Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
For the sake of clarity please give a few examples of Republican programs you would cut. I think you wrote that you would cut farm subsidies and defense(I am not sure those are "Republican programs", but I won't argue that point). Would those cuts be enough to generate surpluses? If not what else would you cut?
|
ace, the following partially addresses your earlier statement that Bush, "wanted to reform Social Security", and congress did not." It should be framed in a more accurate context, and it is, below. It also partially addresses your questions, above. You offer no support for your "reform of SS" comment. I don't have to pick individual programs. I've provided enough support for the idea that voting for more of these folks' "control", is indefensible....
by the way....the author is a journalist on the subject of economics, not an economist, as I earlier described him:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...9.mallaby.html
September 2004
The Deficit Conquers All
By Sebastian Mallaby
....To the contrary, indeed, the best guess is that Bush won't merely seek to make his tax cuts permanent. He will actually want new ones. His has already proposed new tax breaks for retirement savings, and he favors tax-sheltered health savings accounts. It seems inevitable that a president from either party will want to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax, a device that prevents high earners from claiming too many deductions. Perish the thought that the well-off should raise their kids without the help of tax deductions from the government.
If this is the likely shape of tax policy in a second term, how will history judge the Bush presidency? Some early reviews are already available: "Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies," says the Nobel laureate George Akerlof. "What we have here is a form of looting." Is that judgment going to stand? The more you consider the country's options, the more Akerlof appears to be on target.
To see why this is so, consider the following thought experiment. Assume that a second-term Bush will stick to his tax cuts, and then ask: Is there something, anything, that can possibly be done to stop future deficits from exploding?
The Bush administration's stock answer to this question can be dispensed with quickly. Officials declare their solemn intent to restrain government spending, but their record suggests the opposite. President Bush has presided over an explosion of spending not just on defense and homeland security, but in other areas, too. He has signed into law an enormous subsidy program for farmers; he has increased foreign aid by 50 percent; he has participated in the creation of a Medicare drug entitlement. Some of these programs are deserving, to be sure. But the Bush promise to restrain spending simply isn't credible, especially since the president has never once wielded his veto pen to block Congressional pork-barreling.
The next way the Bush administration claims to be able to address the deficit is to reform Social Security. Let's be generous, now: We'll set aside the fact that Bush ignored the various reform proposals put forward by his own Social Security advisory commission, judging the topic too politically hot to handle. Let's assume that, in a second term, Bush acquires a burst of reformist courage on Social Security. What impact is that likely to have on the nation's budget outlook?
There are two answers. In the short term and even the medium term, a shift to private retirement accounts would increase the budget deficit, since the government would have to carry on paying existing retirees while forgoing the Social Security contributions of younger workers, who will have opted out of the system. In the longer term, meaning after 2048, by the administration's own calculations, real savings are possible, because the money in private retirement accounts can be invested in equities, which tend to earn decent returns over the long term. That investment income represents money to finance retirement that isn't available now. Whatever the disadvantages of private accounts--notably, that they transfer investment risk onto individuals--the Bush administration can fairly claim that privatization would improve the long-term budget outlook.
How big is this effect, though? Surprisingly small, is the answer......
|
If you think that the author is partisan, google his name with Kerry....