Skip to comments.Rep. Ryan proposes radical solution to budget problem (**GASP** privatize SS, Medicare, Medicaid!)
Posted on 02/07/2010 3:13:03 PM PST by Libloather
Rep. Ryan proposes radical solution to budget problem
By Ezra Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 7, 2010
I spent the first part of the week thinking about President Obama's proposal for next year's budget. It's a modest document meant to take current policy and nudge it forward and leftward while beginning the hard work of pushing the deficit downward. It makes its changes at the edge of the state, freezing growth here and expanding programs there.
But I spent the latter part of the week thinking about the proposal from Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) for what our budget should look like 60 years from now. Ryan's budget is a radical document that takes current policy and rolls a live grenade underneath it. Social Security? Ryan's adds private accounts. Medicaid? Ryan privatizes it. Medicare? Same thing. Health care? Ryan repeals the subsidy for employer-provided insurance, replacing it with a tax credit.
The boyish Ryan is a conservative darling and the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, but there's nothing conservative about this document. It does not respect, much less preserve, the status quo. But then, that's a point in Ryan's favor. The status quo does not deserve our respect. It is unsustainable. Left unchecked, it will bankrupt our country. On that, Ryan's radicalism is welcome, and all too rare. The size of his proposal is shocking, but it is proportionate to the size of our problem: According to the Congressional Budget Office, which examined a simplified version of his proposal, it would wipe out our projected long-term deficits.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
HOORAY Paul Ryan!
HOORAY Paul Ryan!
HOORAY Paul Ryan!
We all want to know if Paul Ryan is Ronald Reagan Jr.?
Uh-oh..........he’s beginning to talk like a libertarian. We can’t have that now! < / sarc >
Nothing radical about attempting, with an intelligent program, to help this Nation out of a deep hole. All others proposed, just dig the hole deeper.
Besides his online contributions, Klein worked on Howard Dean's primary campaign in Vermont in 2003
Hey, Butt-boy, Republicans have ideas too so sit down and shut up! Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are radical. That title would belong to your hero, the Marxist in power.
The last time I saw a mouth like that....
It’s dumb to try too much at once, it’s a political loser. It would be popular to talk about a federal hiring freeze and reconfiguring public employee entitlements, that would bend the budget curve effectively. The “stewards “ of these privatized programs would be, by sad experience, dishonest and self serving as they have thus far been.
It is time to roll back the New Deal.
By 2014, 45% of all Medicare expenditures will come from the General Fund.
But the very concept of these programs grew out of a vision of massive government, some idea of universal enrollment, etc. You can’t privatize that any more than you can the Navy. Beck’s guest Friday, a policy wonk from Manhattan Institute , seemed to think that especially the public employee pensions were a huge budgetary burden, and I ‘m not going to be convinced the idea of “30 years and out “ with 90 % pay for 2 million + federal employees is not a major part of future liabilities.
Not by , to over .
Yes you can. There are all kinds of proposals to privatize SS. It is fairly easy. They did it in the UK, Chile, and a host of other countries.
FYI: We have 60 million people on Medicaid and over 50 million on Medicare. Those numbers are increasing as the baby boom generation retires. The 2.13 million federal employees pale in comparison.
Health savings accounts are for working people, I can see that; that’s still all largely in the private sector any way. I’m not doubting you, but i’d like to see the socail security privatization plan in the UK though.
In FY2004, the expenditures of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) are estimated to reach $52.8 billion, composed mostly of annuity payments to retirees and survivors. These expenditures will be 38% as large as the $137.6 billion paid as salary and wages to current employees. Expenditures from the retirement fund will increase over the next several years until they are about 45% as large as the payroll for current federal employees. After 2015, they will fall relative to payroll expenses. By 2050, expenditures from the retirement fund will be less than one-fourth as large as the government's wage and salary payments to current employees. Estimated expenditures from the CSRDF are equal to less than one-half percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2004. Federal pension expenditures are expected to remain steady as a share of GDP for the next 15 years before declining from about 0.43% of GDP in 2020 to 0.20% by 2060.
I agree with you completely on health savings accounts. However , I would like to get to the ideas of how to “privatize” compulsory programs like Medicare and Social Security. The plan needs to be the same as for Obamacare— either you buy it, or you get fined or imprisoned.
Well, here’s one way that’s going to work itself out: people are going to be forced to delay retirement, continue to pay into the system until much closer to their check out date. For instance, me, who, if healthy will be able to retire at 75 in a body that by genetic heritage will last about 74 years, God willing.
Private health accounts are a crucial component of Medicare reform. First, they would contain medical inflation to the benefit of all payers - including Medicare - by making millions of consumers more price-sensitive. Second, they would enable tomorrow's seniors to save for their retirement health expenses, including premiums, deductibles and copayments under Medicare and Medigap plans. Finally, health accounts are an investment in Medicare reform. H.R. 2596 would accustom Americans under age 65 to exercising more control over their own health care dollars. This would create an enormous constituency for future Medicare reforms based on choice and competition, rather than rationing and controls.
Thanks, that’s a good point to make but still for people in their working years.
he’s going to be the next Newt and I mean that in only the best way. The House GOP lost their way with with Hastert, delay and boehner.
It would scare some of the seniors, but if seniors had privatized Medicare and S.S. all their working years, Medicare/S.S. would not be headed for bankruptcy today.
I know how to cap all this and end it,you have FR mail.
Oh my goodness .. the left is not going to like that at all.
And the president .. well it ruins all his plans to bankrupt the country .. I can hardly wait to hear what Rush and others have to say about this plan tomorrow.
Welll....it would be nice if they would not basically REQUIRE Medicare after age 66...or whatever it is....
Read the link on post #21.
It is age 65. Yes, many people would like to retain their existing insurance. The percentage of doctors not accepting Medicare patients is around 10% and growing. Nine out of 10 people on Medicare have supplemental private insurance.
It wouldn't do anything. In 2010, apending on social security, medicare, defense, and interest on the national debt will equal 102% of federal revenues. So we are at a point where we can eliminate all federal departments and employees not in these four categories entirely and not balance the budget. We are at the point where someone needs to touch the third rail if we are to survive.
BUMP for later. If he can get any traction on this I’d be for it but the devils in the details.
Ryan’s plan would be in line with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution! How dare he!
the proposal from Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) for what our budget should look like 60 years from now
A freeze and roll back by attrition starts with something doable, now. The hiring freeze was Reagan's first shot, and when the air controllers' union tried to roll him he shut them down. By that means you start to coalesce so that some of these bigger, longer term goals become workable.
Thanks for the ping!
Some will say privatization is also wrong, because the govt. shouldn’t force SS or Medicare on us, even if we privatize.
Do you mean where it says “general Welfare of the United States;”?
The Next Six Bailouts?
Was the government’s $3.8 billion infusion of cash into GMAC last week a sign of what’s to come in this new year?
Some experts expect to see billions more in bailouts in 2010 — this despite the fact that all nine original recipients of the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) have repaid the tens of billions in loans they received in 2008 and 2009.
Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The next six :
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Federal Housing Administration
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Other unfunded bailouts strategically and/or stupidly omitted by ABC Smooze :
Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare
Civil Servant Pensions
Many more banks when ARM’s hit and the commercial R/E bubble pops
Several trillion in short term debt rolloverswithin the next couple of years
A couple of trillion or so to foreign governments who want to cash out of Treasuries
A few trillion in added interest costs when the U.S. loses its AAA rating and/or when interest rates skyrocket