Now, the Bi-Partisan Center's Debt Reduction Task Force has proposed a 6.5% national sales tax...
Curious. How about the easy solution (but politically suicidal of course) to actually reduce the size of government by reducing entitlement programs (and no, extending the age of Social Security to age 69 doesn't really help address the fraud and far-reaching benefits within the program)?
If Washington REALLY wants to see change, they will look to cut these programs and scale them back. People need to be less dependant, not more dependant, on government.
Interestingly enough, Congress is also looking at simplifying the tax code, which would be a good start. But when it comes down to looking for meaningful deficit reduction strategies, entitlement programs are really the biggest chunk of our national budget (roughly 60%) and changes in those programs will give us the most noticeable long-term financial improvement (not to mention also reigning in Bernanke and his money-printing press).
Grace & Peace.
PLW
There's no such entity as the 'bi-partisan commission for deficit reduction.'
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with the Bi-Partisan Policy Center. The former was created by Executive Order of the President; the latter is a 'think tank' akin to Brookings, Heritage. et al. The Bi-Partisan Center's Debt Reduction Task Force recommended the 6.5% national sales tax.
Moreover, your post doesn't mention that both the Commission and the Policy Center make severe reductions to entitlement spending, largely though means-testing benefit reduction, life expectancy indexing, COLA reduction, etc.--not merely by raising the retirement age, as your post suggests.
Actually, true entitlement programs--social security and medicare--constitute about 32% of federal outlays. Other mandatory spending--so-called means-tested entitlements like medicaid, AFDC, food stamps, etc.--increase programmatic spending to about 58% of the FY 2011 budget.
Information and clarity? Well, at least you've still got those good looks...
Thanks for the comment as I always welcome them as it sharpens my pen a bit. My source: www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 for the 60% number ( I thought I said 'roughly' (SS=20%, MMCHIP = 21%, Safety Net programs =14%) for 2010 not including Obama-care). Also you leave out 7% for retirement plans for federal employees. You are correct about the name and I have changed it. Proposals for means testing, etc. are not what I am talking about (for those that don't know, means testing is basically saying that if you make and earn too much money in retirement, your would-be social security income that you have paid into all your working life would be forfeited to the US Government for re-allocation (means testing source - http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/means_0104.pdf). I guess then, at least, they wouldn't be able to tax it...
ReplyDeletePLW
PLW
I didn't question your figures. I pointed out that what are called 'entitlements' have been expanded to include means-tested programmatic spending such as AFDC and foodstamps, etc. These are not historically considered 'entitlements.'
ReplyDeleteAs for "...7% for retirement plans for federal employees..." THAT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
In three paragraphs in your original post, you make statements--
"...reduce the size of government by reducing entitlement programs..."
"...if Washington REALLY wants to see change, they will look to cut these[entitlement] programs..."
"...when it comes down to looking for meaningful deficit reduction strategies, entitlement programs are really the biggest chunk of our national budget..."
--without ANY mention that BOTH the federal Commission AND the Bi-Partisan Policy Center HAVE proposed exactly what you're advocating--CUTS TO ENTITLEMENT spending.
But now--and this is really the icing on the cake--you say means-testing:
"...is basically saying that if you make and earn too much money in retirement, your would-be social security income that you have paid into all your working life would be forfeited to the US Government..."
A reduction in benefits is a reduction in benefits, no matter how--means-testing, COLA eradication, across-the board cuts, extension of the retirement age, etc--it's accomplished. Let's forget for the moment the beneficiaries of Social Security who have collected several times what they ever contributed to the system. That argument--that "...you can't cut my benefits because I paid in..." will be used regardless of the method of cuts.
You want to cut back entitlements WITHOUT reducing benefits. Makes perfect sense. Forgive me for questioning this tea-party wisdom.
Semi-related: I see that a preponderance of commenters in the WSJ article you cite vis-a-vis the 6.25% national sales tax proposal have already turned it into a VAT. Well, it must be true then. "Thou sayest."