Congress Can Reduce the Deficit by $7.7 Trillion in 10 Years
The Congressional Budget Office projects that future deficits will explode. But there's a way out.

Dealing with high inflation and an increasingly shaky economy, Americans are forced to make tougher spending choices. With public debt at an all-time high, government should do the same. This feat isn't that hard now that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a series of budget options showing Congress how to do it.
It's worth repeating that maintaining spending at the current level is not a viable option. Given the dramatic increase in annual federal government spending over the next 30 years—from 22.3 percent of GDP to 30.2 percent—combined with federal tax revenues that have remained fairly constant at around 19 percent, CBO projects that future deficits will explode. It's forecasted to triple from 3.7 percent of GDP today to 11.1 percent in 2052. Over the next 10 years, primary deficits (deficits excluding interest payment on the debt) amount to $7.7 trillion. Meanwhile, deficits with interest payments total $15.8 trillion—roughly $1.6 trillion a year.
Note, by the way, that half of our future total deficits will be driven by interest payments on the debt. This fact isn't surprising considering the size of our deficits and the rise in interest rates.
Given these realities, no one will be surprised that the ratio of debt to GDP, now roughly 100 percent, will, under the most conservative estimations, jump to 110 percent in 10 years. In the next 30 years it will likely double. More realistically, in 2052 debt as a share of GDP will be 260 percent. And that's assuming no major recessions or emergencies.
Despite these awful numbers, legislators in both parties are currently debating how best to add trillions more to the country's credit card balance. Many, for instance, want to add a new entitlement program in the form of the extended child tax credit.
It is in this setting that the CBO published its report on budget options. The two-volume document highlights options for deficit reduction. One volume details large possible spending reductions while the other lays out small ones—so the options are plenty. They include important reforms of some of the major drivers of future debt: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
All told, it's possible to achieve deficit reduction of $7.7 trillion over 10 years. That's enough to accomplish what some people mistakenly believe to be out of reach: balancing the budget without raising taxes. There are also a few options to simplify the tax code by removing or reducing unfair individual tax deductions and by cutting corporate welfare.
For instance, it's high time for Congress to end tax deductions for employer-paid health insurance. This tax deduction is one of the biggest of what we wrongly call "tax expenditures." It's responsible for many of the gargantuan distortions in the health care market and the resulting enormous rise in health care costs. The CBO report doesn't eliminate this deduction; instead, it limits the income and payroll tax exclusion to the 50th percentile of premiums (i.e. annual contributions exceeding $8,900 for individual coverage and $21,600 a year for family coverage). The savings from this reform alone would reduce the deficit by roughly $900 billion.
A second good option is to cap the federal contribution to state-administered Medicaid programs. That federal block grant encourages states to expand the program's benefits and eligibility standards—unreasonably in some cases—since they don't have to shoulder the full bill. CBO estimates that this reform would save $871 billion.
CBO also projects that Uncle Sam could reduce the budget deficit by $121 billion by raising the federal retirement age. CBO's option would up this age "from 67 by two months per birth year for workers born between 1962 and 1978. As a result, for all workers born in 1978 or later, the FRA would be 70." Considering that seniors today live much longer than in the past and can work for many more years, this reform is a low-hanging fruit.
Congress could save another $184 billion by reducing Social Security benefits for high-income earners. I support a move away from an age-based program altogether since seniors are overrepresented in the top income quintile. Social Security should be transformed into a need-based program (akin to welfare). Nevertheless, the CBO's option would be a step in the right direction.
There are so many more options for long-term deficit reduction. All Congress needs is a backbone. Considering the end-of-year spending bill going through Congress right now, I am not holding my breath.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Are there any libertarian web sites? Especially with a working comments section?
You might as well ask for a Unicorn.
Ironic that you were able to reply with that.
Yeah, replies seem to be back. Sarc will be ecstatic.
I still don't think it was a "glitch". It was a warning shot.
In true anti-authoritarian fashion, I regret that I have but one finger on each hand (the longest finger) to give if it was a shot across our collective bows.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning cdx05 capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
Just Check ———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Unicorns are not real, misinformation, censor him, shut him down. I am offended, violent speech, hate speech. Call the FBI NOW! (sarc)
[ JOIN US ]
Corona is a big threat of the century which affects physically, mentally and financially/ To overcome these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.
For more details visit this article..https://richsalary4.blogspot.com
Nuking Russia into rubble is probably the only thing worth spending money on. At least someone is working towards that goal.
How exactly is that going to work? I withdraw from my 401(k), I'm considered a "high income earner", and I lose Social Security?
I support cutting all public funding for George Mason University. Its employees are overrepresented in the top income quintile, and they obviously are contributing nothing valuable to society.
It's inevitable at this point that Social Security will be replaced by a means-tested welfare program for the elderly. Yes, that's unfair. Wah.
Pretty sure that's exactly what the original intent of Social Security was; an additional income tax targeted for a specific purpose to help indigent elderly. Not a universal national pension program.
The original intent was to steal your money and never give it back which is why they set the age at 65 when life expectancy was 62.
I'll have to look that up. Pretty sure it was always intended as a universal benefit.
Doing a bit more reading, I think you're right. Can't find any reference indicating benefits were just for indigent.
To IceTrey... Social Security was/is (?) supposed to be a form of insurance. Just like auto or homeowners insurance, you may pay every year, but unless you have a claim, you will not get any of that money back. For SS, benefits began at 65. If you didn't make it, so be it. The 'premiums' (taxes) you'd paid remained in the fund to pay other claimants. If you never file an auto or homeowners claim, they don't send money back to you. It remains in the pool to pay other claimants
Yes benefits began at 65 when everyone died at 62. That's a scam. You're not forced to buy life insurance or whatever but you are forced to pay into SS. So not the same.
BTW I get back $700 every year from my health insurance because of Obamacare.
"Everyone" didn't die at 62. SocSec was intended as a kind of insurance for those people who lived substantially longer than average and who often ended up not being able to work.
It was first signed into the law during the depression when many elderly were living in poverty. Strangely, the first payments to the elderly came years after many of those used to justify the act had died.
"Christine DiGangi
May 4, 2015
On Dec. 1, 1936, newspapers across the United States ran stories about John David Sweeney, Jr., the first person to receive a Social Security number. Ironically, Sweeney died before he received any Social Security benefits, according to the Social Security Administration's history website." - Yahoo News
Here's the government's history:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
The program was originally a retirement program, but like all government programs it expanded in every direction.
You left out the part about eating cat food. SS was intended as a welfare program for old people who were too proud to take welfare. Since they "paid in", it was "theirs".
But now no one is too proud to take a government check, so what's the point?
It is the inevitable path of every progressive policy.
I'm wondering. We pay federal income tax on the social security contribution, probably because we will get the money later. But if some will not get the social security later, aren't they due a refund?
Otherwise, the income tax on the social security tax is taxing the same income twice.
Yes, they would be due a refund. No, they won't get it.
You don't actually pay tax on the contribution. The contribution itself is essentially an additional tax on income. If you end up drawing SS benefits, up to 85% of it could be taxable. Actual taxable amount is based on income. Not sure of the actual math, but I think the assumption is that the portion you're paying tax on represents the amount you're receiving over and above your actual contribution. As mentioned previously, SS is considered insurance. You may pay insurance premiums for many things (auto, home, life), but only in fairly limited circumstances would you ever be due a refund simply because you didn't make a claim.
You are correct. As a 77 year old I am paying taxes on the SS I get.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no property right in Social Security. It is a form of government dole which can be altered at anytime including refusing to pay benefits to undesirables. The case tested whether a communist could collect benefits, the SCOTUS said NO.
Whether the SCOTUS would overrule itself is dependent upon who sits on the court. The present court would not deny benefits and probably base it on the 14th Amendment's "equality under the law" clause, but the new Biden 19 member Supreme Court could uphold it against "racists" by a 10-9 ruling.
Which fails all the basic rules of contracts. The government forced me to sign up when I was a minor (16 years old) if I wanted to work. At the time they said the retirement age would be 65. Now it's 67 (I never signed off on that.)
Sure, it will be. But not retroactively: too many seniors vote.
And I wasn't kidding: I think federal grants to universities should be eliminated long before SS is touched; VdR does not deserve a dime in federal funding, either directly or indirectly.
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
For further details, see this article—————————>>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
Social Security is already taxed if you have additional income, sometimes fully. Some states tax it too.
Yeah SS is already means tested. If you have other income or withdraw from your IRA the IRS claws it back. And we're not talking about the wealthy here. The tax begins at 25k for a single filer and 32k for joint filers.
If your already retired or about to retire they probably won't touch your benies. Its the 40-45 year olds and younger that will be screwed over by the old, yet again. COVID wasn't enough, the old demand more concessions to live just one more year.
Yep. Thank you for your service.
Yeah, cutting SS payments is always popular with voters.
It appears Bankman-Fried's girlfriend found a way to fuck him one last time.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/caroline-ellison-throws-sbf-under-bus-pleads-guilty-fraud-agrees-cooperate-doj
As part of the recently unsealed plea agreement with the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, CoinDesk reports that if Ellison fully cooperates with the SDNY's investigation (in throwing her boyfriend under the bus), as well as any other law enforcement agency designated by the office, she won't be further prosecuted criminally.
Predictable.
Who are the other seven people she’s going to testify against? That’s how it works, right?
When dillinger can say your girl set you up, you know you've been had
So Caroline Ellison is the new "Lady in Red"?
I saw where she was indicted 7 months ago, well before the election. Apparently kept quiet so that donations to politicians could continue? Not sure if true but changes a whole lot as people were still putting money into FTX until recently.
It will be like the Hillary investigation where they give immunity to everybody so nobody has to say a thing. The party takes care of it's bagmen.
Given I knew a ton of girls like her at Cornell, I would not say fuck but blow. They usually did often on first dates.
This is more her fucking him than him getting anything out of it.
Congress reduce the deficit? That's funny right there.
It's the wrong goal to begin with. The goal should be to eliminate debt. Anyone serious about doing so will agree with "fuck you, cut spending." This omnibus bill is the exact opposite and Reason has done a poor job arguing against it. We've been treated to articles with Reason writers upset that their pet causes weren't substantially funded or addressed.
How about bringing the conversation back to cutting spending, not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Hey now, they both sides the hell out of ir
As a wise man once said, when you find yourself in a big hole, stop digging.
For instance, it’s high time for Congress to end tax deductions for employer-paid health insurance.
On the one hand, I’d love to give Reason the benefit of the doubt here and assume they’re saying “privatize insurance and, consequently, privatize healthcare” rather than “move to single payer”.
On the other hand, Reason spent a lot of time calling Conservatives who say, “We shouldn’t open the border without cutting social welfare.” racist bigots.
Yeah that's not going to do what they think it will unless the ACA is repealed at the same time.
bagman. The Reason refrain there is "where is the Republican plan for national healthcare?" Fuck off Scott.
I'm a bit slower today than normal, but isn't that entire paragraph about ending tax deductions for employer paid healthcare a very long way of saying "raise taxes" ?
nice how in practically the same breath they say its wrongfully called an "expenditure" but then talk about the 'savings' from eliminating it.
Yes and no. If you assume the status quo, you are correct that ending a deduction is the same as raising taxes. However, this is a case where the deduction is distorting the market and ending it will allow the market to come back into balance.
As I see it, ending the deduction leads fairly quickly to most employers getting out of the health plan business (since it doesn't make sense for either the employers or the employees when it's not subsidized anymore) leads to an increase in the private health plan business which, after a period of more angst, confusion and advertising than any sane person wants, leads to people having more health plan options that are better tailored to their individual family's needs and no longer at the whim of their employer's HR lawyer. Employers will likely have to pay their employees more since health benefits will no longer be part of the compensation package but they will be able to afford the increase since they won't be paying for those same health benefits. And since personally-purchased health plans are already deductible on your personal income tax, the net effect to government revenues will be approximately a wash.
At least, that's the idea. Lots of assumptions in that line of reasoning. But it is noteworthy that this would be merely a return to the pre-WW2 way of buying healthcare. And it's important to remember that our current mess is a direct response to the federal government's attempt to tamper with the market through wage controls in that era.
I don't know about employees but yes you can deduct health insurance on a schedule C. But that just gives the self employed the same deduction as employers. I would think that if you're going to end the deduction everyone would have to be affected or it wouldn't make much sense. And while ending or limiting the deduction makes sense in the macro, the entrenched health care system is unlikely to reduce costs anytime soon and it has enormous political clout. Realistically the only way to get there is single payer which won't save a dime.
I don’t know about employees
Compensation received as health benefits is excluded from employee W2s. You don't need to deduct it because it was never included in the first place. But the impact is the same, it's deducted by the business but not included as compensation to employees so there's a benefit to receiving comp as benefits compared to cash.
"However, this is a case where the deduction is distorting the market and ending it will allow the market to come back into balance."
Yeah, not with the ACA still sitting out there for government subsidized insurance to pick up the slack when employer paid insurance vanishes.
The adult children with moral deficits that were elected to identify as cash dispensers will continue the pez like animation until well past the point of no return.
Getting paid every month online from home extra than $18k with the aid of doing an easy paintings like replica and paste on-line from home. I actually have made $18745 final month from this home primarily based online paintings in my element time most effective. Awesome paintings and clean to earn like by no means earlier than. Want to sign up for this and makes extra bucks from home then comply.
Information on the given website………………..>>> http://Www.onlinecareer1.com
Congress could also save money by not sending $100,000,000,000+ to a corrupt authoritarian dictator to start World War III with the only nuclear rival to the US.
China, hold my atomic bomb.
It's a moral imperative that we support corrupt oligarchs. Right up there with civil rights and abolition.
https://twitter.com/GRDecter/status/1605945570715205634?t=bKJDwbRtI5mkcM_yoOrJpA&s=19
The Fed has never raised rates faster
We are all test subjects in a massive economic experiment
[Link]
Imagine a world in which the free market determined the cost of credit. Nah. That could never happen.
Still too little too late.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1605997379848634368?t=f0Xlz-UCYTSh-hW2tMEvbw&s=19
$6 trillion COVID stimulus
$1 trillion for infrastructure
$740 billion climate change bill
$300 billion student debt relief
$280 billion semiconductor bill
$80 billion new IRS funding
$100+ billion to Ukraine
They shut down the government to block $5 billion for a border wall
Orange Man Bad.
Congress could save another $184 billion by reducing Social Security benefits for high-income earners.
Cool. Does that mean the high income earners get to stop paying into the program?
No, and that's why that won't work. SS will need to be replaced with a means-tested entitlement for the elderly. High earners who paid in will get a big fuck you.
No. It means that the payroll tax will go up even higher, and capital gains will be subject to payroll taxes, dammit.
The 10 millionth article on how to fix things none of us think should even exist.
But they do exist, and we can't change that.
And they won’t get fixed the way this article suggests either.
It can, but it won't until every last bit of cotton is ran through the presses.
>>But there's a way out.
requires replacing about 520 federal employees in a way creating deterrence for the replacements.
Active war against the American people
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1606006944216494081?t=TK4SFDyJlkcN_K9qygEsUQ&s=19
BREAKING: The horrible $1.7 trillion omnibus just passed the senate on a 68-29 vote with 18 Republican senators voting yes.
I'm looking forward to 7% approval rating Mitch McConnell's next lecture on candidate quality after leading the charge to take away the new GOP House majority's leverage over the budget for an entire year.
https://twitter.com/GRDecter/status/1606010019782266917?t=Fx9LTAVJ9r8EXAh0l8aZZQ&s=19
BREAKING: Sam Bankman-Fried $250 million bail secured by parents Palo Alto house.
Do they live in a castle?
“He's not allowed to make financial transactions for more than $1,000, can't open new lines of credit, can't leave the house except to exercise and must go through substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, according to the agreement.”
At $250 million bail, that means they only need to put up $25 million. The release is one tenth of the actual bail quoted.
Yes, you usually only need a percentage (5-10%) of the total.
But the Bail Bond agency takes a big cut for underwriting the full amount.
The bail is the bail, in my experience. Not sure if that changes for higher figures.
10% is what you need for a bail bondsman.
So if your bail is $100, the State needs to receive $100 or you stay in jail until your case is resolved. Once you show up for trial/resolution, you get that $100 back from the State.
If you don't have $100 cash on hand but still want to get out of jail before your court date, you go to a bail bondsman and pay him 10% ($10). That's payment for the bondsman giving the State your $100 bail, and covers his risk or future expenses if you skip out on your court date.
In that case, he hires a bounty hunter to track you down and drag your ass into court so he can get his $100 back from the State.
So either SBF's parents' home/property is valued at (or close to) $250million, or it's valued closer to $25million and there's a 3rd party involved who is posting the bail and keeping SBF's parents' property.
We're basically talking about loan terms.
No it was a bond. no money was exchanged. His parents who likely bought the homes(s) with FTX client money signed promissory note. It is a all a big game..DA/Judge look "tough" but they didn't do anything. And let us be frank..if his last name was Rizzo and he was arrested for defrauding $1M in a Real Estate Trust he would be perp walked, in handcuffs and being introduced to his "new friend" right now at Rikers. The media is so controlled by the left that the obvious privilege can't be spoken.
Looking forward to the release of The Reason Files.
Should we assume that the couple of paragraphs dealing with cuts in defence expenditures were accidentally omitted?
We can't cut the military. We have to stop the Red Menace in Shitholia.
We have always been at war with Shitholia
Before I read this, I'm going to guess:
"Fuck You, Cut Spending"
Congress could solve this problem in a day.
They could but for only two years before they are all kicked out.
I have a simpler way to reduce the deficit (and the national debt!):
Fuck you. Cut spending.
Trump: Balanced budget in 5 years, maybe less
TRUMP: There are so many things that we can cut ... and we can balance the budget very quickly. HANNITY: You think in five years? TRUMP: I think over a five-year period. And I don't know, maybe I could even surprise you.
[Fox News - Hannity, 1/21/16]
He had majorities in House and Senate.
Yes, and instead they decided to bough more money and give a tax cut.
Tax revenues increased after the tax cut, but not nearly enough to cover the increases in spending.
Shhh, they don’t like to hear that.
It matters what the person does with the tax cut, if you give the tax cut to the rich, they just stuff it away and no jobs are created. If it goes to everyone else, they spend it, creating jobs, who pay taxes, and on and on. Clinton cut taxes on the middle class and raised them on the rich and had surpluses double every year.
Cite?
Edit: Trump’s tax cuts saved me $200 a month, which was helpful. Am I so rich that $200 was helpful?
The surpluses were a fiction.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Fictional Surplus of $236.2 BILLION
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
A fucking fiction.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the “Financial Report of the U.S. Government,” which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years. Even using your accounting, Clinton did better than ANY other President after him.
If govt was an investment, we wouldn't be running deficits ever.
How about just reducing the inflated COST of health care? Legislation limiting the prices of government subsidized health care could practically cut the prices in half, given the astronomical profits being made by hospitals and over the top wages to doctors, who are now simply trained pill pushers.
To Brian Dubridge, I am interested to hear how you would pay for my specialty, Anesthesia, under your new plan. Right now hourly rates for an anesthesiologist (1099) with no benefits of any kind are $250 an hour here in South Florida. I know nothing about you, but let’s pretend you were one of two patients I had last week. How much would it be worth to you as an 85-year-old man with aortic stenosis (whatever the heck that is) Who needs a minute man procedure on his back (whatever the heck that is) to end his horrific back pain. How much should the government pay me so that this person does not wake up with postoperative blindness after general anesthesia in the the prone position . Let’s pretend you have a 25-year-old wife who is having her first baby. How much should I earn when she develops Placentia Accretia, pulmonary embolism, or total spinal anesthesia.(whatever the heck those things are) It took me 4 years of university, four years of medical school, 1 year internship and three years of anesthesia training to learn what those words mean and what to do in those situation and thousands of other emergency and routine situations. During those 12 years I earned zero during the eight years of university and medical school and paid out tens of thousands of dollars. During my internship and residency I worked 60 to 100 hour weeks and was paid $30,000 a year. During those 12 years of training I could’ve made triple what I do now if I had gone into investment banking. How should I be compensated for the opportunity cost of earning nothing for 8 of my prime earning years. Should I get the same salary as a plumber? Twice the salary of the plumber, triple? Not everyone has the intelligence, fortitude and motor skills to learn how to administer Anesthesia. I’m not a simple pill pusher, and the surgeons I work with are certainly not simple pill pushers. As it is we have had a huge drop in the quality of people applying to medical school. I certainly tell my kids and any young person I know not to go into medicine. I am dying to hear your plan. You could of course say replace all the anesthesiologists with Nurse anesthetists, but that only slightly reduces the price. Here in South Florida a nurse anesthetist is paid on a 1099 basis $200 an hour. So not much of a savings to just use mid-level‘s instead of doctors.
Go ahead, I wait your plan to see how you would set prices better than what the market and government interference have done right now
Yeah, I'm with the "fuck you, cut spending" crowd.
It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Stop the spending, stop the deficit.
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1605723065802858496?t=UmK64BNpil9C7N7XC5XqkA&s=19
17/ If you want to truly understand how corrupt this foreign aid is, here is another one of my articles on how the Ukrainian billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky funded Hunter Biden, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
[Link, thread]
It warms the cockles on this Geriatric Millenials heart to see the many instances of "Fuck you, cut spending".
But the commenters are totes not libertarian...
I disagree re: social security. People who have paid into the program should not lose their benefits because they conducted themselves in a financially responsible manner.
The better approach is to eliminate social security entirely on a forward basis, i.e., it should be phased-out for anyone who has not yet begun to pay in.
"The better approach is to eliminate social security entirely on a forward basis, i.e., it should be phased-out for anyone who has not yet begun to pay in."
They can't do that. Social Security is and always has been from the day it was first enacted in the 1930s a pay as you go program. Current payroll tax receipts pay the benefits of current beneficiaries.
Sorry, your payroll taxes weren't banked away to pay your benefits, they paid for your parent's benefits.
Yes it always was a corrupt ponzi scheme but to explicitly lie to and fuck over ONLY the responsible citizens in your country is a great way to never have a responsible citizen again as long as your country survives.
But in our through-the-looking glass society, people deserve to be rewarded most for fucking up, and punished for any sort of personal success.
Sell off government assets and give everyone their money back adjusted for inflation and shut it down.
No one can get started on reducing the deficient until there is consensus on the need to do so. The attitude that believes deficit spending is acceptable has spread and embraced by both parties. I believe this is because extremist in each party want what they want and are reluctant to cut anything. Until moderates regain some control and force compromise the situation will not improve.
I do wonder how many people actually know we have to pay this interest payment each year and as the years go by it shrinks what our government can spend without borrowing.
It was something like 7% of the 2022 federal budget.
"Moderates" always side with increased spending. There are no exceptions that I can recall over the last 60 years.
This only ends when interest payments go to 50% or higher of the budget and the Fed can't keep rates at zero. As principal comes up for roll over higher rates plus new debt will sink the ship. No bond vigilantes will intervene earlier. As soon as the Fed decided to monetize the debt this become the only end game. I hope I'm alive when this occurs when the different special interest groups and tribes fight for the spoils after interest is paid annually. It will be very enjoyable to watch with racist/bigot/agest and every other name thrown around as the thugs fight for the dollars.
Exactly. The treasury is a credit card that all is certain that it will be passed to somewhere or someone else. No one has any shame about ringing as much as they can on the card.
“Until moderates regain some control…”
Lol. Any attempt to cut spending will be vilified as “draconian!” and “extremist!” “Moderates” are what got us here.
Fuck you, cut spending.
Or in summary...........
Having a *REAL* USA (Constitutional Republic) instead of a democratic National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire....
There is NO Constitutional authority for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or any other federal welfare (Gov-Gun theft entitlements). They're all Acts of TREASON to the USA by Nazi-Politicians who don't give a F about any people's LAW over them.
Nothing I see in this article will do anything other than fuck the worker into paying more for healthcare or taxes and let us not forget that it is Big Businesses including unions that own Congress and not us.
Whether what you say is true or not. Gov-Guns (an UN-Limited Government) being used against its own people *IS* the problem. What's Big Business going to do w/o GUNS to steal with?
The ONLY purpose of the USA governments was to *ensure* Individual Liberty and Justice for all. That's the only reasonable purpose of GUNS in the first place.
Shewwww, at least the Hollywood Democrat trust fund kiddos and campaign contributors (that have never worked one day in their entire lives and weren’t forced to pay into this socialism scheme) dodged a bullet.
It’s worth repeating that maintaining spending at the current level is not a viable option.
But if they feds had capped spending 8 years ago, the budget would already be balanced.
Forget the "percent of GDP" nonsense. Government has a few (haha) defined functions. As the peaceful economy grows, the percent of GDP needed for government should go down over time.
Getting paid every month online from home extra than $18k with the aid of doing an easy paintings like replica and paste on-line from home. I actually have made $18745 final month from this home primarily based online paintings in my element time most effective. Awesome paintings and clean to earn like by no means earlier than. Want to sign up for this and makes extra bucks from home then comply.
Information on the given website………………..>>> http://Www.onlinecareer1.com
'Congress could save another $184 billion by reducing Social Security benefits for high-income earners. I support a move away from an age-based program altogether since seniors are overrepresented in the top income quintile.'
You ignorant cunt. Could there be actual free market economic reasons why higher salaries are biased towards older people, like increasing your value through experience and long term performance? Or are you a delusional Gen Zer who wants to start your career as a corporate VP? And do you recognize that wealth is even more biased, since wealth is something people accumulate over a lifetime?
On one hand it's OK to reduce benefits since seniors take out more than they contribute. On the other hand, if we means test, what's the point of SS? Isn't it just welfare? So we can scrap SS and just point seniors to the welfare office?
The seniors started it. Meaning screw-you-I’m-grabbing-all-I-can. No shame. That pot of money is mine, no matter how outlandish, how little I earned it, how much it screws others not to mention the future. Now with the young financially raping the future, cause god forbid they pay for their own law degrees…. it’s on. The young has caught up to the geezers on how the game is played. Meaning. Game over. These are nice suggestions on how to save the deficit. But that’s besides the point for a society intent on looting, and not even really bothering to make excuses or fib about it.
There is a book about a fictionalized near future:https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006232828X/reasonmagazinea-20/
Basically we spend ourselves past the point of no return. And then the planet basically stops, in effect, paying our bills (The book nicely proposes a very realistic set of events including de-dollarization of the economy in response to the USA devaluing itself out of debt). We revert to the dark ages as inflation goes out of control. And all imported goods including Canadian toilet paper, are priced beyond reach.
Until we realize the debt is actually something WE have to pay and not someone else…. All these proposals will fall on deaf ears. And that will frankly require a bit of pain.
I mean, Social Security was sold as NOT a charity program, but as a retirement fund. Yeah it would have never been implemented by libertarians, but to now turn into a means-based program is just stealing from wealthier retirees.
Isn't it funny how a 'retirement fund' has to be enforced with a GUN (Gov-Guns). Because that's the only tool in governments toolbox.
Either SLAVE-LABOR for the socialist-regime's retirement "plan" or get put in prison or get shot dead for UN-Constitutional tax (gun-theft) evasion.
[WE]'ll threaten to shoot you; but only because [WE] mob cares so much about ?your? retirement! /s
Quite the contradiction isn't it.
Manipulation, deceit and projection at work (criminal minds). It never had anything to do with your retirement; It had to do with legal armed-theft for their retirement.
Note, by the way, that half of our future total deficits will be driven by interest payments on the debt.
And now our kids and their kids and their kids kids can meet - Japan.
V.D.R.: "Congress can reduce the deficit..." Yes, and govt. can protect our rights, but it hasn't from the beginning, so why should it start now?
You write fantasy, filled with facts/logic, but ignoring history, e.g., the fundamental flaw in the govt. (not our govt.) that was created to serve and quickly started exploiting, e.g., with a 10% tax on whiskey to pay the national debt, but unconstitutional because it put the burden on farmers who used whiskey as money, destroying their commerce, their lives, resulting in "The Whiskey Rebellion" and state militia being federalized by the POTUS (Washington) to put down the tax resistance/protest. The new stronger, more centralized U.S. govt. turned on the people almost immediately. Why? It was given the authority to use violence, just like the King enjoyed. Moral? A decade after "The American Revolution" the victory was reversed by "The Federalists" whose anti-American covert coup succeeded with the adoption of the authoritarian constitution.
Painfully true.
The article is 100% correct and completely irrelevant. The debt will be addressed one day after there is a bond crisis. The first order of business at that time will be to point fingers.
Some comments assert that Social Security (SS) is a paygo system. Initially it was, but that changed under Reagan (1983 I think). A commission correctly saw that the boomers would overwhelm the paygo system at retirement. The solution was to increase rates for payroll workers and "bank" the surplus to cover future retirements.
The new law specified that the "bank" was to be in the form of special non-negotiable treasury bonds. These are the same bonds that Bush Jr. declared to be "worthless pieces of paper" while standing in front of filing cabinets in WV where they were stored. He was correct in that the bonds represented a loan to the government that would have to be redeemed through future tax revenue. The SS money paid by the workers was dumped into the general fund. This source of revenue allowed taxes to be lower for people not receiving a paycheck.
The more well off saw lower taxes than they would have if the SS income stream had not been there. This amounted to a cumpulsory loan from payroll workers to non-payroll workers. Now the wealthy don't want to pay back the loan through higher taxes on them. They whine about SS while continuing to extract payments from younger workers.
I think that basically describes the system, which is all I wanted to do.
Bush Jr also ramped up faith-based prohibitionist asset-forfeiture, maximized prison populations and coercive meddling abroad... then acted surprised when "the markets stopped working" after grow house confiscations collapsed the entire mortgage-backed derivatives system.
What is the link to the CBO Report referenced in the article???,
None of this squandering occurred before the 1914 income tax enforcement and 1914 Harrison Act. Getting rid of Comstock-type laws making production and trade a crime and legalizing the transformation of governments into bands of looters and robbers could hand us back a USA recognizable as such. Sure, expecting altruists to not point deadly force every which way is asking a lot, but we've already tried ignoring the necessary consequences of Kleptocracy and pretending that two plus two makes five.
Hey Boo-boo, if $700b is cut from the deficit where will the additional spending occur just to maintain GDP? and jobs, and productivity and so on and so forth...
Key economic equation: GDP equals federal spending plus private spending and investment minus net imports. BASIC!
Perhaps those anti-spending scrubs at GMU (incl YOU) can learn some BASIC economics, nah, too busy spinning away with worthless, idiotic articles on (UN)Reason.
In 1988, for their risk weighted bank capital requirements, American regulators assigned a 0.00% risk weight to America’s public debt. Then its debt was $2.6 trillion.
When do you think they should increase that risk weight to 0.001%?
https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/09/financial-communism.html
Very nice information post your blog is very useful for me https://www.tunisie-esthetic.com/plastie-abdominale.html thanks for making this amazing blog
zxv
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM