Given the woe is us government stance regarding deficits, whatever happened to the idea of a financial transaction tax? 

Is Capitol Hill and the White House so completely controlled by Wall Street that they refuse to consider this effective revenue tool for long-term deficit reduction?

Jonathan Tasini at Working Life writes: "To set the record straight, I contend that there is no deficit or debt "crisis"--and I think too many Democrats/liberals/progressives are falling into that trap, and helping frame a phony debate (for a more lengthy discussion about the scam, you can read my e-book, "It's Not Raining, We're Getting Peed On: the Scam of the Deficit Crisis").

"But, even if we accepted the phoniness of the debate, there is still a very good reason to enact a Financial Transactions Tax, something I've supported for a long time. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research has been one of the most vocal economists pushing the FTT. You can see one of Baker's arguments here. But, CEPR is out with a new argument today.

"The potential revenue: $150 billion a year.

"My own view, besides the direct money we would get, is that we should do this whether you believe there is a debt or deficit "crisis": an FTT would encourage big traders to "buy and hold" financial instruments rather than engage in the crazy casino-like environment that fuels a speculative bubble—-which hurts all the regular people when the bubble bursts, which is always does.

"This WILL NOT HURT THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR: It is also important to recognize that the tax will be borne almost entirely by the financial sector, not by ordinary investors.

"It won't hurt the financial markets..."

As Dean Baker, a co-director at CEPR and author of the report, states: "This is not hypothetical. The UK has used an FST to collect large amounts of revenue and the IMF is currently advocating the tax in recognition of the enormous amount of waste and rents in the financial sector.

"Revenue from an FST could annually exceed 1.0 percent of U.S. GDP. This would more than cover the costs of many government programs and budget items...."

Tasini continues: "We could use the money to help the states--which helps the economy because it stops the layoffs of a lot of people who, without a paycheck, can't spend money

"What is really odd, as CEPR points out, is the the deafening silence about pursuing an FTT:

While a number of commissions and organizations around Washington have produced plans for reducing the projected deficit in the decades ahead, most have not included a financial speculation tax (FST) in the mix.1 This seems peculiar since an FST has several features that could make it attractive as a revenue source.

"I can answer part of the reason: Wall Street contributions to political candidates. People in both parties benefit from that money and few people want to be seen as, god forbid, biting the hand that they want to feed them.

"Some members of Congress support the idea. Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR) proposed such a tax more than two years ago.

"Make it so."