This seems fairly cogent to me. Is it wrong?
QuotePaul Krugman / Starve the beast: Fiscal calamity is the GOP's plan to shrink government
OK, the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do.
For readers who don't know what I'm talking about: Ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.
And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unfunded wars. In addition, the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020.
So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Barack Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission.
Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse -- in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn't have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order.
Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they're adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they're still not willing to do that.
In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: "I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, 'Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.' "
What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because "middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., GOP) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes." (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the GOP is the party of the affluent?)
At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan -- and there isn't any plan, except to regain power.
But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: In effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/paul-krugman-starve-the-beast-fiscal-calamity-is-the-gops-plan-to-shrink-government-234845/
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 12:42:53 PM
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
You just helped prove his point. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 12:42:53 PM
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
You just helped prove his point. :D
Hey, don't be so harsh. The conservative movement has spent a lot of time and energy training him to respond like that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 12:42:53 PM
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
You just helped prove his point. :D
Probably better than wasting his time reading an article that basically just states the opening 3 sentences over and over.
Dr. Krugman seems to have forgotten that it was the Democrats who made the Bush tax cuts permanent for the Schumer class during Teh Fiscal Cliff talks.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2013, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 12:42:53 PM
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
You just helped prove his point. :D
Hey, don't be so harsh. The conservative movement has spent a lot of time and energy training him to respond like that.
No, Krugman did that himself. Particularly after that article a couple years ago in which he suggested preparing for alien attack as a means of boosting the economy.
Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.
% of GDP:
1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%
Numbers are rough. Shouldn't it be going down if this starving plan were working?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.
% of GDP:
1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%
Numbers are rough. Shouldn't it be going down if this starving plan were working?
Have you read the article?
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Have you read the article?
Yeah. Did you understand my question?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.
% of GDP:
1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%
Numbers are rough. Shouldn't it be going down if this starving plan were working?
US GDP had its biggest dip in at least 50 years in 2009, you'd expect that percentage to shoot up particularly if you are doing stimulus spending into 2010.
Yes, according to my googling, spending % of GDP did in fact shoot up a lot in 2009.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Have you read the article?
Yeah. Did you understand my question?
Obviously I didn't, because the way I understand it, it was answered by Krugman. Krugman claims that the income-reducing part of the plan succeeding, but now Republicans can't face implementing the spending cut part of the plan. Therefore, your spending numbers are not in any way refuting Krugman's point.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Have you read the article?
Yeah. Did you understand my question?
The point of the article is that the starving plan ISN'T working, because the GOP doesn't have the cahones to carry it out.
Krugman is wrong about all of this of course. He is committing the elementary error of seeing a conspiracy in what can be ascribed to simple incompetence and disorganization.
Maybe I worded that badly. I guess I'm wondering IF there was a plan to starve the beast since 1970 (which would imply Nixon was in on it? lol), and forty years of this plan has clearly failed to bring down spending, then why would any modern GOP (or any) politicians still be clinging to this plan? Krugman seems to think somebody is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Have you read the article?
Yeah. Did you understand my question?
Not sure I did.
The thesis (not saying I agree with it mind) appears to be: repulicans hope to screw "big government" by making tax cuts (popular), but not spending cuts (unpopular). The idea, allegedly, is to drive the government into the ground, fiscally, so far that it breaks, after which the republicans can impose "small government" by pointing to the wreakage (that they themselves caused) and saying 'see? big government leads to disaster. We need small government - vote for us'.
If this is the plan, you would
expect spending to stay the same, right up to the point the government effectively collapses. The "plan" hasn't "worked" yet, because the government hasn't collapsed ... yet.
Of course, the theory is subject to the usual 'ascribing to malice what is better ascribed to incompetence or short-sightedness' problem ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 02:50:16 PM
The point of the article is that the starving plan ISN'T working, because the GOP doesn't have the cahones to carry it out.
Not what I get out of the article - seems to me he's just saying it hasn't worked - yet.
If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:
Quote
House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program.
By Charles Abbott
WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 1, 2013 2:19pm EDT
(Reuters) - House Republicans plan to propose a $40 billion cut to the nation's food stamp program, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, doubling the number of cuts previously sought by conservatives.
Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said legislation on the food assistance program, known as SNAP, would be the second part of any talks on the U.S. farm bill with the Senate.
Lucas told lobbyists during a lunch speech in Washington that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.
.....
Rest of item here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801)
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2013, 03:03:38 PM
If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:
Quote
House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program.
By Charles Abbott
WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 1, 2013 2:19pm EDT
(Reuters) - House Republicans plan to propose a $40 billion cut to the nation's food stamp program, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, doubling the number of cuts previously sought by conservatives.
Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said legislation on the food assistance program, known as SNAP, would be the second part of any talks on the U.S. farm bill with the Senate.
Lucas told lobbyists during a lunch speech in Washington that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.
.....
Rest of item here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801)
That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 03:07:23 PM
That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.
Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 03:07:23 PM
That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.
Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.
It might be too soon, you know. :P
It should be done when it makes sense.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 03:07:23 PM
That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.
Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.
It might be too soon, you know. :P
It should be done when it makes sense.
Kind of like the Bush tax cuts. The government is really lousy at doing temporary change.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 02:50:16 PM
Krugman is wrong about all of this of course. He is committing the elementary error of seeing a conspiracy in what can be ascribed to simple incompetence and disorganization.
I'm going to disagree with both. I don't think there is a full-blown conspiracy out there. However, I also don't think that this clusterfuck is entirely without intelligent design. I think the strategy with tax cuts was much like the strategy with Obamacare: get something enacted that would be hard to repeal, turn it into a fact on the ground, and make further favorable changes inevitable sometime down the road. It's subtly different from Krugman's theory of starving the beast, but only subtly.
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2013, 03:03:38 PM
If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:
A quick look at our poor will tell you they're far from starved.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.
% of GDP:
1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%
Where do these numbers come from and what forms of spending are included?
It must be including numbers other than federal because those figures have never gone above 25% during the period you selected.
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2013, 03:03:38 PM
If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:
A quick look at our poor will tell you they're far from starved.
You're advocating policy should be made on the basis of media stereotypes. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:11:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2013, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 12:42:53 PM
Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.
You just helped prove his point. :D
Hey, don't be so harsh. The conservative movement has spent a lot of time and energy training him to respond like that.
No, Krugman did that himself. Particularly after that article a couple years ago in which he suggested preparing for alien attack as a means of boosting the economy.
Sigh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.
% of GDP:
1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%
Where do these numbers come from and what forms of spending are included?
It must be including numbers other than federal because those figures have never gone above 25% during the period you selected.
It was a very sloppy amalgam of things I saw when doing a google search for spending/gdp. Most of the graphs and charts that came up were pretty much the same.
Prepare for alien attack? Put a taco under a box trap. Done.
The irony is that the GOP really does have a plan to boost the economy by defending against alien attack:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/25/mccain-well-make-border-with-mexico-look-like-the-berlin-wall/
;)
Look, I'll concede sometimes even the GOP has good ideas.
It is interesting to look at federal spending since WW2 and peel out all the entitlements and defense spending. Focus just on education, transportation, and other domestic discretionary spending. What you see in fact is that such spending is at an all time post-war low in terms of %GDP. There is a little blip in 2009 from the stimulus which took it back to just slightly above historical "normal" levels of spending on those categories. Then it crashed back down to levels which aside from the Gingrich-Clinton years, have not been seen since Hoover.
McKinsey recently released a cross-country analysis of infrastructure spending gaps and the findings showed that the US has one of the larger gaps (I think the largest in total dollar amount). So really on some key items were are not spending enough.
Spending is driven by the following facts:
1) the US spends more than any other peer nation on defense and security, by a very wide margin.
2) the US government spends more on health care than typical peer nations despite having only a partial public system. The US is grossly inefficient in terms of health care outcomes/$ spent.
3) Public pension provision (social security) - no political party wants to touch this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 06:14:47 PM
So really on some key items were are not spending enough.
Concur. However:
Quote1) the US spends more than any other peer nation on defense and security, by a very wide margin.
What is a "peer nation" in this context? The takeaway here is not simply that we are inefficient at defense (though we are, and I have outlined a strategy to reduce defense spending by 90% or more and still maintain total military dominance :) ), but that America has far greater military obligations than, say, Austria.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2013, 06:41:08 PM
What is a "peer nation" in this context? The takeaway here is not simply that we are inefficient at defense (though we are, and I have outlined a strategy to reduce defense spending by 90% or more and still maintain total military dominance :) ), but that America has far greater military obligations than, say, Austria.
Europe and OECD countries in Asia and Latin America.
I am not claiming that such spending is unecessary or inefficient (it may be) only that it is higher.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 02:50:16 PM
Krugman is wrong about all of this of course. He is committing the elementary error of seeing a conspiracy in what can be ascribed to simple incompetence and disorganization.
I'm going to disagree with both. I don't think there is a full-blown conspiracy out there. However, I also don't think that this clusterfuck is entirely without intelligent design. I think the strategy with tax cuts was much like the strategy with Obamacare: get something enacted that would be hard to repeal, turn it into a fact on the ground, and make further favorable changes inevitable sometime down the road. It's subtly different from Krugman's theory of starving the beast, but only subtly.
I'm not seeing a conspiracy, After all it's not much of a conspiracy when you announce your plans. It's simply a strategy to achieve a certain policy.
How did McKinsey calculate this infrastructure gap Joan?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
Prepare for alien attack? Put a taco under a box trap. Done.
katmai is not an alien. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 01, 2013, 07:30:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
Prepare for alien attack? Put a taco under a box trap. Done.
katmai is not an alien. :mad:
We don't know that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2013, 07:12:51 PM
How did McKinsey calculate this infrastructure gap Joan?
http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Urbanization/Infrastructure%20productivity/MGI_Infrastructure_Full_report_Jan2013.ashx
See exec summary, page 3, box 1.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
Yes because it is mandatory.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2013, 06:41:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 06:14:47 PM
So really on some key items were are not spending enough.
Concur. However:
Quote1) the US spends more than any other peer nation on defense and security, by a very wide margin.
What is a "peer nation" in this context? The takeaway here is not simply that we are inefficient at defense (though we are, and I have outlined a strategy to reduce defense spending by 90% or more and still maintain total military dominance :) ), but that America has far greater military obligations than, say, Austria.
The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?
Quote from: Scipio on August 02, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?
It was something wackadoodle like that. Ide is a better lawyer than a military thinker.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable? If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable? If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.
Cause congress has little control over it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 02:13:17 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable? If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.
Cause congress has little control over it.
Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.
Quote from: Scipio on August 02, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2013, 06:41:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 06:14:47 PM
So really on some key items were are not spending enough.
Concur. However:
Quote1) the US spends more than any other peer nation on defense and security, by a very wide margin.
What is a "peer nation" in this context? The takeaway here is not simply that we are inefficient at defense (though we are, and I have outlined a strategy to reduce defense spending by 90% or more and still maintain total military dominance :) ), but that America has far greater military obligations than, say, Austria.
The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?
Not at all. I'm indifferent to what time of day we strike.
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 02:13:17 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable? If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.
Cause congress has little control over it.
Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.
I mean, the money is essentially already spent. It's required by law.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 03:23:15 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 02:13:17 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 06, 2013, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Weijun on August 02, 2013, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.
Why would you carve out entitlement spending?
Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies? Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits. Just a guess.
...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable? If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.
Cause congress has little control over it.
Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.
I mean, the money is essentially already spent. It's required by law.
Congress has changed the eligibility requirements and benefits promised numerous times since the 1930s. It simply takes legislation to change it again. Aside from lack of political will, what is stopping congress from restricting eligibility (e.g. raising the retirement age) and reducing payments (e.g. scaling back COLA, a change to SSI from the 1970s)? Medicare Part D was in enacted in 2006 and SCHIP was expanded in 2009. These are hardly part of the fabric of the Republic.
I understand the point that Congress much actively pass an act to curtail runaway entitlement spending. However, that does not make entitlements separate from the issue of federal spending and the size of the government; they are central to it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 03:23:15 AM
I mean, the money is essentially already spent. It's required by law.
The Supreme Court ruled way back that Social Security is not a debt that can be sued for.
Like Wiejun said, Social Security pays out whatever we say it pays out and collects whatever we say it collects.
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2013, 08:59:25 AM
Quote from: Scipio on August 02, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?
It was something wackadoodle like that. Ide is a better lawyer than a military thinker.
Are you saying he should stick to movie reviews?