With all the hand wringing and self-defeating talk from Republicans about the political cost of allowing the federal government to shut down for a couple of weeks, there is a missed opportunity. What better way to illustrate just how little taxpayers get back on their “investments”? And what a great time to demolish the myth that even modest cuts would detrimentally affect most Americans.
Alas, it looks like the Senate and House will agree to federal spending cuts of only $4 billion to avert a government shutdown for two more weeks. Republicans initially asked for $61 billion in spending cuts for the remainder of the year — in real terms, a pittance — which according to many Democrats would destroy a brittle economic recovery and kill thousands of jobs.
If you believe that stimulus spending creates productive, self-sustaining jobs, I suspect you’re forced to believe that a lack of stimulus spending will destroy those jobs.
[…]
When, as Democrats contend, cutting a single-digit percentage of the budget becomes an abdication of our duty, how can we ever get to $61 billion in spending cuts, much less a balanced budget? If half the government believes that creating debt is an economic stimulant, what are the chances of ever dealing with national debt?
Any spending cut that does not involve defense (which should be on the table) induces Democrats to lament the inconceivable and imagined personal and economic toll Americans will suffer. The truth is that those who view nearly all government spending as not only a moral obligation but also economically advantageous don’t really want to cut a penny.
By suggesting that they recognize the real smell of their own rhetorical farts, I’m afraid you’re giving them too much credit, David. The noxious odor of their contrived rationalizations are to them but a necessary byproduct of their having gorged so long at the government trough.
Here. Let me put this succinctly and poetically, if you’ll allow me that indulgence:
“Spending is power, power is spending,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Yeah there is plenty to cut…
But unless you are ready to cut entitlements, it is window dressing.
If it were me, I would cut discretionary spending (non-defense and defense) by 10% and then start addressing medicare and social security by cutting eligibility. Eliminate Obamacare and the Medicare drug entitlement expansion. Move social security up to 70 for all under 60. Medicare’s problems are more severe so there is going to have to be a cap on available funds per patient.
And even that might not be enough, but it would be a legitimate start.
I like Levins suggestion. Cut 10% across the board, and put a 18% of GNP cap on spending.
My own suggestion on top of that is 10% of the entire budget goes to paying down the national debt, until it no longer exists.
Joe,
I want 20% cuts across the board.
Nothing is sacred, it all goes under the budget axe.
Even if Seniors take an 20% hit, if the value of the dollar rises (which I think would happen) it would offset the spending cut.
I really don’t care if a wave of deflation runs across the country. The idea that inflation is a good thing is ridiculous.
Even a modest inflation rate of, say, 3% a year means you lose 24% of the value of a dollar over 10 years.
Blake: the problem is politically pulling off a 20% cut. The cuts I proposed would be hard (and unlikely). But hey, what do I care–I know that by the time I get to retirement social security and medicare will likely be non-functioning so I am all for cutting away. If it can be done, do it.
I remember dicentra and I having a conversation with Darleen about cutting social security for boomers. Let’s just say Darleen was not open to the idea. And I sympathise and understand Darleen’s point–she paid into social security for years and wants her money (hey, I have paid into it and want it too)…but that is what you are facing. And social security is fixable. It is medicare that is completely upside down. Yet even the Republicans are not serious about cutting that yet. It is insane.
So I am not optimisitic. Unfortunately it will take a real crisis to make this happen. And by then the financial burden of doing these fixes will be catastrophic. Like finanical collapse and no checks going out. We will be like Agentina, in the bad years.
Maybe Lady Gaga can remake Evita.
All those idiots have really done is to postpone the condemnation for another 2 weeks. In fact, they’ve essentially sentanced themselves to an additional 2 weeks of the drumbeat that any in favor of cuts=h8terz of women, children, minorities, and the American way…
Oh, and judging by the most vocal pinheads in WI, they must hate “democracy” as well, since according to those idiots, many of whom are teachers I’ll remind all, democracy = compromise.
Makes my head hurt just to think about it.
And Blake, I am not disageeing with you.
Entitlement reforms? Start by means testing all potential SS, medicare, and medicaid recipients. And slowly raising the retirement age to reflect the demographic changes due to better health care…
That is, until these programs can be abolished or privatized.
Likely to be impossible. Paying down fifteen trillion dollars, plus solving another hundred ten trillion dollars in unfunded obligations is doubtful, especially at these kinds of burn rates.
Remember that present monetary policy simply prohibits debt being paid in full because the interest remains once the principal disappears — money is debt and a single currency constitutes a closed system. Paying all debt disappears “money” but leaves interest standing.
Whether paying the national debt plus unfunded obligations constitutes a number sufficient to bring this phenomenon into play is an exercise, but such vast numbers don’t give much appearance of ever being conquered.
The US government has no evident interest in balancing the books. If it did, it’d have to admit to, in effect, defunding the nation. We’ll have renewed calls for a new global currency before we ever right the current statist trainwreck. It’s a perfect setup for the ultimate progressivism and probably has been since its inception.
So Bob, all of those paying in for years, if we happen to have assets above some threshold we do not get medicare and social security? Here is the problem with means testing, to make a difference you have to set those means pretty friggin low. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett collecting social security and medicare are not the problem.
So what you end up with is upper to middle class people paying social security taxes and medicare payment for decades and then not qualifying for any benefits, while a sizable population pay in a fraction at best and get a free ride?
No offense to you Bob, but fuck that.
Raise egligiblity and cut benefits to all. Medicare and social security are small social nets. They are not funded to be more than that.
Start by means testing all potential SS, medicare, and medicaid recipients.
What a great idea! Let’s encourage everyone in America to spend down their assets and curtail/hide their income before they get means-tested out of their social insurance benefits.
What could possibly go wrong?
Was it ever any different? My grandfathers were born in the 19th Century and qualified for payments having never paid in a dime. Problem? Hell no, it’s a feature!
Now multiply that times a nation.
I mean, did you expect that SS would somehow run a sane and balanced program?
Joe,
It’s funny, because I’m pretty sure Darleen and I are about the same age. I’ve known for 20 years SS wouldn’t be there for me. Or, if it was, it would be severely cut by the time I was able to collect.
I cannot put myself before the good of the country right now. If I have to sacrifice so the Republic survives for my children, so be it. My generation is responsible for a lot of the problems the US is currently facing. We, as a generation, need to suck it up and deal with the problems so our children have something to look forward to.
Oh, and Joe, I realize you’re not disagreeing with me.
Even if I did take offense, hell, it’s the internet and I tend to not let things posted during an exchange bother me.
If the Social Security eligibility was raised to about life expectancy – which was what it originally was and was meant to be – it would save a lot of money and scale it back closer to the original intent.
I have no confidence in Social Security’s solvency as-is. I’ve only been paying into it for 15 years, but that’s profoundly annoying when the money is taken out of my paychecks with the expectation of getting nothing at all back. Until it’s privatized or disbanded with refunds to those who have paid, shifting the age upwards is probably our best option.
Walter Williams filled in for Rush Monday, and joked that he would take 100 acres of land in Alaska in exchange for taking no Social security.
Make that a 100 acres in Wyoming, and I’d take the same trade.
Hell, ‘keep’ everything I’ve ever paid into the SS system over the last 25 years, state right up front that I’m never going to receive a dime of it back, and just stop taking 15% of everything I earn from here on out, and I’ll take that deal in a heartbeat.
You and me both, JB.
If you believe that stimulus spending creates productive, self-sustaining jobs, I suspect you’re forced to believe that a lack of stimulus spending will destroy those jobs.
“Believe,” hell. They only believe that stimulus spending ends up in their pockets, and therefore a lack of stimulus spending breaks up their cozy little racket.
Father Do Not Forgive Them. They Know Damn Well What They Do.
If half the government believes that creating debt is an economic stimulant, what are the chances of ever dealing with national debt?
Again, they don’t “believe” it, they find the fiction to be eminently useful. That’s the only reason Keynesian economics persists: it benefits the Beltway Barons and their fiefdoms long enough to get reelected.
#11
&
#16
All the government has to do is return all the money I’ve sent it since I was 14 years old and we’ll call it even. They don’t even have to pay any interest. I just want what I paid in. I’ll take it from there.
Failing that. They can have all my money plus interest, just give me half a section in land in any of the United States our our possessions.
I don’t think I’m being unreasonable.
They’ve had use of my money for 43 years.
I would gladly pull the plug on social security and medicare right now, and just assume the money they took in the name of those two programs was “taxes” since it went into the general treasury and was in fact taxes.
But it is not paying in that is the problem, it is the paying out (in the case of medicare at a rate 3x + that what is being paid in) that we cannot afford. It is not sustainable. And it has to stop. The longer we wait, the more damage will be caused.
I would gladly take a few hundred acres of land. I pick prime national forest in Northern California, or perhaps a few hundred yards of available beach front.
If that is okay.
“Likely to be impossible. Paying down fifteen trillion dollars, plus solving another hundred ten trillion dollars in unfunded obligations is doubtful, especially at these kinds of burn rates. “
If we could just get the national debt tally to roll the other way, I don’t care how slowly, it would be a great victory though, wouldn’t it?
“If that is okay.”
Umm, I’m not asking for prime real estate. Just a chunk of BLM land in rough country would be fine with me.
Shit, a cool drink of water is more than I’ll probably get.
Coeur d’Alene Idaho for me.
20 acres with a trout stream will do me just fine.
Foreclosed home within 15 minutes of a southwest Florida beach for me, please. Then the feds won’t have to worry about upkeep on the property and carrying costs and shit. Just doing my part to clear the inventory for em.
I’ll just be happy if I can quit paying out sometime before I can die. There’s never been a chance I’ll see a nickel. Above, Mueller, you said that they’ve had use of your money for 43 years. Nope. They took it in and then spent it.
At some point, we just say it’s a private account. There’s no way to approach this irresolvable Ponzi scheme otherwise.
How about everyone my age gets screwed by their grandparents and parents and still agrees to not screw their own kids? I’m down for it. Seriously, I am.
We need to stop this charade.
Exactly, John B. Seriously.
We need to stop.
Also, this.
Blake posted on 3/2 @ 9:07 pm Coeur d’Alene Idaho for me.
Cool place. I have a friend that teaches at a Community College there. We visited last in 2007 and had a blast ATV riding up in the Silver Mountain area by Wallace. Gorgeous views.
I tend to agree with you bh,
which is what prompted by comment upthread re: means testing for those benefits. I realize that some may disagree, and there is indeed the “moral hazard” that squid alluded to; that folks will either shift, hide, or simply blow all their accumulated assets in order to qualify for social programs such as SS, medicare, or medicaid.
But I personally think this would only happen at the margins. Yes, there are stupid folks that strike it rich, who would blow it all; in a similar fashion to movie stars, rappers, professional atheletes, etc. And there are also the mendacious and conniving folks that would try to hide it, in order to get that little bit of jack that they may have missed otherwise.
By and large though, I think that folks who were frugal and prudent enough to have saved their entire lives with an eye to their retirement wouldn’t act in such reckless, profligate, or deviously decietful way. It may be pollyanish, but the way I see it is that faced with the reality of means testing most folks would do the right thing.
Is it fair that so many would not recieve benefits they paid into all their working lives? No, indeed it’s not, and in an ideal world where we as a nation didn’t find ourselves in such dire financial straights it wouldn’t be a necessity.
Doesn’t means testing then essentially mean that everyone who acquired wealth through their working lives essentially paid 7.5% more in taxes, 15% if self-employed, than those who will be collecting benefits? Why yes, it does. Once again, fair? No. But something must be done to resolve the situation.
I’m personally down with Paul Ryan’s plan, to keep it the same for folks currently 55 and over, and privatize it for everyone younger (forgive me for broad brushing it here). But I also think that means-testing is a possible way to make sure that the government is only sending checks to folks who need it.
Because Joe, the Warren Buffet/Bill Gates strawmen you swat down are pleasant constructs, but I think you know as well as I do that, especially in the NYC region, there are a very substantial number of SS recipients who’s check each month is used for the cart and green fees…
Which, considering their grandchildren will be paying for that in perpetuity is perplexing indeed. People have grown used to entitlements, but it’ll take some serious manning-up, and moving past the, “I’m gonna get mine”, attitude on the part of us all, as a nation, to get out of the mess we’re in.
Because if you really want to do away with entitlements, it’s going to require the recognition by, and a willingness on the part of, all of us that we can’t afford to continue to get paid.
Damn, some of you are greedy ;) I’d take an acre anywhere in the country. Right now, I’m on 1/9th of an acre with neighbors I can pass a cup of sugar out the window to, without either of us leaving our house.
But,but,but,BH. It’s in a “trust fund” with my name on it! It’s being saved for my retirement! Are you telling me I’ve been hoodwinked?
Heh, Mueller, I’m trying to think of the lines. Hoodwinked, bamboozled. We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us.
I hear what you’re saying, Bob. Certainly many aspects of means testing could be instituted without too much distortion if done intelligently.
Elwood: What was I gonna do? Take away your only hope? Take away the very thing that kept you going in there? I took the liberty of bullshitting you.
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: Wasn’t lies, it was just… bullshit