In a New York Times op-ed piece, Steven Rattner, managing principal of a New York investment firm, asks what the federal budget would look like if the government were bound by accounting rules similar to those followed by private businesses. The short answer: a hell of a lot worse than President Bush's projections of red ink fading to black within a few years. For one thing, the government would not be allowed to use the current Social Security surplus to cover the general fund's gap between revenue and spending, a constraint that would raise the 2006 deficit by $185 billion. Accounting for pension obligations to federal workers would add another $200 billion. But that's small change compared to the government's long-term Medicare and Social Security obligations, which total something like $39 trillion but are not included in the government's rosy picture of its own financial condition.
"I chose to be that guy who didn't issue the apology," says Daniel Elder. "Things went from there and it wasn't good."
And as many as 75 percent of middle income households face a tax increase under Biden's plan, even though the highest-earning households will pay the vast majority of the costs.
It’s a jobs plan that isn’t about jobs, and an infrastructure plan that isn’t about infrastructure.
Former Biden Senior COVID Adviser Admonishes Americans for Their Lack of 'Sacrifice' During the Pandemic
Plus: California reopens, the DOJ will tighten its rules on seizing lawmakers' records, and more...