America is not broke

file:///Users/clara/Downloads/america-is-not-broke.pdf

␣␣

About the Contributors

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy project at the Institute for Policy Studies and is the co-author of 17 yearly IPS “Executive Excess” reports.

John Cavanagh is the director of the Institute for Policy Studies and has co-authored 12 books on the global economy.

Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies and has written widely on the Iraq and Afghan wars. Her books include Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer.

Chuck Collins directs the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good and is co-editor of www.inequality. org. He is author of the forthcoming book, 99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It (Berrett Koehler Publishing).

John Feffer co-directs the Foreign Policy In Focus project at the Institute for Policy Studies. Miriam Pemberton is the principal co-author of the Institute for Policy Studies’ yearly Unified Security Budget for

the United States report.

Daphne Wysham co-directs the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, where she is also directing a project on new ways to measure economic progress.

Report design: Erik Leaver Cover design: Adwoa Masozi

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power.

© 2011 Institute for Policy Studies For additional copies of this report see http://www.ips-dc.org/reports

Institute for Policy Studies 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20036 | Tel: 202 234-9382 | Fax: 202 387-7915 Web: www.ips-dc.org

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................. 1 II. Taxing Wall Street, Corporations, and the Wealthy............................................................ 3 III. Cutting Military Spending................................................................................................. 7 IV. Taxing Pollution and Eliminating Environmentally Harmful Subsidies ........................ 11 Notes ....................................................................................................................................... 13

I. Introduction and Summary

Amisplaced obsession with our national debt and austerity has overtaken the national debate on the economy, with a resounding call to slash government spending to balance the bud- get. Some lawmakers are asserting that the country is broke, that we must tighten our belts, and that we lack the resources to pay for teachers, firefighters, and other vital public servants. They argue that we can't afford the government programs that help people in need, and claim we don't have the funds for urgently needed job- creating investments.

Taxing Pollution and Cutting Environmentally Harmful Subsidies:

$197 billion

Cutting Military Spending:

$252 billion

A congressional "supercommittee" has tried to identify $1.2 trillion in new cuts over the next decade that could have devastating consequences for our com- munities and our nation. There are many excellent pro- posals that should be “on the table” for debate.

This report challenges the premise that America is broke. In fact, we argue that the current fiscal chal- lenge poses an opportunity to harness our country’s ample but misdirected resources in ways that will make us stronger.

Taxing Wall Street, Corporations, and the Wealthy:

$375 billion

Potential revenues that would make the nation more equitable, green, and secure Total: $824 billion

We did not attempt to develop an exhaustive list of possible revenue-raisers or spending cuts. Rather, we focused on 24 fiscal reforms that we believe would go furthest to make the country more equitable, green, and secure. These reforms amount to an estimated $824 billion in potential revenue per year — seven times the total savings the supercommittee was tasked with producing.

The recommendations fall into three categories:

• Revenues that advance a more equitable society: New taxes on Wall Street, corpora- tions, and individuals could, if rigorously enforced, raise more than $375 billion a year, while reducing reckless speculative activity and creating a healthier society. Between 1935 and the late 1970s, progres- sive tax rates and investments in infrastruc- ture, education, and housing expanded the middle class and served as a foundation for decades of broadly shared prosperity. Today, opinion polls indicate widespread renewed support for proposals to increase taxes on millionaires, make Wall Street pay its fair share, and close corporate tax loopholes.1

• Expenditure cuts that would make the United States and the world more secure: The Pentagon consumes more than half of U.S. federal discretionary spending, much of it on things that do not make us safer. While some jobs rely on this spending, a study by economists at the University of Massachusetts has shown that the military budget is a poor job creator compared to other forms of federal spending. Whereas

$1 billion devoted to military production creates approximately 11,000 jobs, the same amount invested in clean energy creates about 17,000 jobs; in health care, 19,000 jobs; and in education, 29,000 jobs.2 We identify three areas where a total of $252 billion in cuts can be made to free up funds for job creation without risk to our national security. They are:

1) End the war in Afghanistan as we end the war in Iraq;

2) Reduce the sprawling network of over- seas U.S. military bases; and

3) Eliminate programs that are obsolete and/or wasteful. All three of these goals are supported by the majority of Americans.3

• Revenue increases and subsidy cuts that will create a cleaner environment: If all polluting industries were required to pay the full cost of environmentally harm- ful practices and products, they would have greater incentives to adopt improved green technologies and reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The Obama administration has promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and yet U.S. taxpayers are still spending tens of billions of dollars per year on handouts to giant oil and other energy firms. We recommend eliminating this corporate welfare and introducing new taxes on pollution that could generate an estimated $197 billion per year in revenue.

Institute for Policy Studies

2

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

II. Taxing Wall Street, Corporations, and the Wealthy

By Sarah Anderson and Chuck Collins

New revenue has to be part of the solution, since the tax cuts for the wealthy and cor- porations over past decades are a primary reason we’re experiencing budget challenges. Since 2001, our nation has borrowed almost $1 trillion to provide tax breaks to high-income households. Revers- ing the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts for high- income households is the first step in any program to reduce deficits and raise revenue. Here are several other additional proposals:

Tax financial TransacTions: $150 billion

As recently as the 1970s, most stock trades were carried out by people who were investing for the medium- and long-term. After three decades of deregulation, this is no longer the

case. The cost of trading has been lowered by increased competition between brokers and technological advances. This has benefited all investors, but lower trading costs have also opened the door to widespread speculative activity that erodes confidence in the stability of markets. High-frequency trading now ac- counts for about 55 percent of equity trades in the United States.4 This is a threat to the interests of responsible investors. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Re- search, a modest federal tax on every trans- action that involves the buying and selling of stock and other financial products could generate about $150 billion per year, while dampening rapid turnover of stocks and speculation.5

Proposed reforms

Potential annual revenues ($billions)

Tax financial transactions

150

Apply a levy on the largest banks

9

Stop tax haven abuse

100

Close the stock option loophole

2

Impose a progressive estate tax on large fortunes

35

Create additional tax brackets for higher incomes and tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income

79

Subtotal

375

3

apply a levy on The largesT banks: $9 billion

The White House has proposed a levy on the liabilities of financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets. While this is no substitute for taxing financial transactions, it would help re- coup at least a small share of the costs of the crisis and provide a deterrent against excessive leverage for the largest financial firms.6

sTop Tax haven abuse: $100 billion

By current statute, corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent tax on their profits. Ac- cording to Citizens for Tax Justice, over the last three years, the top U.S. corporations have actually paid only 18.5 percent of their profits to Uncle Sam.7 One of the main ways that large corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes is by stashing them in overseas tax havens. In doing so, companies like Pfizer and General Electric shift their responsibility for paying taxes to responsible local banks and businesses that operate within our borders. The Stop Tax Havens Abuse Act (S. 1346 and H.R. 2669) would close numerous loopholes that facilitate tax dodging via tax havens. For example, it would treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations whose management and control occur primarily in the United States as U.S. domestic corporations for tax purposes.8

close The sTock opTion loophole: $2 billion

Under current rules, companies can lower their tax bills by claiming deductions for stock op- tions granted to their top executives that are much higher than the option value they report in their financial statements. This tax incentive encourages corporate boards to hand executives huge stock option windfalls. The Ending Ex- cess Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act (S. 1375) would limit corporate tax de- ductions to the amount expensed for financial statement (book) purposes at the time of the option grant. Closing this loophole would add $24.6 billion to federal tax revenues over 10 years, or about $2 billion per year.9

levy a progressive esTaTe Tax on large forTunes: $35 billion

Congress passed a deal at the end of 2010 to reinstate the estate tax at 35 percent and to exempt estates under $5 million, $10 million for a couple. Congress should proactively pass a progressive estate tax reform that closes loop- holes and raises substantial revenue from those able to pay. The Responsible Estate Tax Act (S. 3533) establishes graduated tax rates and includes a 10 percent surtax on the value of an estate above $500 million, or $1 billion for a couple.10

Institute for Policy Studies

4

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

creaTe addiTional Tax brackeTs for people earning $1 million or more per year and eliminaTe The Tax preference for capiTal gains and dividends: $79 billion

The Fairness in Taxation Act (H.R.1124) would add five additional tax brackets for income over $1 million. It would also tax income from wealth the same as income from work. Current law subjects most dividend and capital gains income — the investment income that flows overwhelmingly to wealthier Americans — to a 15 percent tax rate. The tax on wage and salary income, by contrast, can run up to 35 percent. This yawning gap is what inspired Warren Buffett to call on Congress to “stop coddling the super-rich” and institute higher rates on income from wealth. With carefully structured rate reform, we can end this preferential treat- ment and at the same time encourage average families to engage in long-term investing.11

5

Institute for Policy Studies

6

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

III. Cutting Military Spending

By Phyllis Bennis, John Feffer, and Miriam Pemberton

ending The u.s. war in afghanisTan: $122 billion

In 2011, U.S. taxpayers paid $122 billion for the war in Afghanistan, according to the Na- tional Priorities Project.12 These figures include

only those funds that are expended specifically for the costs of the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included but combat pay is included. They do not include the costs of future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war or the additional interest

Proposed reforms

Potential annual revenues ($billions)

Ending the U.S. war in Afghanistan

122

Reducing U.S. overseas military bases

Eliminate 1/3 of bases in Europe and Asia, as a step towards shut- ting down bases worldwide

10

Eliminate remaining operations in Iraq

11

Eliminating military waste and unnecessary weapon systems

Drastically reduce the nuclear warhead arsenal as a major step on the path to nuclear abolition

21

Stop R&D and procurement of unnecessary weapons

22

Eliminate two active Air Force wings and two carrier groups that are not needed to address current and probable future threats

8

Use savings from eliminating inefficiencies to reduce overall military spending, rather than increasing other Pentagon expenditures

20

Cut outsourcing to defense contractors by 15 percent

30

Cut spending on portions of the nuclear weapons complex budget, such as a new bomber, tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and two new nuclear production facilities, as well as unnecessary military space programs

2

Cut State Department Foreign Military Financing

6

Subtotal

252

7

payments on the national debt that will result from higher deficits due to war spending.

The United States is occupying Afghanistan with about 100,000 troops, plus 100,000 U.S.- paid contractors, along with more than 40,000 NATO soldiers. The cost of keeping one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is $1.2 million for one year.13 That’s not because the troops are over- paid – many of them would qualify for food stamps if the Pentagon didn’t provide a separate food stipend to avoid embarrassing its under- paid troops.14 It’s because of the huge cost of providing for the Pentagon’s occupying army. Just getting fuel into landlocked Afghanistan costs $400 per gallon, while the cost of air- conditioning all those troops is $20.2 billion per year.15

The war is not making us safer, but continues to put us at greater risk as fury grows in re- sponse to U.S.-caused casualties. U.S. officials talk about drawing down numbers of troops, but young soldiers are still dying in higher numbers. Every year, Afghan civilians are dying in higher numbers.16 And the United States is escalating and widening the war using drones illegally in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and be- yond.17 It should not be a surprise that 64 per- cent of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.18

Reducing U.S. overseas military bases

eliminaTe 1/3 of u.s. bases in europe and asia: $10 billion

The United States maintains roughly 1,000 military bases worldwide. As Congress begins to evaluate the usefulness of these bases, it will focus its reductions first on Europe and then on Asia, where the bulk of personnel and hardware is located and where the bases are still con- nected to long outdated Cold War missions. We support the closing of U.S. military bases worldwide, but we recognize the most likely political targets for reduction in the near-term will be in Europe and Asia.

The Center for American Progress and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) argue for a reduction of 50,000 troops from Europe and Asia for a savings of $70 billion over the next decade, or about $7 billion per year.19 In a separate report, Coburn identifies about $34 billion in savings from reduced maintenance costs related to those base closures over a decade, or about $3.4 billion per year.20 (We do note, however, that base closures are not without short-term costs. There should be sufficient funds set aside for job retraining for demobilized personnel and for clean-up costs around the sites.)

Institute for Policy Studies

8

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

eliminaTe remaining opera- Tions in iraq: $11 billion

Ending the Iraq War by the end of 2011 re- quires shutting all U.S. bases located there. Iraq currently hosts 39 bases, down from a peak of 505.21 Based on projected costs for U.S. mili- tary operations in Iraq in 2012, primarily for the State Department’s 15,000 or more mili- tary contractors that will be stationed there, a complete withdrawal of that paramilitary force should free up around $11 billion per year.22

Eliminating military waste and unnecessary weapon systems

The Institute for Policy Studies is part of a team that releases a yearly Unified Security Budget for the United States. It identifies tens of billions in savings that can be made with no sacrifice in security.23 The latest edition, which covers the 2012 fiscal year, proposes the following:

cuTs To The u.s. nuclear arsenal: $21 billion

We believe that nuclear abolition is necessary. As a significant step on the path toward this goal, we recommend reducing the nuclear ar- senal to no more than 311 warheads, which would save $21 billion per year. The faculty of the Air War College and the School of Ad- vanced Air and Space Studies have asserted that

this is more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence against current and likely future threats.24

cuT unnecessary weapons: $22 billion

The Unified Security Budget identifies huge savings from scaling back or stopping the research, development and procurement of weapons that are not necessary to deter today’s threats, including ballistic missile defense, the Virginia-Class submarine, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.25

eliminaTe under-uTilized aircrafT groups: $8 billion

By eliminating two active Air Force wings and two aircraft carrier groups that are not needed address current and probable future threats, we could save taxpayers around $8 billion per year.

savings from reducing inef- ficiencies: $20 billion

If the Congress directed the current savings and efficiencies that the Pentagon has identi- fied to reducing the overall Pentagon budget, rather than reinvesting these inefficient dollars elsewhere in the giant Pentagon bureaucracy, we could save about $20 billion per year.

9

nuclear weapons complex cuTs: $2 billion

A new report from the Project On Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense has identified additional billions that could be saved with no increased risk to American se- curity. These include deferring a new bomber, freezing development of over-budget military space programs, foregoing the modernization of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe that NATO is currently negotiating to eliminate entirely, halting construction of a new nuclear weapons production facility at Los Alamos and a nuclear fuel fabrication facility at Savannah River.26

ouTsourcing cuTs: $30 billion

The Project on Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense also estimated that just a 15 percent cut in outsourcing of De- fense Department functions would save at least $30 billion per year.27 This practice has dras- tically expanded since the year 2000, despite serious problems with the lack of contractor ac- countability and infficiency. A September 2011 study from POGO found that the average annual contractor billable rate was much high- er than the average annual full compensation for federal employees performing comparable services.28

sTaTe deparTmenT foreign miliTary financing: $6 billion

The State Department is budgeted to spend $5.55 billion per year to provide grants to foreign governments to purchase U.S.-made weapons. This arms trade often fuel conflicts and contributes to human rights and interna- tional law violations.29

Institute for Policy Studies

10

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

IV. Taxing Pollution and Cutting Environmentally Harmful Subsidies

By Daphne Wysham

carbon Tax: $75 billion

A tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut air pollution and emissions of green- house gases, and promote energy technology innovation. Revenue estimates for taxes on carbon emissions vary greatly, depending on the coverage and the response of consumers and producers. In a widely cited article in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Profes- sors Gilbert E. Metcalf of Tufts University and David Weisbach of the University of Chicago conclude that a modest tax on emissions from

fossil fuels alone would likely raise between $75 billion and $100 billion per year.30 Their calculations are based on several carbon tax bills introduced in the U.S. Congress, covering a range of tax rates and time periods. Because poorer households spend a greater share of their disposable income on consumer goods than the wealthy, most proponents of carbon taxes have proposed ways in which all or a portion of the revenues from the carbon taxes would be used to compensate consumers, for example through rebates or by financing reductions in the federal payroll tax.

Proposed reforms

Potential annual revenues ($billions)

Tax carbon emissions

75

Tax air and water pollution

38

Charge user fees for public resources

7

Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies

12

Eliminate nuclear subsidies

10

Eliminate ethanol, "clean coal," and other dubious new energy subsidies

19

Eliminate subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture

11

Eliminate subsidies for environmentally harmful transportation projects and land and water use

24

Subtotal

197

11

air and waTer polluTion Taxes: $38 billion

By shifting more of the tax burden onto activi- ties that cause air and water pollution, we can make the economy more productive, enhance our quality of life, encourage the develop- ment of alternative energy technologies, and strengthen national energy security. These figures were calculated by the bipartisan group Get America Working, based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Joint Committee on Taxation.31

user fees for public resources: $7 billion

Taxpayers should be fairly compensated when the private sector profits off of our public re- sources, such as offshore oil drilling and gas production and the use of radio spectrum licenses. Modest increases in these payments could raise an estimated $7 billion per year.32

fossil fuel, nuclear, and oTher energy subsidies: $12 billion

Public opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions oppose subsidies for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power.33 These mature energy industries are both highly polluting and highly profitable.Based on figures in the bipartisan 2011 Green Scissors report, the United States could save about $22 billion every year by cutting government handouts to

these industries.34 That report also identifies $19 billion per year in wasteful subsidies for dubious “alternative energy” industries, such as “clean coal.”

agriculTural, Transpor- TaTion, and land/waTer subsidies: $11 billion and $24 billion, respecTively

The vast majority of agricultural subsidies flow to corporate farms rather than helping to shift our food system to more environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. The Green Scissors report identifies about $11 billion per year in corporate welfare for agribusinesses.35 It also highlights $21 billion per year in wasteful transportation funding that is not helping the nation shift to more energy-efficient forms of travel, as well as another $3 billion in harmful land and water use policies, such as flood insur- ance that encourages intensive development in flood zones.

Institute for Policy Studies

12

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

Notes

1. Jeff Zeleny and Megah Thee-Brenan, “New Poll Finds a Deep Distrust of Government,” The New York Times, October 25, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/ poll-finds-anxiety-on-the-economy-fuels-volatility-in-the- 2012-race.html. Actual Poll Results: http://s3.documentcloud. org/documents/259646/the-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll- oct-2011.pdf

2. Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, “The U.S. Employment Effects of Military And Domestic Spending Priorities: An Updated Analysis,” Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, October 2009. http:// www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_ priorities_PERI.pdf

3. For poll results on the Afghanistan war, see: http://www. pollingreport.com/afghan.htm. For poll results on support for closing foreign military bases, see: http://www.city-data.com/ forum/politics-other-controversies/932992-should-foreign-us- military-bases-closed.html

4. Jeremy Grant and Telis Demos, “Ultra-fast traders braced for tough curbs in Europe,” Financial Times, October 14, 2011. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c51fce68-f5b1-11e0-be8c- 00144feab49a.html#axzz1di76p6gx

5. Dean Baker, “The Deficit-Reducing Potential of a Financial Speculation Tax,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 2011. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/fst- 2011-01.pdf. Note: In November 2011, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D- OR) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced bills to create a U.S. financial transaction tax at a lower tax rate than that calculated by CEPR. At a rate of 0.03% on each transaction, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that these bills would generate $353 billion in revenues over 10 years.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=736:memo-joint-tax-committee-finds- harkin-defazio-wall-street-trading-and-speculators-tax-generates- more-than-350-billion&catid=63:2011-news

The White House, “President Obama Proposes Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to Recoup Every Last Penny for American Taxpayers,” January 14, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the-press-office/president-obama-proposes-financial-crisis- responsibility-fee-recoup-every-last-penn

Robert S. McIntyre, Matthew Gardner, Rebecca J. Wilkins, Richard Phillips, “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers, 2008-2010,” Citizens for Tax Justice, November 2011. http://ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/ Sen. Carl Levin, “Summary of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act,” July 12, 2011. http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/ summary-of-the-stop-tax-haven-abuse-act-of-2011 Sen. Carl Levin, “Levin-Brown Bill Would End Corporate Stock Option Tax Break, Reduce Deficit by $25 Billion,” July 15, 2011. http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/levin-brown-bill- would-end-corporate-stock-option-tax-breakreduce-deficit-by-25- billion Figures represent an annualized average of cuts recommended over a five-year time period in the following report: Andrew Fieldhouse, “The People’s Budget: A Technical Analysis,” Economic Policy Institute, http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/ The%20People%27s%20Budget%20-%20A%20Technical%20 Analysis.pdf Citizens for Tax Justice, “Congresswoman Schakowsky Proposes Millionaires Tax as Alternative to Cutting Education, Health and Other Programs,” March 18, 2011. http://www.ctj.org/ taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/03/congresswoman_schakowsky_ propo.php

13

12. National Priorities Project, “Cost of War,” accessed November 15, 2011.

http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/state/US/program/13/tradeoff/ 13. Todd Harrison, “Analysis of the FY 2011 Defense Budget,” Center

for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, June 2010. http:// www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010.06.29- Analysis-of-the-FY2011-Defense-Budget.pdf

14. Rod Powers. “Military Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance,” About.com Guide, January 9 2011. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2011pay/a/fssa.htm

15. Roxana Tiron, “$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan,” The Hill, Oct. 15, 2009. http://thehill.com/ homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of- war-in-afghanistan-

16. See fatalities figures at: http://icasualties.org/oef/ 17. By Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman and Julian E. Barnes, “U.S.

Tightens Drone Rules,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 4, 2011. http:// online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020462190457701398 2672973836.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

18. “Poll: Afghan war not worth fighting,” UPI, March. 15, 2011. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/15/Poll-Afghan- war-not-worth-fighting/UPI-12621300200925/#ixzz1diCiyILQ

19. Lawrence J. Korb, Sam Klug, Alex Rothman, “Defense Cuts After the Debt Deal: Bipartisan Recommendations from Four Deficit Reduction Plans,” Center for American Progress, August 11, 2011. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/ bipartisan_defense_cuts.html

20. Senator Tom Coburn, “Back in Black,” July 2011. http://coburn. senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c6590d01- 017a-47b0-a15c-1336220ea7bf

21. Dan Froomkin, “U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions,” Huffington Post, Sept. 26, 2011. http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/iraq-withdrawal-us-bases- equipment_n_975463.html

22. http://ncbm.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2012-oco-fact- sheet.pdf

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Lawrence Korb and Miriam Pemberton, “Report of the Task Force on A Unified Security Budget for the United States,” Institute for Policy Studies, June 30, 2011. http://www.fpif.org/reports/ unified_security_budget_fy2012

Gary Schaub Jr. and James Forsyth Jr., “An Arsenal We Can All Live With,” The New York Times, May 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html We have deducted $6.5 billion related to personnel reductions from the Unified Security Budget so as to avoid double-counting the savings proposed here through the reduction in U.S. military bases.

Figures represent an annualized average of cuts recommended over a longer time period in this report: “Spending Less, Spending Smarter: Recommendations for National Security Savings FY 2012 to FY 2021,” Project on Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense, October 19, 2011, http://www. pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/national-security/spending-less- spending-smarter-ns-wds-20110721.html Figures represent an annualized average of cuts recommended over a longer time period in this report: “Spending Less, Spending Smarter: Recommendations for National Security Savings FY 2012 to FY 2021,” Project on Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense, October 19, 2011, http://www. pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/national-security/spending-less- spending-smarter-ns-wds-20110721.html Project On Government and Oversight, “Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors,” September 13, 2011. http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/contract-oversight/ bad-business/co-gp-20110913.html U.S. Department of State, “Congressional Budget Justification, Volume 2: FOREIGN OPERATIONS,” Fiscal Year 2012. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/158267.pdf Gilbert E. Metcalf and David Weisbach, “The Design of a Carbon Tax,” Harvard Environmental Law Review, January 2009. http:// www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Metcalf%20 Weisbach.pdf

Institute for Policy Studies

14

America Isn’t Broke: How to Pay for the Crisis While Making the Country More Equitable, Green, and Secure

31. Calculated by the bipartisan group Get America Working for a forthcoming paper entitled "Job Creation Tax Options.” Air pollution estimates are based on figures from the EPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ net/2008inventory.html. Water pollution estimates are based on calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress, which is cited in this paper by the World Resources Institute: http://pdf.wri.org/greening_the_tax_code.pdf

32. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, “Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan,” Nov 16, 2010. http://schakowsky.house.gov/images/stories/1202_ Schakowsky_Deficit_Reduction_Plan.pdf

33. Civil Society Institute survey, November 3, 2011. http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/110311release.cfm

34. Figures represent an annualized average of cuts recommended over a five-year time period in the following report: Public Citizen, the Heartland Institute, Friends of the Earth, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Green Scissors 2011: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending.” http://greenscissors.com/ news/green-scissors-2011/

35. Figures represent an annualized average of cuts recommended over a five-year time period in the following report: Public Citizen, the Heartland Institute, Friends of the Earth, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Green Scissors 2011: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending.” http://greenscissors.com/news/green-scissors-2011/

15

␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣