Skip to main content

Billionaire Mark Cuban weighed in on what he would do in response to the Occupy Wall Street protests.  It addresses the anger at the Wall Street bailouts, contains an education cost containment proposal (that, in my opinion, would not work), and discusses CEO pay.  I believe we are in need of a more comprehensive New New Deal that protects the security of our entitlement and social welfare programs, invests in job creation, fully addresses the education cost problem and invests in closing the achievement gap, and safeguards the security of the financial sector; all while doing more to reduce the long-term deficit than even the most ambitious plans that were floated during the debt ceiling debate.  Sounds impossible (and may be a practical impossibility given Republican obstructionism) but it is at least theoretically possible.  The Republicans have floated their plans and I think the Democrats should float a competing plan like the one below.

The New New Deal

Entitlement Programs
No changes in benefits for either Medicaire or Social Security!

Job Creation
Pass the FULL American Jobs Act, the one-time $447B stimulus program proposed by Barack Obama.

Education
Invest in closing the achievement gap by increasing spending on primary and secondary education by $20B/year, to be allocated to underperforming school districts.  Also, create a new $20B/year university grant program to provide full tuition scholarships (up to $50,000/year) to at least the 100,000 highest performing high-school seniors each year, whose parents have a net worth of less than $2.5M, to attend a college of their choice.

Financial Reform
Create a new insurance program similar to the FDIC that is funded by a “risk tax” on “too big to fail” financial institutions, which could be drawn down to ensure the financial sector does not ever become a drain on the taxpayer again.  Mark Cuban recommended a “transaction tax,” which is overly simplistic and could be gamed, as “systemically risky” transactions would incur the same tax as benign ones.  I would propose that, each year, a government risk management office would be responsible for setting the risk formula using the best practices that financial institutions use internally to measure their own risk, and a tax rate designed to allow the insurance fund to remain solvent even in a “worst-case” scenario.

Raising Revenue and Cutting Costs (>$690B/year in revenue increases and spending cuts)

1) Bring back the cap and trade proposal.  It can raise an estimated $79B/year in additional revenue!

NET INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUE OF $79B/YEAR

2) Create a new progressive estate tax with no exemptions, but structural protections to prevent loss of voting control of family, small, and other privately held businesses (the key Republican objection to the estate tax).  Raising estate tax rates so that estate tax accounts for 1.25% of total tax revenues (the actual level from 1999) could be responsible for  ~$28B of revenue (using $2.16T of total receipts, the actual number from 2010) relative to $15.4B of actual estate and gift tax revenue in 2010.

NET INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUE OF AT LEAST $13B/YEAR

2) Allow Medicaire to negotiate pharmaceutical prices.  According to a 2006 study, this would have saved Medicare well over $60B/year and as much as $101B in 2010, according to their low-cost case.

NET DECREASE IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF AT LEAST $60B/YEAR

3) Winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both Democrats and the GOP believe that between $1T and $1.1T in deficit reduction over ten years will result from winding down the wars.

NET DECREASE IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF AT LEAST ~$100B/YEAR

4) Roll back the Bush tax cuts for everybody.  I know Democrats and Daily Kos readers would very much prefer to limit the tax cuts to those making >$250k but the fact is that would still leave the bulk of the potential revenue on the table.  In order to be able to afford the government programs that we want, we need to be willing to go back to the tax rates under Clinton—a prolonged period of economic expansion.  Please indulge me until the end of the article and then decide whether this is a sacrifice you can live with to realize the other benefits of this plan.  This can raise revenues by ~$390B/year.

NET INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUES OF ~$390B/YEAR

5) Suspend all foreign aid to Pakistan.  We gave them $1.5B in 2010.

NET DECREASE IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF $1.5B/YEAR

6) Eliminate oil, gas, and coal company subsidies.  Given that commodities prices are near record highs, these subsidies are no longer required.  They can save $40B over 10 years, or ~$4B/year.

NET INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUES OF $4B/YEAR

7) End agricultural subsidies to save $23B/year.  Again, Democrats and Daily Kos readers, you may not like this but given what you would be getting, this is a relatively modest sacrifice.  Given high commodity prices, we should probably not be subsidizing farming anyways.

NET DECREASE IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF $23B/YEAR

8) Reduce foreign economic aid to 2008 levels, dropping it from >$40B/year to sub $20B/year (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...).

NET DECREASE IN FEDERAL SPENDING OF $20B/YEAR

There you have it: a viable economic plan that does more to reduce the deficit than any of the Republican proposals, and even the most ambitious attempts at a "grand bargain," while investing in job creation, infrastructure, and education.  In addition, it safeguards our entitlement programs and reforms the financial system to protect the taxpayers from another bailout situation.

Poll

Would You Support This Plan?

31%6 votes
21%4 votes
5%1 votes
5%1 votes
21%4 votes
15%3 votes
0%0 votes

| 19 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site