Obama was asked in the last debate what part of his proposed initiatives he would give up in light of the huge deficits the US is incurring with the $700 billion bailout. I don't think he should give up on anything and just sit there with his hands tied. The Republicans can always come up with amazing amounts of money for war and bailouts of the banking industry. Then they want to tie the hands of Democratic Presidents and say that there's no more money for their programs and initiatives.
Obama should be bold in his funding sources. Here's a few ideas:
1) Tax the wealthy and not just income but assets, accumulated wealth, as well. From Bernie Sanders' website: "Incredibly, for the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth. That is just 400 families.
That is why I proposed raising the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. It would have raised $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout." In addition a 10% tax on assets over $10 million should be enacted.
2) An excise tax on stock and derivative trades called a STET. This could raise $200 billion a year.
3) A radical restructuring of the military-industrial complex recapturing $200-$300 billion dollars annually.
4) Recapture taxes from corporations who offshore profits. Start-ups could replace any corporations who don't go along with this arrangement and consider this a disincentive for doing business in the US. Several hundred billion dollars could be obtained this way.
5) Take 50% of the profits as royalties on any minerals extracted from US territory including coal, oil and natural gas. Norway does this and puts the money in a sovereign wealth fund. $50 billion a year could be raised from this source.
Altogether perhaps $1 trillion could be raised from alternative funding sources if the American people demanded it and Obama had the guts to do it. Of course, a Democratic Congress and filibuster-proof Senate would have to be in place or else forget it. The influence of lobbyists would have to be curtailed. Right now any corporation with big money has lobbyists in Congress to protect their own private interests at the expense of the general public.
In short go after the wealthy. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is." The Reagan era has resulted in a huge transfer of wealth to the rich and a diminution of the income, wealth and standard of living of the middle class and the poor. What's wrong with reversing this trend and having an era of transfer of wealth from the rich?
I think Obama should go full speed ahead with his programs and initiatives in health care, infrastructure repair, alternative energy production etc. He should not just sit on his hands for four years feeling hamstrung by Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. It will take bold action to put the US on the right course. Taking money from war to further peace, taking money from the rich to promote the interests of the middle class, I don't have a problem with it. Tax incomes at Eisenhauer era progressive rates. Tax wealth (assets) which are the accumulations that CEOs and hedge fund managers have walked away with. That would be bold because I don't think it's ever been done before. Why just tax income; tax wealth as well! Take money from the military-industrial complex. These are bold moves - not for the faint of heart but necessary to get this country moving again.
At the same time jobs need to be created and goods and services need to be produced here and not just imported from abroad. Therefore, tariffs should be put in place so that companies who offshore their production facilities and then import into the American markets lose their advantage in hiring cheap labor abroad. NAFTA, CAFTA and anything ending in FTA should be nullified. We need American production and American jobs.
