Posted on 02/14/2010 3:41:21 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
The troubling feature of Mr. Obama’s budget is that it fails to return the federal government to manageable budget deficits, even as the wars wind down and the economy recovers from the recession. According to the administration’s own numbers, the budget deficit under the president’s proposed policies will never fall below 3.6 percent of G.D.P. By 2020, the end of the planning horizon, it will be 4.2 percent and rising.
As a result, the government’s debts will grow faster than the economy. The administration projects that the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio will rise in each of the next 10 years. By 2020, the government’s debts will equal 77.2 percent of G.D.P. This level of indebtedness has not been seen since 1950, in the aftermath of the borrowing to finance World War II.
Making matters worse, these bleak budget projections are based on relatively optimistic economic assumptions. The administration forecasts economic growth of 3.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, followed by 4.3 percent the next year. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office predicts growth of 2.1 percent and 2.4 percent for these two years. Lower growth would mean less tax revenue, larger budget deficits and a more rapidly increasing debt-to-G.D.P. ratio.
The president seems to understand that the fiscal plan presented in his budget is not sustainable and, as such, is not really a plan at all. That is why the budget prominently calls for a fiscal commission that will be charged with “identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation.” The goal, the budget says, is “to stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers.”
In other words, President Obama’s long-term fiscal strategy is to appoint a commission to figure out a long-term fiscal strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Governor Christie of New Jersey just froze spending to deal with that budget. Why can’t the federal government do the same? The people rejoice when such rational actions are taken and everyone feels more secure. The Democrats howl at the thought but, so what? Ordinary people out here have to live not just on frozen spending but on less. The Unions and the breaucrats should be forced to do the same.
So, as America ages and a larger proportion of the population gets Social Security, you will cut benefits per person in order to freeze spending? In addition, will you get rid of cost-of-living benefit? The same questions arise for Medicare.
I would support those moves, but if the Republicans proposed them, they would be routed. The ages at which SS and Medicare can be collected will need to rise, and cost-benefit analysis -- the dreaded "death panels" -- will be needed to determine what Medicare pays for. If seniors want more health care, they will need to pay for it themselves.
“If seniors want more health care, they will need to pay for it themselves.”
While I agree that may be necessary, that may not be possible. I haven’t studied the current bills, under ClintonCare, it was illegal for an individual to ‘pay for it themselves’. IOW, it your condition was covered by ClintonCare, then only ClintonCare could pay for it. If CC couldn’t/wouldn’t pay for it, then you were SOL.
Ok.....let’s sum this up.The U.S. Economy is TOAST. Our so-called President is going to expand Government to levels never before seen. Expand current entitlements and create even more. And raise Taxes to the point that there will be no point in working . Does this sound about right so far ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.