The GOP Pledge: Smaller Government, Bigger Deficits

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The GOP Pledge: Smaller Government, Bigger Deficits
by Howard Gleckman
on Thu 23 Sep 2010 04:27 PM EDT

. . .

But when it gets down to specifics, the pledge really turns to mush. The GOP says it would cut government spending to pre-2009 levels and cap future discretionary spending. But in the same breath, the Republican lawmakers say they’d exempt spending for “seniors, veterans and our troops” from their rollback. And they never tell us at what level they’d freeze future outlays, or for how long.

Then, in a classic bit of Washingtonese, the pledge goes on to say this: “Instead of pushing off our fiscal challenges, we will reform the budget process to ensure that Congress begins making the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations.”

Huh? Those entitlement programs for seniors--and the need for taxes to pay for them-- are the nation’s long-term fiscal challenge. By mid-century, according to the Congressional Budget Office, every penny of federal tax revenue will go to pay for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid (a large share of which is spent on long-term care for the elderly), as well as the interest on the debt needed to fund these programs. Compared to these benefits for seniors, all other federal spending—the main target of the GOP’s manifesto-- is loose change in the fiscal sofa cushion.

Thus, what this bit of Orwellian double-speak really means is: “We have absolutely no intention of telling you how we will meet our fiscal challenges today. Sometime after the election, we'll let you know how we’d slow the growth of Social Security and Medicare.”

. . .

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/9/23/4638310.html

_______________________


Mitch McConnell, the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Future of Government
by Howard Gleckman
on Thu 16 Sep 2010 05:31 PM EDT


. . .
Thus, to balance the budget McConnell would have to slash the rest of the federal government in half. If you are tea partier, that probably sounds pretty good. But let’s look at what that would mean.

The biggest remaining program is, of course, Social Security. It happens that projected Social Security spending in 2020 is almost exactly equal to the $1.2 trillion McConnell would need to balance his budget. But the vast bulk of that money would go to those who are already 60 or older and there are no serious proposals to make substantial reductions in benefits for those retired or close to it. The one change that might—slowing annual cost of living benefit increases —would reduce total payments by only about 4 percent by 2040. So there isn’t going to be much dough there, especially as soon as 2020.

What’s left? Well, McConnell would have to abolish all the rest of government to get to balance by 2020. Everything. No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more NIH. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress. No more nothin’.

We’re not talking about a temporary 1995-like government shut-down here. We are talking about a government that exists only to fund national defense, provide benefits to the already- or soon-to-be retired, and pay interest to the Chinese and our other lenders.

. . .

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/9/16/4632237.html

[Tippy]

1. REPUBLICANS WANT

A Government of the (people) Republicans by the (people) Republicans for the (people) Republicans....IN other word like bush said this would be much easier if we were a dictatorship, and I was the dictator....