the economy makers, the founders of the American feast. Republican politicians there are who can be bought, but the transaction isn't only or always about dollars and cents, or the relationship one of employer and employee. It is rather a relationship of master and servant, of elected officials sincerely convinced that defending their social superiors against inconvenience is the highest service they can render to their country.

This is not exactly a new thing in world history, even if it is not a particularly American thing. I wonder how long it will last.

Don't really have a short-term solution. Taxing the rich (in conjunction with killing a lot of tax expenditures, corporate subsidies, closing loopholes, etc.) allows you to fund stimulus. If you're looking forward, stimulus will fund education, development of green infrastructure (which is mostly construction of things like windmills and replacing aged city plumbing, etc.), and other infrastructure. This provides middle class jobs, allowing for an increase in demand and the deleveraging of household debt, which should jumpstart the economy. Basically every reputable economist is arguing for stimulus as a short term solution. In terms of long term solutions:

1. The quality of public education needs to improve. This can partly be solved by spending more money on education, with the emphasis being improved classroom/lab facilities and more teachers per student. The other improvement that needs to be made is an effort to tie pay to performance for teachers, with financial incentives for high performers as well as teachers who work in low income school districts (where children are being left behind). This last is vehemently opposed by the teachers' union, and obviously there will always be debates about how to effectively measure performance, but it needs to be done.

2. Undergraduate education needs to be reformed. Surprisingly enough, the changes Rick Perry made to the Texas public university system are a good step in the right direction, and with a little tweaking could be a very effective way to incentivize high performance in teaching and research, especially for the adjunct professor underclass, cut dead weight from the faculty, etc. It will also lower the cost of a college education, which is one of the two expenses rising at a much higher rate than inflation/income growth for the middle class, and eroding middle class purchasing power.

3. Curb the growth of health care costs, which is the other significant rising cost that erodes middle class purchasing power, and is single-handedly responsible for consistent growth in federal expenditures. This link < http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/94894/if-dr-seuss-wrote-about-health-care > has a video that explains part of the problem. In terms of federal spending, the fact that the federal government legislated away its ability to negotiate the price of drugs is probably another significant cost driver. Additionally, there's probably a significant relationship between the fact that there are more lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry than any other industry, and the fact that we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other developed country while receiving a lower standard of health care. Obamacare does a surprisingly good job at a lot of health cost related things, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

4. Invest some of the reduced expenditures on health care and the increased tax revenue into research and development. A well-educated population, combined with cutting edge research, makes us more attractive to the sort of higher-end manufacturing in which we can still be competitive.

5. Simplify the corporate tax code. It's complexity favors specific industries due to years of lobbying and discourages foreign investors. Essentially, our higher than average corporate tax rate only applies to foreign companies and companies that aren't well-established, while major domestic industries pay a corporate tax rate that's lower than average for the developed world.

6. Make it easier for foreign college students to naturalize. So we can steal other countries' brain power.

7. Invest in diplomacy, especially as it applies to economics. This is the hardest but single biggest thing that we can do to preserve manufacturing jobs without resorting to protectionism. East Asian, and especially Chinese protectionism is the death of American manufacturing. Significant pressure needs to be exerted to defend intellectual property rights and change Chinese monetary policy.

8. There are a ton of other things that we could do with our tax code to shape consumption habits for the better.

As far as spending the federal revenues that we have more efficiently before we raise the tax rates goes:

1. It's literally impossible to cut spending and solve the deficit problem, due to rising health care costs.

2. Social security doesn't actually need significant reforms. There really just needs to be means testing and reform to how cost of living adjustments are calculated.

3. I don't think it actually counts as raising taxes when you simply allow portions of a temporary tax cut that was enacted to keep us from paying off the federal debt to expire.

Great post Lester but:

If you want kids to do well in school, make(yes, not really possible) parents give a fuck about their kids education. Our critical education problem isn't that teachers aren't doing their job(though every profession can always get better), its that many parents aren't doing theirs. Read to your kids and work with your kids before they go to pre-school. Review and ensure your kids are doing their homework every night. If you want to make improvements to the educational system, withhold federal support(food-stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc) from parents whose kids don't do their homework or don't show up to school at all schools poor and rich.

Another big misconception about education is that poor schools need more money. Many poor schools have better and more current technology than their richer suburban schools due to federal funding. The crappy school by my house has $4k smart boards in every classroom and IPADs to use for classes; what they don't have is parents that will take the time to even sign their planners, let alone review their kid's homework or attend their kid's parent teacher meetings.

Behavior problems are also the biggest drain of resources(teacher time, students time, administrator time) wasted in poorer performing schools, but that's for another post.

I agree on some of your points but am with BN on education especially-

1.) We spend more per capita already than many countries who consistently beat us in testing, out of 25 countries considered part of the developed world only the Swiss spend more than we do. I do not think throwing money at this problem will do any good. NY spends the most per pupil in the US, with NJ close behind, followed by D.C, then VT, then CT and yet MA and NH both get ranked ahead (1 & 2 respectively) for public schools and spend far less with NH spending far less than MA. It is not so much spending as parent involvement, holding standards and saying to some kids you just do not have what it takes to get a HS Degree instead of the social promotions that often go on. . Vocational schools are also something I think that needs to be looked at for a lot of kids as well since college is not for everyone.

3. "Curb the growth of health care costs"-Drug prices are due to the expenses incurred during the development of which we talk later on Corp Tax Code & R&D is often paid for by the Companies themselves, I do not think that is a good example. They can bring the cost down a bit but this is not the biggest single cost of health care. I wish we could reduce health care costs but considering that admin alone drives up our costs 10-20% (NE Journal of Medicine) and that this is often caused by the medical community and insurance companies making sure they do some "CYA" so as to avoid lawsuits how do you take that chunk alone out with the lobby the American Trial Attorneys have going and the donations to the Dems? That is just one area, what if we go to a Gov't model? It will not get cheaper.

4. R&D can always be increased and I agree with your premise but I do not see reduced expenditures coming from health care, especially if we ever go to a gov't system.

5. "Simplify the corporate tax code."-100% agree but many of the companies who are HQ'd here in the US still hold their money overseas, the corp tax should be lowered and the only reason many companies do not pay taxes is due to the tax system that allows them to write everything off. I think in order to get more companies here and be competitive I agree we should simplify the code but I would almost get rid of the corp tax for manufacturing companies and make a lower flat tax for the rest. It is really not lower than most of the countries in the developed world, only Japan comes close.

6. "Make it easier for foreign college students to naturalize. So we can steal other countries' brain power."-
Totally agree and we have talked about this in the past on here and it ties in with R&D, we used to swipe them all the time (especially the Germans) but corp regulation and immigration policy have combined to make that harder. Another factor was that some countries loosened their regulations (EU) to keep their people and started to demand repayment for school and training that had been provided to the ones that did leave, this did not help our efforts to Shang Hai more of them to the US.

7. "Invest in diplomacy, especially as it applies to economics. This is the hardest but single biggest thing that we can do to preserve manufacturing jobs without resorting to protectionism. East Asian, and especially Chinese protectionism is the death of American manufacturing. Significant pressure needs to be exerted to defend intellectual property rights and change Chinese monetary policy."
Agree but even with Free Trade that is enforced it is still much cheaper to go overseas due to labor costs, taxation and infrastructure. This might help us out a bit with China and other Asian nations but until either our costs come down a lot or Asia's go up I just can't see it.

"8. There are a ton of other things that we could do with our tax code to shape consumption habits for the better."

"As far as spending the federal revenues that we have more efficiently before we raise the tax rates goes:"

1. "It's literally impossible to cut spending and solve the deficit problem, due to rising health care costs."
It might be but taxing the rich at 90% won't add a ton of money to our coffers, it might make some people feel good but it won't make much of a dent and they will find a way to hide it anyway.

2. "Social security doesn't actually need significant reforms. There really just needs to be means testing and reform to how cost of living adjustments are calculated."
100% disagree on this, we already have started paying out more than is paid into it, Congress has often dipped it's hands into the fund and about 33 cents of every dollar you pay in taxes goes to fund this. It needs to be radically overhauled and making someone not get this because they make a certain amount of money but still have to pay into it via means testing is more than a bit unfair. You can't have someone pay into that their whole life and not get their money for it. I think this needs to be changed to a private fund, similar to our TSP in the Military and Feds, the gov't could not touch it, the S&P gives back about 8% over it's lifetime when adjusted for inflation and has done so since the late 1800's. Even if we forced folks to go into T-Bills it would still return almost 4% which is double what SS does at 2% and if they go belly up so has the US, rebalancing funds are also a nice choice. You could also donate it or leave your earnings to a relative after you are gone. It needs to be changed, those who are on it now can stay and they would make a cut off or give a choice for younger people but it will go kaput by the time I get to it and is already on it's way if radical change is not made. Mandate that you pay into those funds like we do for SS now but allow them to pick one of the TSP funds, it would take care of a lot of our future entitlement spending and stop Congress from thinking it is their private "loan" center.

3. "I don't think it actually counts as raising taxes when you simply allow portions of a temporary tax cut that was enacted to keep us from paying off the federal debt to expire."
-Fair enough.

One more quick point, the "Green" ideas are a bit of a pipe dream. Windmills?-take up to much space (it would take an area the size of VA to meet Obama's goal of 20% wind energy), they do not do anything if there is no wind and kill hundred of thousands of birds every year now, the numbers would soar if we built more. Solar?-good for homes and can be used a lot in public areas but is still to expensive. Geothermal?-depends a bit on where you live. Hydrogen?-I would love to see Fuel Cells break through and be cheap enough to be massed produced and this is one are where gov't investment in infrastructure might do some real good but a lot of what the administration is doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Eric, I would suggest that you research deeper before dissing green energy. Use the term "wind turbine", not windmill. Yes, many thousands of birds (and bats) die from collision with turbines, but the turbines are far down on the list of un-natural bird deaths, well behind domestic cats, autos, pollution/pesticides, poer lines, windows, and other towers. Solar panels are rapidly going down in price/unit--look close into the fiasco-of-the-day of "the Obama Administration funded failed solar energy company (that supplied campaign funds) when it knew that the Chinese will flood the market with cheaper product". Geothermal energy is developed around the world, largest production plant complex being in California.

Its a jobs market that must be developed in the US or the "other guys" across the oceans will pass us by.

GSF, actually, no, I am pretty well read on Green Energy and have invested a lot of money into stocks that have to do with it.
Wind- is NOT a good use for mass energy, when not windy it does not work and the estimates for Birds is between 100,000-300,000K per year and many of the proposed wind farms are in the routes of bird migration. A windmill on your house as an extra? Great. A wind farm? Inefficient use of land and energy. You want to give up an area the size of VA to get wind energy up to 20%?!
Solar- it is getting cheaper but it is not there yet and as you can see from other posts I put up we cannot compete with those countries for manufacturing costs, that is just the reality. Between labor costs and protectionism and our tax code we cannot compete, we can invent the technology but that is where it stops. This has potential to offset a lot of use of power but not at the point it can replace it cheaply.
Geo-Really? They use it all over the world? Geo has potential if you can dig and it is even better if you happen to live near active volcanic activity in such places as Iceland or on the Pacific Rim, not as much in other areas.
The only place we are really leading right now is in Hydrogen and I love the idea and this is one area I mentioned that gov't investment in infrastructure would help, perhaps by offering incentives for Gas Stations to convert to Hydrogen, perhaps R&D, etc...but the technology is again not there yet to make it cheap enough. Ballard Power (Canadian Company) is working with Ford and GM on car batteries to run off Hydrogen and Fuel Cell (CT Company) is working with the DoD for power for bases and perhaps ships down the road. There are a few others like Quantam that tried to develop Military Vehicles that ran on hydrogen and Plug Power (lost my bottom on this one) that was at the cutting edge of Hydrogen but none of these companies are there yet and until the energy efficiency of all the "Green" sources of energy close in on fossil fuels they will not be invested in heavily and hence not used anytime soon. Just the reality of things GSF.

If you are investing money, I suggest that you do more research, field trips, and talking to people in the field. To start:you do not "give up the land" for turbines. I live 5 miles from a 220 turbines wind farm and lots of critters walk around underneath, and crops are grown there too; no piles of dead dead birds. Check the stats for the bird deaths (not your nomal spouts, new studies are out). Geothermal? yes, its done worldwide. Tell you what. Next time you have some leave, venture on up to Northern NY (Yes, near Drum) and I'll give you a tour, damn good steak and couple of beers (knowning Army can't do much there after 2100). Really, you gotta open up on this. We can't fight for the damn oil for F'in ever.

I am all for Green Energy, it is just not there yet and while I have high hopes for solar and hydrogen I am not a fan of wind and do not see it being cost effective. Also, the Geothermal Comment was meant sarcastically, I must use icons more often, electronic posts do not always convey tone very well. Geothermal is something that can be used as an augment to save you money in places, especially in heating and cooling, but for use as a main power source you need to be close to source the way Iceland and many other volcanic areas are.

As for wind, I just think it is a waste of space for what you get back in return, not consistent enough and even USA Today had a huge write up on how many birds are killed due to them, low estimate was 100k, high 300k.
Solar is at least being developed with a long term vision and being made adaptable-solar "vines" that shift to face the sun but look nice on house, solar shingles for roofs, solar glass with transparent cells, etc...all have potential. I would love nothing more than for Hydrogen to break through and cause a revolution here in the US for energy, solar to augment it but we are not close yet unless some crazy 22 y/o kid is doing something in his/her garage we just do not know about yet. I don't take the "Green" Revolution to seriously when I see the President say he is behind Nukes yet Yucatan Mtn gets shut down and there is no rush on permits. I don't take the "Green" Revolution to seriously when I do not hear about major investments into water based hydrogen fuel cells but the President wants 20% of our power to come from wind. I want it to happen GSF, I really do, would love nothing more than for us to be totally independent energy wise but right now it is just more politics and some of the things are the power of the future and always will be.

Since this is an endorsement of Obama's proposal, it involves revealing the Bush tax cuts for people who earn more than $250,000 annually.

fail to understand, including damn near all of the readers of this very august blog! Don't punish those of us who've worked long, hard and smart to achieve financial success. We invested while Mr. and Mrs. America consumed and went out and spent money they didn't have, like drunken sailors on shore leave. And we lived way below our means while our family, friends and neighbors lived a country club lifestyle above and beyond their financial resources. I achieved financial independence at a the relatively young age of forty. And I did it on my own without any government assistance or affirmative action programs. The harder I worked, the luckier I got! I'm an unabashed capitalist and damn proud of it! I live my life by the credo of: Never complain; never explain. To all of the financial failures reading this, don't hate the so-called "rich," work smart and strive to join our ranks. Think about it!

You do realize that a 90% tax rate on corporate profits eliminates the incentive to invest in or own any corporation? If you wanted to really create a second great depression, you couldn't do better than a this policy prescription.

It doesn't matter what anyone says before a Congressional committee - it just does not signify. They are just exercises in political theater. We might learn something, but the committee and its huge staff already know what they intend to do.

Business has coped with these regulations for many years and has built-in mechanisms for implementing them into their work routine. The loudest noises are made about pollution regulations which cut directly into profits. Tough, I'm all for pollution regulation. Yes Braille on the door is stupid, but I have not seen it in businesses. Check the Army itself - we have allot of regulations. It's interesting that you seize on one small facet of my comment and completely ignore what I view as the more important points. Over regulation will not be the downfall of our society. If you wish to view a society with unregulated business, check out China and the people dying from poisoning in their factories and the town which salvage computer parts, etc. Or, check out the report on the BP oil spill - that's an example of poor and absent regulation. It would appear that industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing. However, BP did save $125,000 by not letting Halliburton test its cement job.

BTW, with all due respect, how can a career Army officer question others about their knowledge of how regulations impact businesses? Ask your parents how much time they or their accountant spends on paying payroll taxes each week. Here in rural North Carolina many OSHA and EPA regulations are skirted, but taxes are not. Here on the coast, we do go nuts over oil spills - if someone notices.

None of this will significantly affect the decline of our society.