More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Naiman

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Naiman
 

Shortening the War Would Pay for Half of the Payroll Tax Holiday

Posted: 11/29/11 01:00 PM ET

Shortening the war in Afghanistan by two years could easily pay half of the costs of an extension and expansion of the payroll tax holiday, the centerpiece of President Obama's jobs bill. Thus, the amendment put forward by Senator Merkley calling on the President to accelerate the drawdown in Afghanistan -- which the Senate may vote on today -- could make a significant contribution to creating more than half a million American jobs next year.

On Monday, Senate Democrats introduced legislation to extend the payroll tax cut. According to Majority Leader Reid, under the bill the average working family would have close to $1,500 a year more to spend. As the New York Times noted, "lower- and middle-income workers are the greatest beneficiaries of the tax cut."

Unfortunately, press reports indicate that Senate Republicans are very unlikely to support the bill, because to pay for the payroll tax holiday -- which also would reduce the tax paid by employers -- Democrats propose a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1 million.

From the point of view of the 99%, the appeal of paying for the payroll tax holiday with a tax on the very rich is obvious. As Paul Krugman has noted, the economic case for increasing taxes on the very rich is compelling.

However, if -- as expected -- the current Senate bill goes down to defeat due to Republican opposition, the question of how to pay for the extension of the payroll tax holiday will remain, so it makes sense to get some other good ideas for debt reduction which could pay for the tax holiday on the table.

Today one of those ideas may have a floor vote in the Senate: Senator Merkley's amendment to press the President to accelerate the military drawdown in Afghanistan.

We're now spending well over $100 billion a year on the war. If we removed all "regular U.S. combat troops by the end of 2012 -- as Senators Jeff Merkley, Rand Paul, and Tom Udall have proposed -- that could easily save well over $100 billion.

It's impossible to say very precisely what would be saved: all the numbers are fuzzy, and the Pentagon is deliberately opaque about what it really intends to do if we leave planning to them. But to get a crude estimate, let's suppose that the Pentagon were really planning to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2014 [which, of course, it isn't.] And suppose that we replaced the Pentagon plan with a plan to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2012. Let's suppose that in both cases the endpoint cost is zero [which, unfortunately, is unlikely, but if you look at the numbers of the Iraq drawdown, pulling out troops has eliminated most of the cost.] And suppose that in both cases the cost reductions caused by drawing down were linear: that is, when you're half way to drawing down completely, then you're spending half as much.

Under these simplifying assumptions, pulling out our troops by end 2012 instead of end 2014 would save a full year of war costs, about $120 billion.

The extension and expansion of the payroll tax holiday is expected to cost the government about $240 billion in revenues next year.

Thus, half of these revenues could be easily replaced by a two-year shortening of the Afghanistan war.

Economic forecaster Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says the tax cuts could create more than half a million jobs next year.

Given that shortening the war would also save the lives of several hundred American soldiers, prevent many more from being physically and psychologically maimed, and spare many Afghan civilians from similar fates; given that half of the House of Representatives is on record calling for a faster drawdown; given that 6 in 10 Republicans supported President Obama's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq; given the August 3rd statement by the AFL-CIO Executive Council that "there is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan"; is this not a reasonable proposal?

If you agree, tell your senators. Thanks to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, you can call them toll-free at 1-877-429-0678. Or you can write them here.

 

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:03 PM on 11/30/2011
The only Democrat to end a war in the past century was Harry S. Truman...using nuclear weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations after the Japanese were about to surrender due to the continuous firebombing campaigns. There is no reason to believe this will change, ever.

Today, with the economy of every US state dependent on the ever-accelerating "defense" spending in support of our offensive foreign policy, there simply is no political capital to be gained by cutting back that spending...moving the theater of operations around, sure, but a substantial cut back or trend towards shrinking defense spending over time is pure fantasy until a congress is elected who will place real, absolute limits on the growth of our government.
photo
SteveM39
No more Regressive Taxes!
12:27 PM on 11/30/2011
As an economics realist, I think any spending is good spending right now. Real un and under employment approaching 30% and growing. (Don't tell me that women who worked as cops and are now dancing in strip joints or that men who were school teachers and are now gathering shopping carts in the Wal-Mart parking lot are fully employed) The safety nets are shredding under the weight of a failing economy and gleeful conservatives running around with scissors as if their moms never warned them not to.

We need demand and jobs and if the only jobs Republicans will pay for are in Defense; so be it.

Defense contractors pay good money for good jobs in tech, manufacturing, R&D etc. Maybe they make a useless product but that's better than shutting those plants down and paying an extra penny down on our debt and a dollar more in food stamps for those workers.

And the service people coming home from the Middle East need care and treatment and schooling but they are finding unemployment and homeless shelters. The military is one of the best safety nets we have right now for young adults. They can go to college and rack up massive debt or they can sign up and get room, board, a salary, and training. The military has helped a lot of young Americans escape poverty and create a better life.

Are there better ways to spend that money? Of course, but that isn't an option.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kamact
Market Observer
09:18 PM on 11/29/2011
End these bloody and useless wars,....for the next war only the TBTF banksters will have to fight and die for their country,...
08:19 PM on 11/29/2011
Olephart, how about the reporters who don't expose those who are the REAL destroyers of America. There's a side to Grover Norquist that has never hit the mainstream press.
Norquist is the co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute.
The Islamic Free Market Institute (also known simply as the Islamic Institute) is a Muslim outreach group founded by Khaled Saffuri and Grover Norquist in 1998 , where they served as executive director and chairman, respectively
The Safa Trust donated at least $35,000, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought contributed $11,000. Both organizations were alleged to be part of the so-called SAAR Network of interrelated business and non-profit entities with ties to sources of terrorism financing, and were among the subjects of a March 20, 2002 raid conducted by the U.S. Custom Service under the auspices of Operation Green Quest.
Norquist's wife was born into a Muslim family.
Frank Gaffney has written in FrontPage magazine an article that is much needed and long overdue: "A Troubling Influence," about the extensive ties that conservative activist Grover Norquist has with radical Islamic elements.
THIS STORY NEEDS TO BE TOLD.
07:07 PM on 11/29/2011
Obama knew this coming in and he proceeded to continue Bush’s third term. The reason for Obama’s failures is he didn’t actually change much. His campaign of change was just a bait and switch tactic. Worse, he included his own mediocre stimulus and health care bills on top of Bush’s military and fiscal disasters. Now the bloated “Security” behemoth is draining the life’s blood from the economy.

Objectively both the Bush tax cuts and Obama’s tax cut are failures. The problems are systemic not superficial. The Bush tax cuts yielded the jobless recovery of 2002 – 2004. Now both are in effect and the economy is still sputtering. Thirty years of Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy, ruinous trade policies, jingoistic militarism and deregulation of the financial system have crushed the middle class. A few band aids and aspirin won’t cure the hemorrhaging cancer patient that is today’s American economy.

Only a complete reversal of these policies will suffice. Obama is not the President to do this. He cowers to the MIC and is subservient to Wall Street. He is a corporate Democrat and the Nation needs a real Democrat. The Nation needs strength not someone who sings Kumbaya with those whose only goal is the continued destruction of America.
06:34 PM on 11/29/2011
The main reason for income inequality is the fact that the income of the very rich is taxed at only 15% (as capital gains and dividents) while the income of the middle class is taxed at 25-35%. Why are not the Democrats proposing to fund the payroll tax reduction by raising the capital gains and dividents tax rates. 50% of all capital gains go to the top 0.1% of the taxpayers? ALso proposing a tax increase in the capital gains rate will not make them vulnerable to accusation that they want to tax small business (unless the business' business is to gamble on Wall Street)?
photo
SteveM39
No more Regressive Taxes!
12:51 PM on 11/30/2011
The justification for lower capital gains taxes is the double taxation argument. Wells Fargo runs a business and makes a profit of $100. They pay $35 of that in income tax. Then they dispense the remaining $65 profit to the owners of the company. Those dividends are considered capital gains and taxed again at 15% or $9.75. So the real tax on that $100 of profit is actually 44.75%.

But many returns that qualify for capital gains treatment have never been taxed. The tax system is faulty and needs a complete overhaul but since special interests control Washington, it can't happen and would only be made more unfair by the current political parties..

The only solution is a clean sweep of Washington by the people at the polls. We are still far from that happening but we are slowly getting there. A Reform Party dedicated to fixing the wrongs is needed. Both Democrats and Republican Parties only support candidates who play along with the status quo.

The bus will probably have to go off the cliff before it happens but it is coming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
06:25 PM on 11/29/2011
Thanks for showing that the GOP do not have a lock on myopia.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:39 PM on 11/29/2011
I would rather give half the money to the military industrial complex than twice the money to reward big business that send jobs overseas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
06:33 PM on 11/29/2011
We, the uneducated masses, are a major reason jobs go over seas. The #1 factor in making a school an educational success or failure is the educational orientation of the families and the families' culture. The USA is last among industrialized nations in education achievement.

Play the blame game all you want, but eventually look at the statistics. No rational business will chose a country, which is last in educational achievement and becoming worse each day, in which to locate.

If we weren't such bigoted suckers, we would have a launched a new 'Space Program," only this one would have been to take Mexicans from non-Enlish speakers to Ph.D.'s in one generation. According to matrix IQ tests, illegal Mexicans are 5% smarter than native born Anglos.

There appears to be a selective factor for those who are bold enough to come north, but we are so prejudiced, we'll sink our own country as long as we think we're attacking Mexican children. Look at the obscene way the GOP treated Perry went he thought education was a good idea.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:51 PM on 11/29/2011
wrong. I strongly disagree with you.

I have worked in architecture, nuclear engineering, and product development.

I assure you, the world turns to us for good ideas.. Our business leaders turn to the world to exploit our good ideas without compensating us.

Observe: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

Our Share: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PRS85006173
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:01 PM on 12/07/2011
Not that I would defend our education system but I think being able to avoid taxes on overseas operations may have some impact.
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
02:31 PM on 11/29/2011
Hold on with that shortening the War stuff....Bush and Cheney planned on both of those wars lasting for ever...or at lest until Social Security and Medecare were wiped out...Good wars like these two are hard to come bye.
jhNY
Mercy.
02:02 PM on 11/29/2011
We're not in Afghanistan because we're too dumb to figure out how to leave. We're there as part of our unspoken policy of regional domination for the purpose of keeping petroleum supply lines safe from interruption and for the purpose of hemming in Iran.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
RobertNaiman
Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy
07:03 PM on 11/29/2011
Well, I think that there is an important caveat to this line of argument.

Yes, U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan because powerful people think it serves their interests that they do so.

But powerful people perceived it to be in their interests for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Yet U.S. forces are being withdrawn.

Therefore, it is possible to withdraw U.S. forces, even if powerful people disagree with doing so.
jhNY
Mercy.
07:09 PM on 11/29/2011
And when it happens, I'll be happy to recognize the possibility as being realized.
jhNY
Mercy.
01:58 PM on 11/29/2011
II have no objection to the amount of money left to working Americans that would derive out of the extension of the payroll tax 'holiday', but I don't like that it comes about in part by way of reductions of money coming in to Social Security. Seems but a short slide down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which it will be easy enough for pols to continually decry the insolvency of the program, exacerbated by the shortfall of revenues due to this 'holiday', and then call for reductions in payouts to recipients.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emmanuel kalu
commonsense
02:56 PM on 11/29/2011
it is better that we have 10 workers paying half the tax rate to SS, than have 5 workers paying the max rate. increase economical growth, job growth and wages would eventually add more to SS. moreover this is how it is going to work. we take money from payroll, but we add money taken from the millions. SS has a trust fund, that doesn't matter how it is filled, it just needs to be filled. we can also replace the dollars taken by increasing the amount of income that is taxed for SS. lets increase it to 200k.
jhNY
Mercy.
05:54 PM on 11/29/2011
Raise the cap!
photo
intolleft
ObamaCare...getting you shovel ready
01:36 PM on 11/29/2011
Mmmm, no it won't. You assume that the costs of the war won't be spent somewhere else. Going by fiscal government history....it will be spent somewhere else.
01:19 PM on 11/29/2011
It must be extremely difficult for the few anti-war democrats that still have a conscience to watch this president double down on this unwinnable war and continue to expand the drone wars and the military empire abroad while offering to cut programs for the poor and the middle class at home.