The reality of trying to shrink government

washingtonpost.com ^

[Sub-Driver]

The reality of trying to shrink government By Lawrence Summers, Published: August 19

With the selection of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential candidate, it is clear that the central issue in the presidential election will be the scale and scope of government involvement in the economy. There is disagreement over what constituted “normal” levels of spending in the past and, indeed, over what constitutes “spending.” But there is a widespread view in both parties that it is feasible and desirable that in the future the federal government should be no larger as a share of the overall economy than it has been historically.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be achieved. For structural reasons, even preserving the amount of government functions that predated the financial crisis will require substantial increases in the share of the U.S. economy devoted to the public sector.

First, demographic change will greatly expand federal outlays unless politicians decide to degrade the level of protection traditionally provided to the elderly. Between Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some smaller programs about 32 percent of the federal budget, or about 7.7 percent of gross domestic product, is devoted to supporting those over 65. The ratio of this age group to those of working age will rise from 1 for every 4.6 workers to 1 for every 2.7 over the next generation. If no other adjustments are made, this implies an increase in federal spending of 5.6 percentage points of GDP. As Americans’ health and life expectancy improve, it may be appropriate to revise upward the assumed retirement age. That would, however, be unlikely to counteract the expected 34 percent increase in the share of the population over the next generation who will be within 15 years of estimated life expectancy.

[Sub-Driver]

Nonsense.......

[tgusa]

Just more recycling material from the Washington Compost.

[Psycho_Bunny]

“But there is a widespread view in both parties that it is feasible and desirable that in the future the federal government should be no larger as a share of the overall economy than it has been historically.”

lol....Whatever, Larry. You, idiot.

lololol

[Sybeck1]

It’s hard, so don’t try.

[kabar]

It is like an addict trying to get off crack. It will be difficult to reduce federal spending because we have developed a culture of dependency. As Reagan said, “Government is the problem, not the solution.”

[mojito]

Unfortunately for Larry and the 0baminions, there's the reality of what happens when you run trillion dollar deficits every year.

We'll see which “reality” becomes real sooner rather than later.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Say what?

[Texas Fossil]

But there is a widespread view in both parties that it is feasible and desirable that in the future the federal government should be no larger as a share of the overall economy than it has been historically.

Total Absolute BS! None of the entrenched POLs actually want to do that. BUT, That is exactly what MUST BE DONE. It is TIME to DownSize DC! ELIMINATE ENTIRE ROGUE DEPARTMENTS. We will never be a free nation again until that is done.

[Patron92]

” Since the early 1980s the price of hospital care and higher education has risen fivefold relative to the price of cars and clothing, and more than a hundredfold relative to the price of televisions.”

And why the five fold increase? I’m sure glad the government is NOT producing TVs.

[familyop]

The bipartisan socialist bosses can do whatever they want with the increasing pile of debt, but they won’t continue to have big government without enough sustainable revenues from an adequate manufacturing base. The remainder of the default process will lead us to much smaller government, whether they want it or not. That’s why they’ve become hysterical and are predicting all kinds of ends to our world, trying to panic and threaten the populace into rioting, etc. They’re morally bankrupt and are losing all that they have. After the repudiation, “haircuts,” deep cuts in government incomes, etc., we’ll begin to see new and better leaders who are more technical capable and analytical in their thinking.

[Jacquerie]

Quite right. Smaller government is on the horizon and inevitable. So is widespread civil unrest. After repudiation of debt . . . modern society will be but a pleasant memory.