Future of America's financial health is at stake.

[conjur]

Future of America's financial health is at stake.
Comptroller David Walker on 60 Minutes this Sunday

The Comptroller of the United States, David Walker, will be on CBS' 60 Minutes this coming Sunday, March 4.

DO NOT MISS IT!!

Walker is a key member of The Concord Coalition's Fiscal Wake-Up Tour

Our mission is to cut through the usual partisan rhetoric and stimulate a more realistic public dialogue on what we want our nation's future to look like, along with the required trade-offs. We believe that elected leaders in Washington know there is a problem, but they are unlikely to act unless their constituents better understand the need for action, and indeed, demand it. Members of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour do not necessarily agree on the ideal levels of spending, taxes and debt, but we do agree on the following key points:

* Current fiscal policy is unsustainable
* There are no free lunch solutions, such as cutting waste fraud and abuse or growing our way out of the problem.
* The best way to make the hard choices is through a bipartisan process with all options on the table.
* Public engagement and understanding is vital in finding solutions.
* This is not about numbers. It is a moral issue.

We remind audiences that each of the realistic options comes with economic and political consequences that must be carefully weighed, and that there must be tradeoffs. Those who want to raise taxes are asked to explain what level of taxation they are willing to support and the manner in which the new revenue should be raised. Those who argue that spending must come down from projected levels are asked which programs they would target and how the savings would be achieved. Those who are unwilling to do either are asked how much debt they are willing to impose on future generations.

Our experience is that when audiences are told the facts, and shown that if they demand their "rights" to programs or policies it will have damaging economic effects to other groups or generations represented in the audience, they begin to accept the need for tradeoffs. The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour does not presume to know the "correct" answers, but we are trying to make sure that the American people and their elected leaders are asking the correct questions.

Currently on the DrudgeReport:

U.S. COMPTROLLER: PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL 'MAY BE THE MOST FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE LAW IN 40 YEARS'; Bill Will Add $8 Trillion to Long-Term Medicare Obligations That Could Already Bankrupt the U.S.
Thu Mar 1 2007 13:41:11 ET

The U.S. government's top accountant says the law that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare may be the most financially irresponsible legislation passed since the 1960s. U.S. Comptroller General David Walker says Medicare -- barring vast reform to the program and the nation's healthcare system -- is already on course to possibly bankrupt the treasury and adding the prescription bill just makes the situation worse. Walker appears in a Steve Kroft report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, March 4 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"The prescription drug bill is probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," says Walker, "because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." He argues that the federal government would need to have $8 trillion today, invested at treasury rates, to cover the gap between what the program is expected to take in and what it is expected to cost over the next 75 years Ð and that is in addition to more than $20 trillion that will be needed to pay for other parts of Medicare. "We can't afford to keep the promises we've already made, much less to be piling on top of them," he tells Kroft.

The problem is the baby boomers. The 78 million people born between 1946 and 1964 start becoming eligible for Social Security benefits next year. "They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later and when those boomers start retiring en masse, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious," says Walker.

As life expectancies increase and the cost of health care continues to rise at twice the rate of inflation, radical reform in health care will be necessary, Walker says. He says the federal government is also going to have to find ways to increase revenue and reduce benefits. The alternative is ugly. Walker shows Kroft General Accounting Office long-term projections that assume the status quo continues, with the same levels of taxation, spending, and economic growth. By the year 2040, Walker says, "If nothing changes, the federal government is not going to be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else...."

If that last bit sounds familiar, well, IT IS!


This is MUST-SEE TV!

We cannot continue along at current benefit rates, tax rates, and spending rates. A change in all three must be made and it will mean sacrifices to everyone. Some (many?) will lose benefits, we'll all likely see an increase in our taxes, and the size of the gov't must decrease. The alternative is an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like the Dot-Com boom!

 

[XMan]

I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur
The alternative is an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like the Dot-Com boom!

That is the Republican plan for America though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

IMO, what needs to happen first before the financial reform can take place is true lobby/special interest reform and TERM LIMITS!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

IMO, what needs to happen first before the financial reform can take place is true lobby/special interest reform and TERM LIMITS!

That's a bit like saying the cure for an infection is penicillin and cutting off a finger.

The problem is money in the system allowing a few to control it for themselves.

Term limits are not desirable - electing strangers selected by the 'donors' every election who lack legislative experience is not an improvement.

Long-time legislators are frequently a great asset to the nation who make the system work better.

Sounds like a very good show. Thanks.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

IMO, what needs to happen first before the financial reform can take place is true lobby/special interest reform and TERM LIMITS!

That's a bit like saying the cure for an infection is penicillin and cutting off a finger.

The problem is money in the system allowing a few to control it for themselves.

Term limits are not desirable - electing strangers selected by the 'donors' every election who lack legislative experience is not an improvement.

Long-time legislators are a great asset to the nation who make the system work better.

But who also put themselves and their personal agendas over what is best for their state or the country.

Nothing wrong with term limits. 12 years in office for a Senator is plenty of time.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur
The alternative is an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like the Dot-Com boom!

That is the Republican plan for America though.

Dave, shut up. And anyone thats wants to solely blame this on Bush, shut up.

The Bush prescription drug plan is flawed in that it doesnt allow the government to negotiate prices. However, the competing bill from the dems wa JUST as costly.The dem plan and the now four or five time adjusted passed bill are roughly the same cost. This would be an issues irregardless of Bush.

 

[fskimospy]

Term limits are not a particularly good idea. New people do not equal better people. I do agree there is a problem with an excessive incumbency rate, but I don't think that term limits are the way to get rid of it. I think right now the lack of "elder statesmen" of a sort would only further weaken the legislative branch, and we can't afford to let it get much weaker then it already is.

The answer for the House is relatively simple, stop letting legislators choose their voters. Gerrymandering blows. As for the senate, I'm not exactly sure. (although to be fair the senate's incumbency rate is in the mid 80's.. still bad.. but not as bad as the house)

 

[Zebo]

We don't need term limits we need an amendment that addresses the issue at hand, the ballooning budget deficit - how you get there is force politicians to make tough choices with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

Americans financials problem have more causes than just the social security "problem." If all problems were as mild and inocuous as the social security issue, I'd pinch myslef because I would suspect myself to be dreaming, or in paradise.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

IMO, what needs to happen first before the financial reform can take place is true lobby/special interest reform and TERM LIMITS!

That's a bit like saying the cure for an infection is penicillin and cutting off a finger.

The problem is money in the system allowing a few to control it for themselves.

Term limits are not desirable - electing strangers selected by the 'donors' every election who lack legislative experience is not an improvement.

Long-time legislators are a great asset to the nation who make the system work better.

But who also put themselves and their personal agendas over what is best for their state or the country.

Nothing wrong with term limits. 12 years in office for a Senator is plenty of time.

People should have the right to elect as an official as many times as they see worthy, baring perhaps the president.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur
The alternative is an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like the Dot-Com boom!

That is the Republican plan for America though.

Dave, shut up. And anyone thats wants to solely blame this on Bush, shut up.

The Bush prescription drug plan is flawed in that it doesnt allow the government to negotiate prices. However, the competing bill from the dems wa JUST as costly.The dem plan and the now four or five time adjusted passed bill are roughly the same cost. This would be an issues irregardless of Bush.

The cost isn't necessarily the issue, its what you get for the cost. If you get alot for your 50% tax rate i think most people would be more content than if you were taxed at 15% and got nothing out of it.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

just think, universal health care will make medicare look cheap!!!


as for people being content with 50% tax rate if they thought they were getting something out of it...


not. If you take your combined taxes, not including embedded taxes, many people are already near 50% and what do we get? A big bloated federal government that buys votes and spends lavishly on the politicians in power.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: XMan
I agree with you, Conjur. The only bad part is that reform is going to be political suicide when the AARP gets wind of it, no matter how good for the country it will be.

Americans financials problem have more causes than just the social security "problem." If all problems were as mild and inocuous as the social security issue, I'd pinch myslef because I would suspect myself to be dreaming, or in paradise.

AARP isn't just about SS; they lobby for Medicaid and Medicare as well.

Those three programs account for 1.2 trillion of the budget - over a third.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Shivetya...

We currently spend ~13% of GDP on healthcare, while our first world cousins with UHC spend typically 8-10% while being at least as healthy by standard metrics...

But don't let facts interfere with the usual wingnut rant...

What Walker is trying to tell us is that we can probably have anything we want, but not everything we want... It'd help if we'd examine some of our standard cultural oxymorons, like the whole big military/ small govt misdirection play... or the whole cut taxes and spend more money of the rightwing...

While I don't often agree with Dave, he's right about the direction of current practice- it's intended to cripple the govt of the future, a variant on the starve the beast scenario. To believe that the financial elite who dictate fiscal policy are just making a few mistakes is to be extremely naive- they know what they're doing, and why, make no mistake about that...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur
The alternative is an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like the Dot-Com boom!

That is the Republican plan for America though.

Dave, shut up. And anyone thats wants to solely blame this on Bush, shut up.

The Bush prescription drug plan is flawed in that it doesnt allow the government to negotiate prices. However, the competing bill from the dems wa JUST as costly.The dem plan and the now four or five time adjusted passed bill are roughly the same cost. This would be an issues irregardless of Bush.

But is was the Republican version put into place.

 

[palehorse]

wait... conjie... I thought the evil Right are the only ones who use fear to push their agenda...??

/confused

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
wait... conjie... I thought the evil Right are the only ones who use fear to push their agenda...??

/confused

We learned from the masters. We thank you guys very much. :thumbsup:

 

[dahunan]

FWIW, I have always said that I wish wholeheartedly that if the things below were true that this nation would be better off

Lobbyists are only allowed to meet via Town Hall settings

Pork Bills and Riders will be met with some form of criminal prosecution because they are akin to theft..

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
wait... conjie... I thought the evil Right are the only ones who use fear to push their agenda...??

/confused

We learned from the masters. We thank you guys very much. :thumbsup:

please don't call me "Master"... in public... others dont need to know that I'm your superior.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
wait... conjie... I thought the evil Right are the only ones who use fear to push their agenda...??

/confused

We learned from the masters. We thank you guys very much. :thumbsup:

We? When did you get elected?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
wait... conjie... I thought the evil Right are the only ones who use fear to push their agenda...??

/confused

We learned from the masters. We thank you guys very much. :thumbsup:

We? When did you get elected?

Not me personally ....yet but in case you missed it, Democrats won control of congress last November.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Not me personally ....yet but in case you missed it, Democrats won control of congress last November.

So then the correct phrase would be "Democrats learned from the republicans well"

 

[conjur]

More from The Concord Coalition:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/...070301-presidentsbudget-issuebrief.pdf

By 2012, however, the Administration projects that defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be 4 percent lower in nominal dollar terms than their estimated levels in 2007, while spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be 35 percent higher.

...

The growth in spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid raises fundamental questions of generational equity. Older people benefit. Younger people pay taxes. The number of people age 65 and older will double by 2050, while the size of the working-age population will only increase by 16 percent. That will confront those younger generations with larger burdens than future retirees faced when they were working and paying taxes. Although economic growth will help make costs more affordable, that growth alone will not be sufficient to address the growing costs of current-law benefits. Hard policy choices are inevitable. The only question is whether we?ll make them now or let the whole burden of both current and projected deficits fall on the future.

...

Alternatives to the President?s budget policies face the same hard fiscal realities. The much discussed proposal to repeal the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers would provide only temporary and relatively modest new resources when compared to the CBO baseline. The revenue impact of rolling back the rate cuts in the top two tax brackets to their pre-2002 levels would produce about $30 billion a year through 2010 according to the Tax Policy Center. Repeal of reductions in capital gains and dividend tax rates would provide another $30-35 billion per year through 2010. Those amounts are not trivial, but they would not provide a permanent source of financing for all the potential uses (e.g., providing subsidies to reduce the number of people without health insurance, expansion of existing programs and benefits)

...

By 2012, however, the Administration projects that defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be 4 percent lower in nominal dollar terms than their estimated levels in 2007, while spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be 35 percent higher.

...

The growth in spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid raises fundamental questions of generational equity. Older people benefit. Younger people pay taxes. The number of people age 65 and older will double by 2050, while the size of the working-age population will only increase by 16 percent. That will confront those younger generations with larger burdens than future retirees faced when they were working and paying taxes. Although economic growth will help make costs more affordable, that growth alone will not be sufficient to address the growing costs of current-law benefits. Hard policy choices are inevitable. The only question is whether we?ll make them now or let the whole burden of both current and projected deficits fall on the future.

...

The income-relating proposal should be viewed in the long-term context and not as a proposal whose need is driven by the quest for a short-term balanced budget. The prescription drug benefit was unaffordable when enacted. This proposal, if fully implemented, would only shave about $2 trillion from a long-term unfunded obligation of $32 trillion for Medicare as a whole.

Ultimately, Medicare and Medicaid cost growth must be addressed through fundamental health care reform, and not just through cost shifting. That is no reason, however, to avoid incremental steps that make sense on their own and that can achieve substantial savings. As is often observed with policy proposals, perfection should not be the enemy of the good.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Zebo
We don't need term limits we need an amendment that addresses the issue at hand, the ballooning budget deficit - how you get there is force politicians to make tough choices with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That is just one part of what would be the solution.