The 2 Cent Fix

email Email

The president could break the logjam in Washington and move toward a solution of all budgetary problems if he merely asked every American to contribute 2 cents.

No, this isn’t some far-fetched science-fiction scheme, like beating the debt ceiling by minting two platinum coins valued at a trillion dollars each.

It’s a practical, patriotic, down-to-earth solution that might enable Barack Obama to assemble a bipartisan coalition, finally transcending the petty bickering he pledged to end when he first campaigned for president five years ago.

Americans have begun to realize that the nation’s crushing debt threatens their own economic survival. In a moment of anxiety and crisis, a majority of the public might embrace the fairness and necessity of demanding that all Americans who pay taxes chip in 2 cents on the dollar more, while everyone who receives government payments of any kind accepts 2 cents on the dollar less.

If nothing else, this comprehensive and comprehensible idea could move our leaders past the present paralysis. For President Obama, refusing to negotiate over the debt ceiling hardly represents the sort of cooperative, consensus leadership he once promised to deliver. But in the midst of the January 14th press conference challenging the House to a new confrontation, he actually hinted at the right approach to leading the country beyond the risky game of chicken that’s preoccupying both sides.

The president said then that the American people “want us to get our books in order in a balanced way, where everybody pulls their weight, everyone does their part. That’s what I want, as well.”

The problem is that the fiscal-cliff fight and all previous budgetary battles featured the president explicitly exempting 98 percent of Americans from making any sacrifice for the sake of deficit reduction. He repeatedly (and effectively) insisted that he wanted to protect everyone except the highest income taxpayers from either tax increases or benefit cuts.This approach achieves almost nothing in terms of balancing the nation’s account books, with the tax increases on top earners imposed this year yielding at most a 6 percent reduction in annual deficits that still exceed $1 trillion a year.

If the president called instead for a genuine program of shared sacrifice, he could rally support from moderates and pragmatic conservatives and make serious progress in reducing the devastating deficit. With no other alterations in projected federal spending, an increase in taxes of 2 percent across the board (yes, including corporations), combined with a cut in spending and benefits that also subtracted 2 cents on the dollar, would yield deficit reduction of $400 billion this year—four times as much as the mandated sequestration cuts scheduled for March, and nearly seven times as much as the combined tax hikes in the fiscal-cliff deal. In fact, if applied for a full decade, the 2 cent fix would easily top the $4 trillion in total deficit reduction the president declared as his ultimate, visionary goal. It would move the country nearly all the way back to the normal, post-war spending-to-revenue ratios that applied as recently as 2007—19.5 to 18.3 percent of GDP. This compares to the unprecedented imbalance of last year, which saw spending at 24.3 percent and revenue at just 15.8.

In part, this notion for a quick fiscal repair takes its inspiration from a provocative 2003 book by progressive commentator (and former Clinton administration aide) Matthew Miller. In The Two Percent Solution, Miller suggested a slight tax increase on nearly everyone to fund bold new programs to provide universal health coverage, better schools, and more generous salaries for the working poor. He called for increases in overall spending, not cuts, and hardly worried about the deficit—which amounted to $158 billion in 2002, or less than one-eighth the figure of last year.

In the intervening decade, we’ve increased spending by much more than 2 percent—raising expenditures as a percentage of GDP by 5.4 percent (18.9 to 24.3) between 2002 and 2012. Many of those trillions paid for ambitious efforts to solve the same problems Miller identified—inadequate health insurance, failing schools, and income inequality—with almost entirely dismal results. In the process, our leaders (of both parties) helped to generate a fresh crisis of crushing debt that rightfully overshadows all other current concerns.

If a new 2 cent fix actually addressed that problem, most Americans could conceivably accept the pain and discomfort associated with higher taxes and lower benefits across the board—especially if the financial pain came with a sunset provision and applied for only a limited period, like five years, in order to cope with the present emergency.

At the upper end of the income scale, a family with $500,000 in combined taxable income could expect to pay an additional $10,000 a year to Uncle Sam—an obnoxious prospect to be sure, especially after prior tax hikes on the rich imposed by the Obama administration, but not a crippling blow to a privileged standard of living.

At the other side of the great divide, an average Social Security recipient gets $1,230 per month and so might give up $24.60 each month, or $6.15 per week—a real sacrifice for a retiree on a limited budget, but for most all pensioners a less-than-catastrophic cutoff. If the alternative to slightly reduced benefits involved the possible collapse of the whole system of Medicare and Social Security, wouldn’t the great majority of seniors prefer a viable program with reliable checks? By the same token, a family of four that receives food stamp-benefits (through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) gets roughly $630 per month. A decline of $12.60, or $3.15 per week, certainly counts as unwelcome but wouldn’t prove likely to induce starvation.

On the left, any version of the 2 cent fix would provoke impassioned protests over nickel-and-diming the neediest, most dependent Americans, but if we really do mean to distribute burdens equally on all then it hardly works to protect some groups while punishing others. A long-term, credible budgetary solution should never show the government playing favorites and advancing the interests of selected segments of the population, no matter how deserving. Since every family will enjoy the long-term benefit from a comprehensive repair of the fiscal wreckage then all should contribute to the short-term cost.

If the president proposed any such all-encompassing solution to the deficit dilemma, Republicans might instantly complain that the resulting ratio of revenue increases to spending cuts looked utterly unbalanced: since the overall economy generates four times more than the federal government now spends, increasing taxes by 2 percent of what that economy produces will yield four times the dollars as cutting spending at an identical rate. But the 2 cent fix would prevent the politicians from using that added revenue for new spending, since expenditures must decline under the plan rather than rise. Even the most profligate politicians would be forced by legislated limitations to apply every new penny for cutting deficits and, ultimately, reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP.

No one could argue that the 2 cent fix amounts to a permanent cure for our multifarious economic ailments since it’s based on an existing system that’s become clearly dysfunctional. A slight increase in taxes and a corresponding cut in spending and benefits can’t substitute for needed radical reform–of the grossly inefficient tax system, out-of-control entitlements and a bloated, duplicative federal bureaucracy.

But cutting the deficit by half would at least provide some budgetary breathing room so Congress and the president could debate those systemic changes in a more favorable, less menacing climate. The 2 cent fix could declare a truce, not demand definitive surrender from one side or the other, in the eternal battle over the size and scope of government. Democrats could go along with the scheme without admitting that benefits are unsustainably high, while Republicans agree to the fiscal band-aid without conceding that taxes are unrealistically low.

Would President Obama ever consider a budgetary rescue that truly required every American to give up something for the greater good? Almost certainly not, because he’s shown no indication that he’s ready to set aside ideological battle for the sake of pragmatic progress. On guns and immigration, as well as the unending fiscal fights, he seems determined to crush his partisan opponents, or at least to discredit them, rather than moving toward the center in search of common ground.

But even if the president refuses to budge in his refusal to negotiate, Republicans could help themselves as well as the country if they began talking seriously about the feasibility of universal sacrifice to cut the Gordian knot of current entanglements. As the Simpson Bowles Commission concluded more than two years ago, Washington needs to escape the weary, polarizing, sterile, either/or debate of revenue increases versus spending cuts, and acknowledge that any realistic improvement demands both. We will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis, and confrontation to confrontation, until the president, or charismatic leaders of the opposition, begin to build momentum for the idea that accepting wide-ranging discomfort in the present offers the only real alternative to risking systemic disaster in the future.

This column appeared first in THE DAILY BEAST. 

email Email

Comments (45)

Leave a comment
  1. michael Dean  •  Jan 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    I really like this Idea I have been thinking there is something that could done to spare this country the pain that is most certainly coming our way if the debt is not reduced. I pray that our Leaders would take this and make it reality. How do we get enough public support to achieve this? Have you talked to or wrote to speaker Boehner about this? I would like to see every house and senate member reponse in writing to the Fix. Great work

    • Steve S  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      Another aspect of each citizen being a contributor, they are more apt to be engaged in how the tax revenues are spent and decry the waste of DC.
      A plan like this would also extend the life of many programs. What many fail to realize is that when there is no money, it will all come to a halt in one, horrible, doomsday type implosion. By reducing and cutting back subsidies and welfare type programs, they in turn will have a longer life and be able to help for more years. Going from $1000 to $980 each month will be easier and better for all involved that going from $1000 to $0 because the government is broke.

  2. Bette  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 11:52 am

    This solution, with which I agree, will generally be lambasted as to simplistic and demagogued by every special interest group. The folks in Washington don’t give a damn about fixing things; they just want issues to further their own careers. This may be a generalization as there a few sincere people who really care about the survival of the country, but unfortunately they are outnumbered by the self serving. Where are the patriots?????

    • Neal C White  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      If the 2% Solution can “cost” out as presented – I would agree. As Bette said: Where are the Patriots? ?? ? ?

      • Mike  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 6:15 pm

        I like the idea of the 2cent fix. BUT it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Every Gov. Agency needs to cut back on spending – Starting with the President’s salary, and benifits and security. Then every congressmans salary and benifits and security . Then a transfer of all funds in the congressman retirement fund into the Soc. Sec. fund. They are servants not more deserving than anyone else. Then instead of an annual increase in Soc. Sec. benifits , a reduction of 10percent for everyone who now receives more than the average monthly benifit. Then a total stopage on all state spending for “bridges to nowhere”. Then an automatic decrease in Hospital and Doctor charges for their services that are charged to medicare that make it impossible to rape the system anymore. They all do it and we know it. Then a sensible cut in military funding that prevents fraud in the charges for military supplies. Then the abandonment of the IRS and replacement with a simple system that could be almost cost free – if we used our brains instead of our emotions in designing it. Obama is leading us down the slippery slop to socialism and If we look back at hiistory we will quickly see that has never worked and has lead to outrageous attrocities. Big government has proven over and over again that it is the most inefficient way we could possibly chose for doing anything and especially not for solving our problems. If we we were smart to do the math we would find that when we ask government to do anything for us – we end up spending as much as four to ten times as much as we need to ,to get something done. Our current situation with our National Debt is proof that we must stop asking big government to solve our problems.

  3. rosina  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    i agree with Bette.
    Are the Congress going to be ‘excused’ as usual from all these plans?
    As they ‘excused’ themselves from the elephant in the room, the abominable Obamacare?
    Always out for themselves. And, raising their salaries by 6% for inflation whilst everyone else it is roughly 1.7%.
    As for seniors, they have already been stiffed by NO RAISES for three years and now 1.7%
    As far as Social Security is concerned there IS one way the situation be resolved.
    EVERY one to pay this on ALL salary, even if it is millions. Right now, only the lowest paid have this deducted on all salary. Is this fair?
    Also, ISN’T IT ABOUT TIME THE GOVT. PAID BACK ALL THEY BORROWED FROM THE SS.FUND SINCE THE TIME OF LYNDON JOHNSON? Not paying back is STEALING, at least for us!!! One law for them and one for us.
    Am sick of it.

    • BARBBF  •  Jan 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm

      I totally agree w/Rosina and Bette. Not only has the government borrowed from the Social Security fund..but also from the Federal Government Pension fund, and other Federal Retiree’s Trust fund. ALSO, unless you’re a government retiree who fully paid into Social probably don’t know that since 1983 Federal government employees only get 1/3 of the Social Security payment that they were previously entitled to.

  4. Jim  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    It is a bad idea because the assumption is that spending will remain the same. Spending has never decreased in our lifetime. If you give Washington more money then it will spend more money.

    Limiting the revenue is the only way to slow spending.

    • Mary  •  Jan 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      I was thinking the same thing. I have read about things that the government spend on that are really ridiculous, such as doing research on what effect cows burps have on the atmosphere. That is only one of many foolish things that they spend ridiculous amounts on.

  5. Brinker  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Michael I think you misplaced a decimal point there:

    2012 federal tax revenues are expected to be $2.4 trillion, 2% of which is $48 billion.

    2012 federal entitlement spending is expected to be $1.7 trillion, 2% of which is $34 billion

    That’s closer to $80 billion rather than $400 billion. Even if all federal spending is subject to an across-the-board 2% cut we don’t approach $400 billion in present-year savings.

  6. JoeThePimpernel  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    If you give government more money, they will just find more things to spend it on.

    They would never use it to balance the budget.

    • BARBBF  •  Jan 25, 2013 at 5:31 pm

      JOE….sad but probably true!

  7. Will Becker  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    Yes but do you really think Barako is about to go for that ? His plan is to destroy our economy so he can rebuild our nation into Socialism !! Get that though your head !!

  8. lucile  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    This seems like a very good proposal, I am sure most folks would be willing to help out this tiny bit. Let’s do it.

  9. Barry  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    I love the 2 percent solution, but see an additional way to expedite a return to fiscal sanity and economic progress. One of the ways that Obama is funding his grand scheme is through the borrowing of 40 cents on the dollar and incurring huge interest payments, which are primarily going to the chicoms. Why don’t we return to what we have done in the past, particularly to fund WWll, and that is to borrow our needs from the American people and put the interest money into the hands of our citizens who can spend it in the U.S. The U.S.Savings Bond is a wonderful tool, but has been neglected to years. When is the last time to saw a bond drive, or a promotion to buy bonds at work, etc.
    The 2% solution plus a move to a borrowing program that aids the economy by aiding the citizenry. If we just retired all or part of our Chinese debt with a citizen based resource, we have solved the problem.

  10. DanielD  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    You all mistakenly assume the president has any interest at all in fixing the budget problem. Everything he does is done purposely to lead to one inevitable end. Higher taxes on the wealthy to address the “wealth inequity” problem (as he and his cohorts see it).

    The way they have gone about doing this is to take a crisis (never let one go to waste) and use it as an excuse to drastically increase spending. Look at the Sandy Hook relief bill. Think all that pork wasn’t put in there on purpose? Now we go from one crisis to another. The new crisis is we are spending too much. How to solve it? Tax the rich!

    You will see no alleviation on spending until the president gets what he wants. Drastically higher taxes on the wealth of this country. Don’t be surprised when the drumbeats start for an annual wealth tax. Kept wealth is a crime and a sin in these people’s minds. It’s coming folks.

  11. Douglas  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    We need to do something, however NOTHING is going to work until we take the nations credit card away from Obummer and this socialist congress. It’s beyond stupid to keep spending more than you earn and expect to become solvent. Stop all the foolish foreign aid to our enemies, bribes to the unions and liberal backers, unpractical green energy projects and “shovel ready jobs” that aren’t so shovel ready…..

  12. Henry  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    This will never work since too many expect someone to give them the two cents!

  13. Herb1949  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I am already contributing to the country, to the tune of almost 50% of my gross income (federal, state, SS and medicare), and that doesn’t include the sales and excie taxes I pay. I just took a 2% hit on my take home pay when the cut on SS deductions was allowed to expire.

    How about if the takers give up 4%, since they have never had to take a cut in their take home???

  14. Mel  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Sounds good at first, but don’t forget that many, if not most, people who recieved checks from the government who would recived two cents on the dollar less, also pay taxes and would also pay 2 cents on the dollar more. So now we are talking up to 4 cents on at least a good part of the money of many families. But, it is probably better than a 10, 15, 25 or 75% cut in stuff for everybody.

  15. Syd  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Where did the nearly $8 trillion go that have been added to our national debt already over the last four years? It does no good to add even a small amount to the tax burden if the expenditures and bottomless banker bailouts don’t stop as well. Ending the endless wars we’re involved in all over the world, stopping the automatic pay increases for our congress members, possibly selling some of the vast amount of public lands, and no more borrowing money from the crazy Federal Reserve or anyone else would save more than 2 cents on every tax dollar. We could even stop having so many laws passed. When the wealthy get their taxes increased, it’s only a portion of the wealthy–those that are on the radar. The really powerful people with lots of money have their funds safely tucked away from taxes. Even all their wealth couldn’t bail us out now, though.

  16. brs  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Isn’t gun control the overshadowing issue right now, because that;s the way the left wants it?
    The left is not interested in negotiating at all, that is clear.
    Given the evdence presented in the article of the massive spending increases compbine with Miller’s fantasy of what just 2% could do can’t we make reductions much greater than 2%, especially given the dsmal results of massive spending?
    After decased of being ricied into higher taxes with pormises of future cuts isn;t it time to get the cuts up front?
    Sunshine the increases, yes of course, but can;t you see the next fight on Capitol hill over expiring taxes.

  17. Bette  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    I have another 2 cents to put in here. I must have been reading this wrong….I thought we were going to cut 2 cents across the board of all government and use our 2% to cut the debt. I must retract and regroup to my present comment. That would actually cut government. I thank the person who pointed out that government will only keep spending more if we give them more to which I totally agree. The government is parasitic. When the at least the deficit is paid down, we can reassess.

  18. Ron  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    I would not mind sacrificing 2% of my Soc. Sec. benefit if I could be sure they were NOT going to use it to build another jet fighter plane to give to our enemies, or a lot of other stupid ways to waste resources.

  19. Greg  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    The problem is that he’s already spent the 2 cents plus another 15 cents and he plans to spend another 40 cents. I don’t want to give him one more red cent because he has proven he can’t spend it responsibly!

  20. Maureen  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    Good afternoon my well meaning friends…..what none of you are getting is, this “spending problem” isn’t MEANT to go away!
    It has been set up to make us fail!
    Those of you who still believe in the fairytale ..of the people and by the people…haven’t been keeping up with your history.
    The congress is a castrated group of sycophants, whose primary role is window dressing for the AmeriKan public…so we continue to feed the coffers!
    Without US “contributing”, there is no more money to steal,hold ridiculous wars, mis-direct/support foreign governments and terrorist groups.
    They don’t want to FIX it! They haven’t for a very long time…that’s why no matter what party is in power, nothing changes. Wise up, we are a controlled nation by old European families who have been raping the world affectively for hundreds of years…we just haven’t realised it as yet.

  21. J Wilkes  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Obama will not change his game or leftist philosophy unless forced.

    The assumption here is “everyone in the room is an adult” and wants the best for
    the US people.

    Unfortunately… the Obama’ – left wing philosophy is locked in. They are trying to
    shred the Constitution… and make Big Govt the central gatekeeper.

    Originally ….the US was put the world on notice …that the “individual ” was master of his own fate…& governments were to be chained down. That in –a world of royal & authoritarian privileges— the founders placed individual rights / property rights as keystones to
    the pursuit of happiness.

    To assume Obama can throw off – his education – his mentors – his whole like experience
    tilted towards establishment of government controls …over individual.

    It takes 2 willing parties to make an agreement. Obama tell us every morning – he intends to push his leftist game plan. The left thrives on blowing up bridges .

    We must recognize that he is not following the Rodney King qutoe – ” Can’t we all get along”

  22. J Wilkes  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Obama declares his left wing mandate. Forget the centrist label.

    Fooled again.

  23. Babs  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    What about a program called “A Dime For The Debt”. The extra $.08 could pay for the issuing of a new dime with “Pay the Debt” printed on it. Or the extra funds could go to help a charitable organization that helps those in need in the U.S.

  24. Dan Palmer  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Dear Mr. Medved. Just read your fine piece on the 2 cent fix. If I didn’t trust that you are an honorable person I might believe that you got that “fix” from me. I have previously written on this subject, but hey; let’s just try to all get along.
    Here is how my idea works.
    Based on a forty hour work week, working people put in 160 hours a month. Assuming there are about 310 million people in America today and armed with the well documented knowledge that if a person is not working they are almost assuredly drawing some kind of tax payer funded assistance for themselves and/or a dependant or both.
    So..I say lets deduct one penny per hour “worked” from every swinging Tom, Dick and Mary, regardless of age, in America for a total of $1.60 per person, per month for a monthly total of $496,000,000.00. On a yearly basis, that comes to $5,952,000,000.00 a year. This means that within one year we could pay cash, no borrowing, for 50 infrastructure projects at $119,040,000.00 each! How many people would that put back to work? Over a ten year period of time that would put almost $60 Billion dollars into rebuilding our roads and bridges all over America and would keep hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people working for many years to come.
    If it was put into law that this money could only be used for the above mentioned reasons, I believe most Americans would see the advantages of doing something like this. Just a thought. Dan Palmer

  25. Craig Thomas  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    The problem with your column is the underlying assumption that the President, and his party, want to actually work on or reduce our problems.

    I don’t think they do.

  26. Dave S  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    This is a brilliant idea. It’s a way to shed the correct light on what “everybody paying their fair share” really means. If we’re all in this together, then everybody needs to contribute at a proportional rate. If the democrats don’t embrace the idea, then it’s understood that they’re hypocrites. If the average Income is $40,000 with an average tax of $10,000; 2% is only an increase of $200. By contrast, if the average food stamp recipient gets $1600 per year – 2% is only $32. Or if the average social security benefit for a retired worker is $1250/month, 2% is only $25.

  27. Chris  •  Jan 24, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    This plan needs to be presented to our legislators. Maybe a light bulb would come on and they would see there is a simple solution to the vast problem.

  28. David Weirich  •  Jan 25, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    The only way this would ever work, is if every American agrees to it, and the politicians use the money for what it is intended for. Unfortunately every time there is an idea on how to fix the budget, some interest group or politician defers the fund for unneeded projects like studying cow burps, etc.

  29. Simon Yuen  •  Jan 25, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Same ole story. Every time the Gov screws up with the spending, it’s my duty as a patriot to give more in taxes. Really! How about living within your means via a budget. Stop buying the public conscience by taking from others. This past election has made it apparent the country heading for financial ruin. As the demographics shift more towards those who are taking from the system, I don’t see how we’re going to ever get a responsible gov’t in place.

    • kickk  •  Jan 27, 2013 at 12:59 pm


  30. Dave Hill  •  Jan 26, 2013 at 4:03 am

    A 2% value added … or taken away tax?

  31. Dave Blaine  •  Jan 26, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    A tiny bit deceptive. “Two cents” is NOT the same thing as “Two PERCENT”! You don’t think there’s a big difference? How would you like to earn an additional TWO PERCENT from your savings account? How about just two cents?

  32. diane ballou  •  Jan 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    Oh, definitely! Do the powers that be know about it yet?

  33. kickk  •  Jan 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    The reason we are in this mess is because spending increased faster than the economy. This is purely a spending problem and we must cut spending back to what it was. Raising taxes only slows the economy over the long term (ie kills the goose that lays the golden egg). The best solution to balancing the budget I saw was a 1% across the board real spending cut each year for the next 6 years that was actually proposed by smart non-RINO Republicans. To pay off the national debt would necessarily require a bit more austerity. But who even talks about that anymore?!

  34. Granville Alley  •  Jan 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm


    It is a lot more than a “2 cent” solution, it is in fact a 2% across the board tax increase on every American on top of the just passed huge tax increases and a negligible 2% across the board cut in entitlement spending only. I have a much better idea. Why don’t we cut all Federal Pay (except Military Salaries Captain and Below), across the board 25% to bring Federal Pay into line with Private Sector Pay. And for Congress and Staff make it 50% across the board unless and until they balance the Federal Budget, then 30% until they pay off 1/3 of the aggregate Federal Debt, 20% until they pay off 1/2 of the remainder and 10% until the Aggregate Federal Debt is Zero.

    By the way in this instance the Federal Debt should be figured with all outstanding Pension, Benefit and Entitlement obligations fully currently funded, not the funny money deficit that fails to disclose most of the nation’s real indebtedness.

    Otherwise all you have done is given the Democrats Billions more dollars to squander.

    • Granville Alley  •  Jan 30, 2013 at 2:51 pm


      It is a lot more than a “2 cent” solution, it is in fact a 2% across the board tax increase on every American on top of the just passed huge tax increases and a negligible 2% across the board cut in entitlement spending only. I have a much better idea. Why don’t we cut all Federal Pay (except Military Salaries Captain and Below), across the board 25% to bring Federal Pay into line with Private Sector Pay. And for Congress, the President, Executive Officers and Staff make it 50% across the board unless and until they balance the Federal Budget, then 30% until they pay off 1/3 of the aggregate Federal Debt, 20% until they pay off 1/2 of the remainder and 10% until the Aggregate Federal Debt is Zero.

      By the way in this instance the Federal Debt should be figured with all outstanding Pension, Benefit and Entitlement obligations fully currently funded, not the funny money deficit that fails to disclose most of the nation’s real indebtedness.

      Otherwise all you have done is given the Democrats Billions more dollars to squander.

  35. Granville Alley  •  Jan 30, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    2nd Post merely to fix omission of Executive Branch from 50% Pay and Benefit cuts across the board. Also why don’t we put hard cap of $99,000.00 on all Federal Pay since it is obviously evil to make $100,000.00 or more.

    • Toms fedup  •  Mar 2, 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Nice thought, and Everyone above me is correct in what is going on I am certain. Granville Alley, and Simon Yuen certainly hit it home.
      I for one AM NOT WILLING to give even 0.005% Yes percent, NOTHING More. They will only abuse it too. I will say may God have mercy on them in their hour. Because if it were me and sorry to sound hostile, with all the damage they do, all the death they have caused in what they do, I would certainly condemn every last one of them. FAIL is the only word for our government today, they deserve nothing more.

  36. JGUY  •  Feb 6, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    One thing I would like to see is a National Lottery that is earmarked to pay off the debt…only.
    Have prizes of one million dollars only….the rest goes to debt. Every time two million in
    tickets are purchased….have a drawing for one million dollars… It would create a lot of
    winners …..who could be taxed on their winnings. WIN WIN WIN winner gets money,
    debt gets reduced, and states and feds collect income tax.
    Create many small winners instead of the mega money like other lotteries have…this should
    incentivise people to participate. This is a progressive idea…rather than the regressive
    idea of more taxes. A positive stream of revenue from those who want to participate.
    Sell the tickets at Post Offices so you dont establish another Bureaucracy….and give a small service fee to the Postal Service to help them become solvent.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn