Posted on 05/08/2006 4:00:34 PM PDT by edpc
An Irresponsible President Deficits? Let the next White House worry.
SHEER COINCIDENCE: Last Monday, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.
According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
btw President Bush has proposed small benefit cuts to Social Security this year. I only know because Hillary was sounding the high pitched whine alert. He proposed ending the $250 death benefit and also cutting off benefits to survivors who are 16 and 17 but not in school. Sounds reasonable to me.
btw President Bush has proposed small benefit cuts to Social Security this year. I only know because Hillary was sounding the high pitched whine alert. He proposed ending the $250 death benefit and also cutting off benefits to survivors who are 16 and 17 but not in school. Sounds reasonable to me.
According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection..."
...and the rest of this editorial is a strongly-worded clarion-call for the ONE POLICY that could fix this: Individual accounts for Social Security. Right? I mean, they certainly wouldn't use this merely to make cheap-shot pot-shots over the President for doing the right thing and extending the much-needed tax cuts ... RIGHT?T?!?!
"And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful."
And where was the WashPost when Bush called for Social Security reform and the Democrats demagogued against it?
Bashing Bush? If so, predictable. They dont believe in issues, they believe in excuses.
"Could it be that these are the same people who continue to lie about how tax cuts drain the treasury, ignoring the fact that lower tax RATES have INCREASED tax revenues? And that out of control ENTITLEMENT SPENDING is exactly the problem, not the goal? Could it be the, the... DEMOCRAT Party, the Party of FRAUD and DISINFORMATION? And is the editorial board of the WaPo for all intents and purposes CONTROLLED by the self same LIARS?"
Liars & Frauds & Demogogues, oh my!
That article inadvertently gives the game away here:
"Well, now it has been discredited. Rauch cites William Niskanen, an economist who worked in the Reagan White House and now chairs the Cato Institute. Niskanen has crunched the numbers between 1981 and 2005, testing for a relationship between tax cuts and government spending, and controlling for levels of unemployment, since these affect spending and taxes independently. Niskanen's result punctures his own party's dogma. Tax cuts are associated with increases in government spending. The best strategy for forcing cuts in government is actually to raise taxes."
Well, DUH ... the two largest tax cuts in the past 30 years, under Reagan Bush coincided with strong growth that led to revenue increases... the tax increase of 1990 kept us in a recession, and the tax increase under Clinton in 1993 also slowed the economy and revenue increases.
Even George Gilder, tax-cutting supply-sider to the max, discovered a unique fact that nails it once and for all: The Government with the largest growth in last 50 years (1950-2000) was the Government of ... Hong Kong, the lowest tax regime on the planet. Low taxes lead to grwoth and the growth leads to higher revenues.
IF WE WANT THE TAX BASE AND ECONOMY OF A THIRD WORLD HELL_HOLE, INCREASE TAXES.
IF WE WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN PAY FOR ITSELF LONG-TERM, LOWER TAXES.
As a product of the public school system, the article doesn't make sense.
When I pay capital gains tax, there isn't any part that goes to Social Security.
How does the tax cut affect the solvency of Social Security.
You're right, Peach. In fact not one single Democrat wants to fix the illegal immigration problem at all. They want a true amnesty, meaning just let them all stay with no strings attached.
Agree or disagree with his approach, but President Bush's proposal at least has strings attached. He doesn't want to grant immediate, unconditional residency and an easy path to citizenship like the Dems do. GWB wants a humane way to identify illegals and make it possible for them to work here legally. His is a middle-of-the-road approach -- too weak for many and too "harsh" for many.
Peach, I strongly believe that most of the hate-Bush-all-the-time crowd here on FR fall into two categories: Most are the same type who vote 3rd party frequently, if not all the time. These are the perpetually angry sorts who ping-pong their votes from Perot, to Buchanan, to Reform Party without Perot or Buchanan, to Libertarian, Constitution, Natural Law, or other equally irrelevant outfits. They usually only vote Republican for a candidate who is on the fringe and/or hard right.
The other type, I believe are actually Dem/Leftists who are here to rile up the first type, and to sow doubt and division. It's easy enough to pretend to be an unhappy "conservative" upset about one thing or another.
As for the first type, they are always moving the goal posts as to who and what is acceptable to them. Who is "conservative" enough to their narrow way of thinking.
Well, you know I agree with you 100%. As usual. (Are we related or something?) LOL
We have lots of people who come here pretending to be conservatives and then the third party people who haven't had a winning candidate ever and won't in their lifetimes.
The president is the only president in my lifetime to tackle this problem and should be given kudos for that but instead is pilloried by faux conservatives at every turn. It's quite interesting to watch the trolls pretend they really like the president but...
Grin...just sensible, I think.
The ones that make me laugh the most are those who are always saying they will vote for [fill in the blank] to "send a message" to the Republicans (why are they never sending messages to the Dims?). The illogic of this way of thinking is amazing. All minor party candidates combined rarely get more than around 5% of the vote in any election, usually much less. That's the whole spectrum of them combined, from the far Left to the far Right.
Like all Americans, Mr. or Ms. "Send A Message" votes in private and anonymously. No one knows how he or she votes, and there sure isn't anyone waiting breathlessly outside the polling place to take the "message" and race over to deliver it to the Republicans.
All old Send-A-Message accomplishes is to marginalize himself. Until the internet came along, he was not only marginalized, but had no real outlet for his spew.
What a beautiful post about the illogic of the third party lovers. I hope you have found a way to make a living with your writing, Wolfstar. You are more articulate than nearly all of our Republican congresscritters put together.
'nite
Wan't Bush and the GOP who killed Social Security Reform. It was all the doing of the Do Nothing Democrat members of Congress. NOT ONE of them joined the President to try and save Social Security. Of course the Wash Poop will never actually tell the TRUTH on the matter.
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.