LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the deficit/imports deficits divided by imports ratio formula used by DJT in Rose Garden chart Liberation Day April 2, 2025 shows the importance of deficits and total imports by country. The criticism in NYT of this formula centers on- Why not the use of manufactured goods plus services and why exclude services. This is easily answered the whole idea is to bring manufacturing back to the US. US Trade Representative Jamieson and president DJT say 5 million manufacturing jobs were lost and 90,000 factories closed over 2 decades of outshoring by American companies, most of it to China. Only by focusing on manufactured goods can this be corrected. What about using a five year average of the trade deficit instead of most recent 2024 trade deficit used by the president DJT? NYT says it distorts the ratio for Equatorial Guinea? But it shifts it only slightly by less than 1 percent for China and even less than that for the European Union. US is focused on correcting the unfair treatment of American workers and factories inside America that led to this loss of 5 million jobs and tens of thousands of factories, destroying the Nation's industrial base. Most of it to China, What that has to do with Equatorial Guinea is beyond comprehension and shows the ignorance that is fueling much of the criticism of the efforts to support American workers who are the best in the world when given the opportunity and management is doing it's job right. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The most recent U.S Congressional Budget Office projections make assumptions of an higher U.S. unemployment rate for the next 10 years. This worsens the outlook for the U.S. deficit. The CBO projections assume unemployment of 8.5% by the end of 2012, remaining over 8% till 2014. The deficit for fiscal 2012 is projected to be $973 billion, or 6.2% of GDP. This is down from $1.3 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP in the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2011, after spending cuts. Over the coming ten years CBO projects cumulative deficits of $8.5 trillion and U.S. debt at 82% of GDP in 2021, under a scenario where Congress renews the Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts, and is unable to reduce fees paid to doctors under Medicare. The gap between revenue and spending is widening- revenues are at 15.3% of GDP in 2011 and spending is 23.8% of GDP.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Reilly points to the growth rates used by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office as too optimistic in the light of recent figures from the Commerce Department that show growth was only 0.8% for the first half. The CBO deficit reduction projections are based on a 3.1% U.S. growth rate for 2011 and 2.8% in 2012. This means the $1 trillion in initial spending cuts under the August 2 Debt Ceiling and Deficit Deal are likely to have a negligible impact on U.S. deficit reduction. Bank of America's revised forecast is for 1.7% U.S. growth for 2011 and 2.3% for 2012. The Office of Managemet and Budget estimates that a one percentage point drop in growth in the forecast for 2011 can lead to a $750 billion increase in cumulative deficits over 10 years. Former Treasury Secretary Summers also points this out in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post, August 2, 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Instead of killing the NAFTA trade agreement Trump and his advisors prefer renegotiating the treaty. Priorities for the Trump administration are reducing the U.S. deficit with Mexico of $61 billion. Trade with Mexico and Canada is worth $1.1 trillion and the complex supply chains works such that product components cross borders more than once to become finished products. Mexico promotes its auto and other industries as duty free access to the U.S. for foreign investment. Special tariffs would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico and firms that moved production to Mexico would pay additional taxes. A provision that allows Mexican and Canadian companies to challenge U.S. regulations would also be removed. Rep. Brad Sherman (Democrat) says he supports the renegotiation so that duties of 4% are imposed to reduce the deficit to $25 billion.

LyrArc Article Gist
India received $135 billion in remittances in 2024-25 from the 18.5 million Indian diaspora, of which 10 million live in the Middle East region sending $51 billion a year. This finances the merchandise trade deficit.  In UAE alone there are 247,000 Indian students and immigrant labor is the main labor supply in the Gulf kingdoms.  Crude oil of 25-30 million barrels is on the seas as inventory to which India has access making crude oil supplies not an issue for the short term. Indian refinery production for export can also be adjusted if needed. India has received a 100 day exemption to import Russian oil from the US since the Gulf war began easing concerns for crude oil supplies. Situation for LPG is more complicated. India has used the Chabahar port to ship supplies of aid to Afghanistan on an overland route which will not operate till the tensions ease. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The legacy of U.S. president George H.W. Bush is a four year presidency that benefited from the growth under president Reagan and low inflation but was cut short in a loss to Bill Clinton in 1992, Persistent budget deficits and high unemployment were seen as a result of the supply side deficits Mr. Bush supported as vice president under Reagan, but derided as "voodoo economics" as president breaking his pledge of no new taxes to cut the deficit. The collapse of the savings and loan banks with poor lending happened during his administration, and was handled by Treasury officials including current Fed chairman Jerome Powell. Mr. Bush is chiefly remembered for his negotiating the issues leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of Germany. His handling of the Iraq war left a unstable situation in Iraq that led to a major problem for his son George Bush who became president after Bill Clinton, leading to a second and protracted costly war in Iraq. The effects of that conflict led to the changes in the Republican Party with its new leader Mr. Trump and a U.S. non-interventionist policy in foreign conflicts. Greg Ip points to the defict reduction as a positive contribution under the elder Bush, yet much of these gains were wasted in the costly Iraq conflict with U.S. hasty intervention. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EIA says half of the benefit of higher fuel efficiency standards for Automobiles 2010-2020 in US was lost because of SUV's and the incentivizing of SUV's in the 2006 CAFE standards have made things worse. The first SUV's came in the 1980's. By 2004 SUV's made up half of car sales and by 2025 outsold cars 2 to 1. What if we took all SUV's and large cars off the roads, or even some of these SUV's by deincentivizing of SUV's in the US CAFE corporate fuel efficiency standards? What would be the savings in crude oil and in carbon footprint? Would it be about the same as releasing an additional 400 million barrels of oil into the markets in addition to the 400 million barrels that are now released through EIA and member countries? This New Yorker essay touches on this idea. During the Iran war the volatile Middle East as a source of oil supplies is a major problem for countries. Some are rationing supplies and in one country 40 million children are not going to school for 2 weeks starting this week because of the sources of oil are so precarious, government offices will only have half of the employees, the rest working from home (almost like Covid pandemic). Many other countries face that situation. The International Energy Agency recently reported that, if “SUVs were an individual country, they would rank sixth in the world for absolute emissions in 2021, emitting over 900 million tonnes of CO2.” The agency says governments must redesign their CAFE standards and their policies so that it would reduce S.U.V. sales, tax gas guzzling vehicles. EIA cites governments in the EU doing this- “Some governments have already started introducing relevant measures, such as France and Germany, which have put a tax on large and high-emissions cars.” Within SUV's also there is an opportunity to reduce the size and make more efficient space utilization designs. Small savings also add up. One has to realize that the current freedom to use energy freely in places like the US with self sufficiency in oil comes with a sense of responsibility for using it wisely so that it can be exported to cut the trade deficit, precisely what the president is doing with India, to cut a trade deficit of $58 billion before it gets to $100 billion. Section 301 is already in place for investigations by the US of 18 countries for a new basis to use tariffs after the Supreme Court decision. A similar approach is taken with EU for hundreds of billions of reductions in trade deficit that will only strengthen the US dollar and the US economy in the long run , and be good for stock markets and jobs as it reduces oil prices and increases the manufacturing capacity/cost for the Nation. Europe, India and China can do the same. Remember that in 2010 SUV's made up 17% of total world sales, and by 2025 SUV's made up 46% of world vehicle sales. This would create another 400 million barrels for the oil markets, which would triple what was released through EIA  this week to 1.2 billion barrels and this would create 120 days of supply replacement for the 10 million b/d lost from Straits of Hormuz, and effectively end the Iran War as it would be clear that prices can be kept low even in the $50's. Essentially buying time till the SU can get more production in Venezuela and other parts of the world to replace much of the Middle Eastern oil that is ending up in a quagmire. This is the best way for the US and Europe, India, China to ensure jobs growth, economic growth with low cost crude oil in the $50 range and ensure much of the poorer countries like Egypt and Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have access to oil at prices they can afford and eliminate poverty. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is interviewed by the WSJ's Wessel and Seib in Jan 2013 on the U.S. deficit deal of Jan 2013, and the negotiations to reduce the deficit.

LyrArc Article Gist
 President DJT has several options after SC Tariffs decision -Sections 122 Trade Act of 1972 has 150 day limit and 15% maximum tariff rate, and Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is specifically designed for China and countries with high trade deficits. DJT pointed out at the press conference following the Supreme Court decision pointed out that he had these options at the beginning in April for tariffs. He chose IEEPA instead because the other options required work that would take several months showing the unfair treatment of the US by other nations. It is likely that the president used IEEPA for speed yet kept open the options to replace it with the option that would work best. The new studies will have been started much earlier in 2025 so that the president can introduce all his tariffs under new arrangements. Another aspect of this is that the president has negotiated Free Trade Agreements with most of the nations that are large trade partners from India, China, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan to UK, EU, Germany, France with the idea of boosting the US economy with tariffs of 10-15%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US DJT Tariffs impact 1 year later- global trade has held up well with US unemployment at 4.4% and economic growth at 2.1%. China imports down from 20% in 2016 to 10% ten years later in 2026. For DJT that was a promise kept leading to a sharp decoupling of the US economy from the Chinese economy that was leading to huge trade deficits of 1 trillion dollars. Too much of the world's supply chain was tied up with manufacturing in China. It got so bad under Reagan, the two Bushes, Clinton/Obama that the US and EU were facing deindustrialization with huge risks to the future of the US and Europe as industrial powers. 150 years of industrialization and scientific advancement, the great achievements of Europe and the United States since 1860's was going up in smoke over reckless policies of Republican and Democratic elites who gave little thought and barely understood the long run effects of their policies and textbook theories of the economy. Most economists from ivy league universities got it completely wrong. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reeves says Reagan ever the imaginative politician seized on the idea of "supply side " economics of a not so well known economist Arthur Laffer. Ideas that were simple and appealing- you reduce marginal tax rates and generate higher revenues. This worked for some time with higher economic growth for a number of years, but the arithmetic of higher spending and borrowing and lower taxes would eventually lead to large deficits at the end of Reagan's term, just as price controls worked for awhile and then led to a surge in prices at the end of Nixon's term. When Reagan became President the deficit was 2.5%, when he left office eight years later the deficit was 5% of the economy. Interest payments on debt jumped to $169 billion in 1988, from $69 billion in 1981. Reeves says American politicians know so little about economics, to which it could be added, winning presidential and congressional elections is always a big part of the picture when it comes to economic policy. Which is why Nixon even with Milton Friedman as an advisor shifted to Keynesian policies of higher fiscal spending in 1971, and why Reagan turns to intuitively appealing and effective in the short term policies of having it all- higher spending, growth, and lower taxes. During the years of the two Bush presidencies and the Clinton administration the success of Reagan policies leads to a general sense as Vice President Cheney put it referring to Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker's belief, that "deficits don't matter." Which leads us to the current situation where 2012 presidential election politics again frame the terms of the debate on deficits and budgets, only now the deficit is much higher and on a unsustainable path. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin of NYT provides some counter intuitive ideas on U.S. Fed interest rate policy. He says it can't be take as a given that the Fed will raise rates in 2017-2018. This depends on how much punch there is in the Trump economic policies for stimulus, and for infrastructure spending, tax cuts. He cites Senate Majority Leader McConnell who said he would like to keep "tax reform revenue neutral." Getting large spending and pushing up the deficit is likely to run up against Republicans in Congress who have for 8 years opposed large spending increases and large deficits. Trump has given few details about his stimulus or infrastructure spending plans. He says the scale of the spending might not match the talk. Irwin cites JP Morgan Chase economists who have kept their forecasts for GDP growth just under 2% for 2017 and 2018. And he points out that even Trump appointees at the Fed might act independently. The Fed might look at being cautious considering that increased trade tensions with China, and the unpredictability of a Trump administration could hurt growth. Irwin does not mention the uncertainty in other areas such as policy towards Russia on which the Republican party and Congress have very different views than Trump, tensions over Taiwan, that can also affect growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Standard and Poor's changed its rating of U.S. Treasury securities from stable to negative. U.S. Treasury securites are still rated AAA. Moody's made no change in the rating. U.S gross debt as a percentage of GDP is 91.6%, with the comparable number for Germany at 80%, France 82%, Canada 84%, the UK at 77%, Japan 221%. The U.S. budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is 10.6%, the comparable number for Germany is 3.3%, France 7%, Canada 5.5%, the UK 10.4%. John Chambers, the head of the sovereign ratings committee at Standard & Poor's stated that "the sign of political gridlock was a key determinant in our outlook change." The budget deficit will go up to $1.5-$1.65 trillion, or over 10% of America's GDP in 2011. The gross debt for the U.S. is at $14.219 trillion, just short of the $14.294 trillion cap. With rising entitlement costs and the interest on debt this is expected to go over the debt ceiling as early as July 8, 2011. Again political gridlock and the divide between Republicans and Democrats about deficit reduction is causing concern about the delay in raising the debt ceiling....

LyrArc Article Gist
The "Gang of Six" deficit reduction plan in the U.S. Senate follows many of the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposals including limiting tax expenditures.

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, explains his U.S. budget proposal to bring down the deficit. Ryan's Republican budget proposal is a bold effort to make a break from a status quo which is leading to higher levels of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP. It envisions changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code. It is built on the idea that sustainable finances will lead to a better economic future for America, compared to small changes to the staus quo envisioned in Democratic proposals and the 2012 budge proposal of the Obama administration. It is also bold in its effort to tackle Medicare with a "premium-support" system, and Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system. It also incorporates the Bowles -Simpson President's Deficit Commission's ideas for simplifying the tax code.

LyrArc Article Gist
 President Trump says China is backing off in negotiations to address U.S. demands for a fair relationship on trade. He says the U.S. will increase tariffs from 10% imposed in September 2018 to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods starting May 10, 2019. China has put tariffs of 10% on $60 billion of American goods exported to China responding to the American tariffs in last September.  The U.S. says since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the approval of president Clinton it has unfairly benefited in trade with the U.S., leading to closure of factories and loss of jobs in the U.S. with state subsidized Chinese exports to the U.S. contrary to the spirit of the WTO and its rules. China has made promises to correct this and not kept them says the U.S. side in negotiations led by Robert Lighthizer. The tariffs moves are a tactic of president Trump to get China to relent and make fundamental changes in the way it exports to the U.S.  So far the Chinese response has been tit for tat. But this can change. As this report points out what is already known that China benefits far more and exports far more to the U.S. than the U.S. does to China. The $60 billion of American goods exports on which China placed tariffs represent two fifths of China's imports from U.S. With smaller exports from the U.S. to China, China has not much leverage in trade negotiations in this kind of tit for tat retaliation. It hurts China's exporters and economy much more than it does U.S. consumers. The increase in prices for U.S. consumers are also not expected to be significant, according to this report in the NYT, if China increase tariffs further. Aware of this and China's belief that past administrations have not responded is a guide to what the Trump administration can or will do, has convinced president Trump that there is no other way to get a fair trading relationship that respects U.S. interests, its jobs and workers. As Robert Lighthizer who leads the U.S. negotiating team faced this type of response from the Japanese when he negotiated with them (shoving off U.S. demands to reduce Japan's trade surplus in the eighties before accepting them), the U.S. thinks this strategy will work again. In any case it sees no alternatives to achieve its goal of a fair and balanced trading relationship. The U.S. international trade deficit in goods was up to $891 billion in February 2019 even after the tariffs on Chinese goods in September, showing that it will take a lot more to turn this as well as other trading relationships around.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Where did the numbers in the US president DJT's charts come from wjen shown in the Rose Garden on Liberation Day April 2 2025? The number for example 68% for China comes from a ratio- deficit by country divided by total imports to US.  The numerator reflects the US concern about trade deficits. It is exports minus imports for China in this instance. In 2024 China's exports were $438 billion to the US. It's imports were $143 billion. The difference is the surplus or deficit China has with the US. China's surplus is $295 billion. China's surplus is also America's deficit with China when turned around and seen from the viewpoint of America. The denominator reflects the US concern about how much it is importing from each country- this is how much it is not making inside America and which it has to get from another country. The more that it imports from another country the less it makes at home. If labor in the US gets too costly and is not cooperative to make well designed reliable products more factories close and are build outside in another country. This has consequences- serious consequences over time as it spreads to different industries. FOr the first time in history. A foreign nation makes practically everything and US acts only as a consuming nation- this means the workers jobs and incomes in the US are destroyed. It is often a sign of serious decline in the Nation. $295 billion/$438 billion is 67%. This is the China number shown on DJT's chart in the Rose Garden. The tariff and non tariff barriers and currency manipulation that China conducts in trade with US is measured in this way as an estimate, much higher than actual tariffs which is why US products don't get the treatment they deserve in China's market.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. and China sign Phase 1 of the trade agreement in a sign of reduction of trade tensions between the two countries. Difficult issues of state subsidies under China's state enterprise model of development, and technological competition were put off for the future. China made the deal possible by agreeing to double its purchases of agricultural products, and offering to purchase about $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. This gives relief to farmers, a key part of Mr.Trump's support base. This also helps achieve a key Trump and U.S. goal of cutting the U.S. trade deficit with China quickly, just as happened decades ago with Japan.  See the related article and link on how for the first time in decades China's trade surplus with the U.S. is now set on a path for permanent decline. It dropped significantly in 2019 by 12.5% even though China's imports from the U.S. dropped by 21%, based on Chinese customs data released for 2019. With China increasing these imports significantly and the U.S. holding on to tariffs of 25% on $250 billon of China's exports to the U.S. which are outside the Phase 1 agreement, the downward course is set for the next few years for correction of a dangerous trade imbalance. That imbalance was allowed to develop over successive Republican and Democratic administrations. China already has the European Union as its first leading trading partner and south east Asia as its second. China plans to not be so closely intertwined with the U.S. in trade, and yet preserve its state sponsored development model and drive to compete in technology. China's increased purchases from the U.S. of $200 billon are broken down in terms of farm products- $32 billion, manufactured goods- $80 billion, energy products- $50 billion, services $35 billion. In effect the U.S. gets its goal of cutting the unsustainable China trade surplus quickly and with certainty in 3-5 years. China uses the period to transition for less trade linkage with the U.S. yet preserving its state sponsored model of development and drive for technological advancement.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The last minute efforts by Boehner and Reid to come up with their own backup plans for U.S. deficit reduction one week before the August 2, 2011, U.S. debt ceiling deadline.

LyrArc Article Gist
Speaking at the Economc Club of Indiana, U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke, says responsibility for fiscal policy lies fully on Congress and the administration. Monetary easing through QE I,II and III, which reduces the borrowing costs of the U.S. government by keeping interest rates low, cannot be seen as taking pressure off Congress and the administration, as critics claim. He countered criticism by saying: "Suppose notwithstanding our legal mandate, the Federal Reserve were to raise interest rates for the purpose of making it more expensive for the government to borrow. Such an action would substantially increase the deficit, not only because of higher interest rates, but also because the weaker recovery that would result from premature monetary tightening would further widen the gap between spening and revenues." Lawmakers would be no more inclined to come up with a program to reduce the deficit in this situation argues Bernanke. This statement of Bernake only reaffirms that low interest rates are an important goal here in the U.S.,- just as they are for France and other countries in Europe that are faced with tackling large debt and deficits- and are part of the overall solution for the government to manage its finances....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krauthammer says it has become a cliche for people to say "politics is broken" in the U.S. John Beers, head of the Standard & Poors sovereign ratings committtee, also cited a broken political system in his rationale for the U.S. credit downgrade to AA+. This happened even as S&P repeatedly emphasized the triple A rating for France during this weeks (early August 2011) tumult in the markets over French credit risks. But in reality when you look closely and have a sense about the serious changes being discussed, says Krauthammer, something exceptional has happened, and the system is working. For the U.S. Congress and the government to come to grips with an ever expanding debt -with 39 cents of every dollar spent being borrowed as Alan Simpson of the Simpson-Bowles Commission never tires of pointing out- when both branches of government have ignored or shunted off the question with a "deficits are ok" attitude for decades- is a significant achievement. When one looks closely contrary to what S&P's and other opinion says there is actually a political process that is working in the U.S. compared to the process in Europe. In difficult situations when strong opinions are bare knuckling it with each other this process can be boisterous, but it only suggests an effort to wrap ones hands around the problems in a serious way. This is actually one of the strengths of the U.S. system with its checks and balances and its spirited dialogue. In business management Intel's Andy Grove called it "constructive confrontation," and he described this as positive and essential for business institutions to survive and grow....

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT Graphs showing Effect of 17.2% overall US Tariffs positive on US Trade Deficit (significant shrinking) Prices (less than 3% increase in index). Overall effect is surprisingly quite positive, yet media has given misleading reports and misrepresented tariffs. Tariffs were used when everything else failed and had to be applied in the real world with skill, and backtracking where necessary, repositioning tariff, and continuing to use it when the opposite side including European, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, were only interested in their own gains, indifferent or negative to fairness for US gains. Even where the tariff was placed on a partner the results were surprising the carving out of exemptions such as electronics semiconductors and iphones, made it possible for India to increase exports, so that it was done thoughtfully. This shows that tariff application was done by DJT/Bessent/Jamieson in a way that gave countries options to manage their trade to come out doing well. Germany and EU without US tariffs may not have signed the deal with India this quickly, and India may have used its agricultural protection to prolong and not look for areas in common and work out a deal. Germany might still be thinking India depends too much on Russia for defense, instead it looked for areas for defense cooperation. Result the huge India- German, India-European Union deal that connects to form a 2 billion strong market. Nobody really noticed its importance except for 2 billion people- it comes when it is a highly motivated 2 billion people with strengths in technologies, industry, people skills, and between 2 civilizations the Buddhist/Vedanta Hindu and the Christian civilization, each discovering the other and the richness of its partner's civilization. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ says president Trump's trade policies have flopped so far. Part of the reason are Mr. Trump's tax policies which acted like a stimulus to the U.S. economy at a time when the world economy and China were slowing, even though this created a large fiscal deficit. Increase in interest rates by the U.S. Federal Reserve increased the value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies making imports cheaper. The Trump tariffs are in play in negotiations with the Chinese government, and the WSJ argues that Trump's tax policies are in play too. Not that the Trump threat of tariffs has not accomplished its initial intent of getting China to the negotiating table in a serious way for the first time since it joined the WTO, and reminding it of its WTO obligations and obligations for maintaining a level trading field free of state sponsored subsidies to reduce competition. Economists argue this proves that the trade deficit is influenced only by macro or larger economic influences such as the strength of your currency and demand for imports. In the long run the Trump tariff action may work, yet the tax policies may prove inconsistent in increasing the fiscal deficit without producing gains in investment in infrastructure and other vital areas of investment in the economy that would provide benefits to society. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Brooks is critical of Republican intransigence over reducing tax expenditures in the negotiations with the Obama administration in early July 2011.The Bowles-Simpson commission on the U.S. budget deficit specifically targeted a number of tax expenditures for savings to reduce the budget deficit. This resistance comes from a ideological fervour for no tax increases that does not grapple with the realities of spending cuts and the need for an approach that looks for savings wherever they can be found. That approach also leaves room for maintaining spending and not making deep cuts where such spending adds to future growth prospects for the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
CEO's of more than 80 large U.S. companies have come together behind a plan that would reduce the U.S. federal deficit with tax revenue increases and reduced spending. The CEO statement was organized by the Fix the Debt campaign, a bipartisan effort inspired by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission. The CEO statement calls for an overhaul of the U.S. tax code to eliminate or reduce deductions, credits and loopholes (reduction of tax expenditures also referred to as "broadening the base"). The CEO statement says any fiscal plan to succeed has to control increases in health care spending, make Social Security solvent, and include "comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit." This is the first time a large group of business leaders have supported raising taxes as part of an overall solution. This puts together elements of the Bowles-Simpson plan, reduces deductions and loopholes, lowers rates as part of overall tax reform and cutting spending. The CEO statement says the Simpson Bowles recommendations for $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases was an "effective framework" for tackling a problem that affects the economic well being and security of the U.S....