On Deficit Spending And Entitlements: A Bipartisan Plan That Might Work
In light of NHI blogger Chaz Proulx's recent blog entry (go here) wherein taxes, spending and crazy deficits were discussed, I found this commentary by the president of the Progressive Tax Institute very interesting, and encouraging.
Will Marshall's article discussing spending recommendations drawn up by a coalition of economists from both the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation is a decent read. It is good to hear of bi-partisan efforts outside of Washington's inner circles aimed at solving many of the country's fiscal problems.
Let me know what you think of Marshall's "Let's Pop The Deficit Bubble" published in today's Wall Street Journal.
Peace,
BG
Bill Gnade
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Entitlements are government run Ponzi schemes and are bound by the same rules as private or criminal Ponzi schemes - they collapse.
That time is near and I welcome that collapse because anything other than that is only an action to delay, dragging out the bleeding of the American public by congress.
As for bi-partisan efforts to "fix" the entitlement Ponzi scheme - dream on.
My friend Grover Norquist says that bi-partisanship is the same as date rape. I am assuming he means in regards to our current brand of elected officials who behave as though the Earth revolves around them and all income and possessions excluding their own are fair game for social engineering experiments on the public.
Shall I conclude, then, that you have no strong feelings one way or the other? Of course, I jest...
I cannot speak with any authority on this matter. I have expressed my opinions in comments at Chaz' blog recently re: deficit spending, but I have nothing but open ears about entitlements.
As for the bi-partisan metaphor offered by Mr. Norquist, a metaphor that is a tadbit unfortunate, I don't know: The Heritage Foundation is a pretty conservative think-tank. I can't imagine that all bi-partisan efforts are all bad.
But, as I asked in the blog post, I DO want to know what you think. You have told me, and so I defer to you. You can, and shall, have the last word.
Thanks, Ed, for the thoughtful comment.
Peace,
BG
Don't try to tell me it promotes the general welfare. It doesn't.
I think it says "promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense" somewhere it the old constitution. I think that was the framer's intent.
If only it were so.
It seems we provide welfare and promote defense.
Instead of entitlements such as social security in the form of a Ponzi scheme where an ever diminishing amount of payees cover the cost of an ever larger body of recipients - how about mandatory payments to a personal retirement account, should the government want to flex its muscles. Or do they simply want to purchase votes with the Ponzi scheme until it collapses, as it will?
Since it is unlikely that the entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will ever be deleted from the national budget, doesn't it make sense to stabilize them by fixing their budgets? As the op-ed I cited states, this is a stop-gap measure. In the long run, even a stop-gap can't always be bad, especially one that seeks to impose fiscal restraint to keep things solvent -- and sane.
When dealing with policies that neither party is willing to address in any radical or pervasive sense, isn't it better to support incremental legislation? If this stop-gap is NOT augmenting the Ponzi scheme aspects of entitlements, but actually brings a level of conservative wisdom to the programs, surely we can lend some support to it, no? Radical overhauls in great fell swoops are unrealistic and hence futile to even consider, at least in this political climate, don't you think?
Of course, as I said, I am no expert here. So I defer to those of you who are experts.
Peace,
BG