Deficit Commissions and Financial Transactions Taxes: Who Is Serious?
Monday 05 April 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: Wolfman-K)
In the middle of the worst downturn since the Great Depression, with unemployment projected to remain at elevated levels for most of the next decade, we have the bizarre spectacle of a presidential commission on the deficit. The commission is supposed to issue a report to Congress by the end of the year on how to get the long-term deficit under control.
This commission contains more than a bit of the theater of the absurd. At the moment, the only force sustaining the economy and keeping unemployment from rising further is the large deficit being run by the government. If we snapped our fingers and eliminated the deficit tomorrow, we would see the unemployment rate rise well into the double digits. The deficit creates demand in the economy. It is really simple; if the government spends more money, then it will employ more people. If we cut back this support for the economy, fewer people would be employed.
But Washington politicians have trouble saying what is obviously true. So, instead of talking about putting 15 million people back to work, we are talking about curbing the deficit. This would be like creating a commission on water conservation as we struggle to get enough water to quench a fire threatening the capital. But that's where politics in the United States is right now.
The deficit commission's co-chairs, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, insist that everything is on the table. In particular, they have both touted their willingness to support cuts in Social Security. It is always impressive to see wealthy and well-connected people who have the courage to take away benefits for which middle-income people have worked and paid.
As the Social Security trustees report shows, Social Security benefits will be fully funded by its designated tax through 2037. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the payroll taxes will be sufficient to pay full benefits through 2044. So, when Simpson and Bowles say that they are anxious to cut workers' Social Security benefits, they are pledging to take away benefits that these workers have already paid for with their taxes. These guys probably rip off employees on their wages too.
If Simpson and Bowles really gave a damn about the deficit, they would look to where the money is and support a tax on financial speculation. A modest set of financial transactions could easily raise more than $100 billion a year. A modest tax on trades (e.g. 0.5 percent on stock trades and 0.02 percent on trades of futures and credit default swaps) would have almost no impact on ordinary investors. In fact, such taxes would just raise transactions costs back to where they were in the late 80s or early 90s, years when the United States certainly had a vibrant capital market. However, even these modest taxes would impose substantial costs on traders who are actively speculating in these markets, and they could raise lots of money.
The United Kingdom raises the equivalent of $40 billion a year in the United States by just taxing stock trades. Applying the tax to trades of futures, options, credit default swaps, and other derivative instruments traded by banks would substantially increase this amount.
The opponents of this tax insist that it will not raise much revenue and that it is not possible to do without an international agreement. These objections are just excuses to protect Wall Street. The experience of the UK shows that the claims are not true (i.e. lies). The UK shows that it is possible to have the tax in one country and that it can raise plenty of revenue. When people tell us otherwise, we should just tell them to go collect their paycheck from Goldman Sachs and stop bothering us with nonsense.
So, when the deficit commission issues its report, if it comes with a recommendation to cut Social Security and without a recommendation for a FTT, we know what to do with it. Such a report would be worth as much as one of Lehman's Repo 105's or a credit default swap from AIG. Congress should send this deficit commission report back to Wall Street and tell them where to put it.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Why do we have a terrible
Mon, 04/05/2010 - 13:32 — radline9 (not verified)Why do we have a terrible deficit? Military spending on a useless assault on the middle east is responsible for more than half of it and in the future, it will be responsible for most of it. Since we went to war for oil, it makes sense to me is to make oil pay for it in the form of a dollar a gallon gas tax. No more going to war to keep our tanks filled! This would easily pay down the deficit.
How about instead of a gas
Mon, 04/05/2010 - 16:51 — Harry Thomas (not verified)How about instead of a gas tax on the common consumer we take away the tax benefits for the multinational corporations (especially the ones benefiting from military contracts) that are paying little to no taxes? They are now "people" as far as the Supreme Court is concerned; they can pay taxes like the rest of us. We could wipe out the deficit overnight. Besides, they can jack up their prices to compensate, then we as consumers can decide if we really need that latest doohickey they're trying to push off on us.
A fractional part of a penny
Mon, 04/05/2010 - 18:03 — Anonymous (not verified)A fractional part of a penny per share traded by investors is in my opinion a great idea and I'm an investor. The only requisite requirement that I believe should be added is that the money collected should be designated for a specific purpose and not just placed in the general fund. Instead of letting it be used to further conduct illegal aggressive wars for example let's see it be designated specifically to implement single payer health care or fund Social Security with its use for any other purpose outlawed.
So many good alternatives to
Mon, 04/05/2010 - 19:23 — Anonymous (not verified)So many good alternatives to raising taxes and cutting benefits & services!!! But what we have to ask, is why aren't they chosen and what are we (progressives) going to do about it? Will we just sit by and complain? We organized to elect a wimpy bunch of millionaire corporate shills, now what? Why not go GREEN and build on a platform we believe in.
School of the Americas is on
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 00:53 — Jade Queen (not verified)School of the Americas is on my mind today as an expenditure to eliminate that would improve U.S. public relations around the world. Symbolically, it would be a good first move before de-commissioning those 700 or so military bases. De-commissioning of imperial trappings should occur before tax increases.
This article and the
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 12:53 — Brian (not verified)This article and the comments are very good. The deficit is probably the simplest problem to solve, when it makes sense to solve it. There are plenty of ways to raise more money, and the military budget is so bloated that we could cut it drastically and still be the greatest military power in history.
We could easily reduce the deficit, create more jobs, and improve the country and the world, all at the same time. For example, tax fossil fuels but give all of it back to consumers to balance out the rising costs of fuel during the transition to clean energy. Most of it would be in the form of money, but some would be in the form of incentives for things like more energy efficient homes, electric cars, and solar panels. At the same time, cut military spending drastically and tax trades and use that extra money to both reduce the deficit and fund a new infrastructure that will support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Hire the unemployed to work on the new infrastructure, to plant trees, restore wetlands, and so on.
We could do all this and more, all at the same time. Will we? I doubt it. But we could.