Post by AztecBill on Apr 14, 2011 9:11:07 GMT -8
The CBO uses the figures and assumptions that the member proposing the plan tells them to use. If Ryan says he's going to fund a specific level, they go with what he says even if there is no chance in hell that it would ever happen. That's why they don't comment on the fact that the proposed figures are nearly impossible works of fiction provided by Paul Ryan.
I wouldn't have a problem eliminating the Department of Education. It is largely for the benefit of poorer states that historically had poor education systems. I wouldn't have a problem using half of the DOEd budget to offer vouchers to low income parents in areas with failing schools either.
The Department of Energy spends half of its budget on acquiring, maintaining, or storing nuclear weapons and material. That would need to be done regardless of whether there is a DOE or not, so it's a farce to claim there is going to be a big savings by eliminating it entirely.
So in reality, even if you completely eliminate those two departments, and shift the functions that would need to continue to Defense, you have saved maybe $60 Billion, only $1.5 Trillion from balance.
The real issues are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and to a lesser extent Social Security.
Social Security isn't as big of a problem because benefits can always be adjusted to match incoming revenue. You know you're going to have 12.4% of payroll below the cutoff level available for benefits, and you know how many people are eligible for benefits, so you could just change the benefits and suffer the short term wrath of the elderly by blaming previous administrations.
Medicare/aid is the biggest issue, because the only way to match revenue to expenditures is to stop paying for things once you run out of money, or decide beforehand that you will not cover certain procedures or drugs.
Neither party has offered a serious plan to address this because they don't want to tell seniors that they won't cover a $300k surgery to extend the life of an 89 year old with terminal cancer by 3 months.
I was initially dismissive of the Ryan Medicare plan, since there is no reason an insurance company would offer a reasonably priced plan to a population of 65+ people, but in reality it would really just be the culmination of Obamacare.
You would have a group of government approved private insurance companies offering plans that cover everything the government decides should be covered, at a price that would eventually be capped by the government.
The only way the insurance company could make money in that environment would be to combine the seniors with the general population of insurance buyers, so in essence it will create a national insurance market, in which everyone can choose between several nearly identical government approved plans.
It won't do anything to control costs, it will just change the funding mechanism from taxes to premiums.
The growth in defense spending is unsustainable. The Ryan plan calls for Defense spending to be essentially flat for the next 10 years, which would be nice if it would really happen, but I don't think there is any way either side would agree to that once they see that the program the DOD determines to be the least important is responsible for keeping 1,000 people employed in Missouri, and another 2,000 in China Lake, CA.
In reality, it sounds like you and I think about alike, but differ on the feasibility of cutting spending in specific areas. I agree that Medicare and Medicaid are huge problems. Part of it is in real tort reform so that unneeded tests and procedures are not ordered. I will tell you that in my view there is no way that a government entity can be as efficient as the market. Social Security is really an easy fix. You just need to adjust the full retirement age and maybe even the early retirement age along with remove the cap on earnings subject to the tax.
I will be willing to let Ryan and the Congress fine tune their proposal so that the numbers make better sense to most people.
If you will remember, the reason that DOE was created was over energy independence. You see that we have made no progress in that area and that any additional functions that make sense that they have now become responsible for could be shifted.
Education is a local issue and if vouchers were to be used, it should be on the local level. I firmly believe that vouchers would save lots of money and also improve all school systems by adding a bit of competition to the equation.
There are whole departments of the federal government that can just dissapear with positive results. I would start with education. Its net effect on education is negative. I would also be in favor of closing some oversea bases. Most of the troops in Europe (Germany) can be removed and the size of the military can be reduced.
Retirement age should be increased a month a year forever. Those who plan to retire before SS and MC "kicks in" need to plan for the gap. If the gap is a year, they will have 12 years to plan for it - plenty of time. That little change makes a huge difference in the numbers.
If you are too proud to accept my help, Meals on Wheels might stop by your place from time to time.