Concise summary of the US budget problem
Apr. 25th, 2011 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleIn a nutshell, from Forbes:
...taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.
This one paragraph explains 90% of the hysteria in politics today. One might call it the "failure of socialism", except to the Tea Party, socialism is all the other programs. You know, the ones that they don't need themselves, and which aren't busting the budget. Hence the grousing over such things as Planned Parenthood and "foreign aid", which comprise such small portions of federal spending that they're lost in the noise. By moving the fight to issues that are completely irrelevant, conservative leaders solve the difficult problem of opposing "socialism" without scaring the shit out of their fan base.
To be fair, I greatly admire 60 year old conservatives who are willing to say outright that they want Medicare abolished. Right there, that's a few hundred grand out of their own pocket. Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is. Especially when they don't have the money and face going without medical treatment entirely.
Unfortunately, the US is caught between a rock and a hard place. Americans can do this the easy way, by facing up to reality and making a choice, or the hard way, through a debt crisis that would leave millions of senior citizens literally starving on the streets. Personally, I favor splitting the difference, which means a 50% tax increase coupled with substantial benefit reductions. The fact that this compromise is, simultaneously, radically liberal and radically conservative means that it's going to be done the hard way. It will be interesting to see how this ends.
...taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.
This one paragraph explains 90% of the hysteria in politics today. One might call it the "failure of socialism", except to the Tea Party, socialism is all the other programs. You know, the ones that they don't need themselves, and which aren't busting the budget. Hence the grousing over such things as Planned Parenthood and "foreign aid", which comprise such small portions of federal spending that they're lost in the noise. By moving the fight to issues that are completely irrelevant, conservative leaders solve the difficult problem of opposing "socialism" without scaring the shit out of their fan base.
To be fair, I greatly admire 60 year old conservatives who are willing to say outright that they want Medicare abolished. Right there, that's a few hundred grand out of their own pocket. Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is. Especially when they don't have the money and face going without medical treatment entirely.
Unfortunately, the US is caught between a rock and a hard place. Americans can do this the easy way, by facing up to reality and making a choice, or the hard way, through a debt crisis that would leave millions of senior citizens literally starving on the streets. Personally, I favor splitting the difference, which means a 50% tax increase coupled with substantial benefit reductions. The fact that this compromise is, simultaneously, radically liberal and radically conservative means that it's going to be done the hard way. It will be interesting to see how this ends.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-26 04:25 pm (UTC)"Removing the profit motive" from health insurance doesn't necessarily mean ending private health insurance. Having for-profit publicly-traded corporations provide health insurance warps their priorities. Non-profit entities (e.g., Kaiser) that do not need to answer to Wall Street are at least a step in the right direction. Kaiser has had some downright horrible periods over the years (I've been with them my entire life and have witnessed them) is at least a starting point.