The U.S. Credit Rating Just Dropped. It's Time for Radical Budget Reform.
The lack of oversight and the general absence of a long-term vision is creating inefficiency, waste, and red ink as far as the eye can see.

Fitch Ratings just downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating due in part to Congress' erosion in governance. Indeed, year after year, we see the same political theater unfold: last-minute deals, deficits, and, all too often, the passage of gigantic omnibus spending bills without proper scrutiny, along with repeated debt ceiling fights and threats of shutdown.
But these are just symptoms of a budget-making process that remains in desperate need of reform. With legislators chronically delinquent about following their own rules, the change may need to be as much cultural as procedural. No matter how good the rules are, they're useless if politicians ignore them. And in a world where politicians are rarely told no when it comes to creating or expanding programs, most simply refuse to have their hands tied or behave as responsible stewards of your dollars.
Adding insult to injury, the budget process has become a winner-takes-all competition, leaving the minority party with little to no voice in budgetary outcomes. Under these conditions, battles over the debt ceiling, continuing resolution votes, and threats of shutdowns are the only ways for the voiceless to state their demands.
Bad processes lead to bad outcomes. The lack of oversight and the general absence of a long-term vision is creating inefficiency, waste, and red ink as far as the eye can see. Without real reform, no one can stop it. So, let's have some real reform.
What we need is a comprehensive budget process under which programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are no longer permitted to grow without meaningful oversight. Combined with other mandatory, more-or-less automatic spending items, they make up more than 70 percent of the budget. Thus, they must be included in the regular budget process and subjected to regular review. Only then will our elected representatives be forced to stop ignoring the side of the budget that requires their attention the most.
This would also help deal with the fact that entitlement spending is, as every serious observer knows, unsustainable. Unless reformed, these programs will drain wealth not only from the government but from the economy. Ensuring their sustainability must be part of any serious budget process reform.
Enter a "Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)"-style fiscal commission, an idea promoted by the Cato Institute's Romina Boccia. This commission would be staffed with independent experts appointed by the president. It would be "tasked with a clear and attainable objective, such as stabilizing the growth in the debt at no more than the GDP of the country, and empowered with fast-track authority, such that its recommendations become self-executing upon presidential approval, without Congress having to affirmatively vote on their enactment," Boccia explains.
I'm uneasy about delegating the president power to appoint "experts." Unfortunately, Congress has proven they will never seriously address the problem unless forced to. The idea is not unprecedented. Congress has already delegated a lot of its legislative power to administrative agencies and the executive branch. It's also how the political class dealt with the closures of military facilities after the Cold War—another set of hard choices they refused to make on their own.
What's more, Congress would retain some veto power. If they disapprove of the proposal, the House and Senate can reject it through a joint resolution within a specified period. Whether it's the best solution to address our fiscal problems remains to be seen, but it's worth considering.
There are many more budget reform ideas out there. I'll leave you with one more. For years now, Congress has failed to pass a budget, and in turn brought the country to the brink of a government shutdown by fighting over the need for a continuing resolution—a temporary measure that extends previous funding levels for a few months.
Making continuing appropriations automatic in case of a lapse could remove the threat of shutdowns. As explained in one senator's proposal, if appropriations work isn't done, "implement an automatic continuing resolution (CR), on rolling 14-day periods, based on the most current spending levels enacted in the previous fiscal year." Further, to avoid overrelying on CRs, "all Members of Congress must stay in Washington, D.C., and work until the spending bills are completed."
The road to reform is never easy. Entrenched interests and complexity, combined with congressional spinelessness, are a daunting challenge. But the stakes are too high to shy away. It's time to completely rethink the way we approach the federal budget, grounding our efforts in the principles of transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.
COPYRIGHT 2023 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
It's about 30 years past time, but OK.
The U.S. Credit Rating Just Dropped. It's Time for
Radical Budget ReformMore BorrowingGreat article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
“What we need is a Constitution under which programs like Social’ist Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are no longer permitted (PERIOD). Because the USA wasn’t founded to be a Social’ist nation no matter how ‘secure’ (obviously not) it’s advertised to be.”
There. Fixed that for you.
Because at the end of the day; GUNS don't make sh*t and pretending they do is what CRIMINALS do!!!! There can be NO Liberty or Justice in a land full of Gov-Gun packing criminals only a zero-sum resources gangland of dog-eat-dog.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
We HAVE a Constitution that doesn't permit the government to enact Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. About half of the Executive branch departments are unconstitutional. What we need is a population that either amends, or enforces, the Constitution. That can't happen until we create a population that UNDERSTANDS the Constitution. For the last few decades, we have allows the schools to be run by people actively working to make sure we don't understand the Constitution.
+1000000... Very well said. Though I'd gather that the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] probably do understand it they just hate it (the USA) and want it conquered for their Nazi-Empire.
Good luck getting Team Red to go along with it. They would rather spout nonsense about tax cuts for the wealthy.
Poor Jeff, he’s actually poor.
Not wealthy, got way more tax cuts under the previous administration. This one reversed those and then added some.
I'm logged in, how the fuck am I seeing this dude's posts?
Did he figure out a way to make a sock puppet that looks like his old account name?
This seems to be a highly realistic parody. Reason broke their no clones again.
Thanks for perfect examples of why you aren't a libertarian. We have numerous that you are a collectivist rather than 'individualist' but its nice to get you shouting from the rooftops that you are a bog standard democrat NPC.
'Team Red' is for tax cuts. Everyone got tax cuts under Trump. The wealthy will always get more from tax cuts, as they pay the lion's share of taxes. We have the most progressive tax system around, maybe in the entire world.
So ya, sorry those tax cuts didn't go to the lower 50%, who contribute 0% of the nations taxes, and minimal went to the next quartile, who pay a tiny portion of the nations bill, and the largest amount went to the top quartile...who coincedentally pay almost all of the nation's taxes.
Dont spout your disingenuous DNC talking points here, they dont work on people with functioning brains. Bring receipts if you wanna talk.
To summarize: "Fuck you, cut spending"
Right, letting people keep more of their own money is pure evil.
Think of the children! We need to enslave them with our debts because we love them you hateful bigot!
Republicans have a religious-like belief that all tax cuts stimulate the economy and bring in more revenue. This is obviously not true or 0% taxes would maximize revenue.
That’s not how it works.
It’s called “reductio ad absurdum” where you disprove an argument by taking it to it’s logical conclusion.
You’ve made it clear that you think I’m stupid because your brain cannot comprehend abstract thought. So sit this one out. It’s too stupid for you to understand.
So you were trolling again.
And we're the ones accused of trolling.
Or maybe they have a religious-like belief that STEALING what other people have rightfully *EARNED* for UN-Constitutional spending is 100% criminal.
That's definitely not what most Republicans think either.
You can find gibbering idiots anywhere, but I think most republicans have a bit more nuance than that. Laffer curve and stuff like that.
The Laffer curve has been twisted into meaning all tax cuts cause economic growth and higher revenue, even when they don't.
On the other side of that same coin are the Democrats who view all government spending as "investment" that will grow the economy.
In the end you get Republicans cutting taxes and Democrats increasing spending, both claiming they are growing the economy, and none of them can figure out why the deficit keeps growing.
That's what happens and it's fucking terrible. Republicans are damn close to useless, but at least some of them understand economics.
They also understand politics, unfortunately.
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell
Pretty sure AOC has a degree in Economics, though I think I have a better understanding of the subject than she does.
That is an extremely low bar and you probably just barely meet it.
straw man - see Laffer Curve
The time for radical budget reform was 15 years ago. It's much too late now.
The time for radical budget reform was 115 years ago.
FIFY
But we just has an article saying the answer to all problems was switching to bit coin?
The ultimate problem is that the voters don’t want spending cuts. Old people want social security and free healthcare. So does whoever gets medicaid. Trying to eliminate a department and you’ll have people crying foul.
Biden already radically reformed the budget, No one has ever spent like Biden.
Actually, the credit downgrade is a good thing, a proper response to how well Biden is doing and has done in rebuilding our economy from the bottom up and from the inside out. We've added 14 billion jobs to the economy in the last 4 years, good paying union jobs, green jobs, a renoberation of the trunalimunumaprzure that has plagued us for the past 400 years. And, since 1973, there has never been a from the beginning of the, the, well, anyways.
You are living proof you can't fix stupid.
"No matter how good the rules are, they're useless if politicians ignore them."
This the same rag that argues Trump should be let go and shouldn't face consequences?
That said, I'm not seeing it as unsustainable if we make the right moves. Ie. let's not be dumbasses anymore and prop up a system of healthcare that just ensures that insurance companies continue to make great profits at the expense of our taxes. Just go universal with at least a public option. Slash the military budget in half, if not more. No new programs- finish what is feasible and slash it to hell and back. Get NATO allies to pump up their spending. Stop giving tax breaks to the wealthiest who continually skirt what even little they do need to pay. Pump up the IRS budget and use AI to identify the wealthy tax cheats and nail them to the wall. Get rid of all the loopholes in the system.
It's not hard. But it is politically impossible especially as we prop up a system to give us two shitty choices instead of actual ones where someone might do something meaningful.
Perhaps the first thing to do is fix our shitty electoral system huh?
Poor raspberry, he’s poor too.
"Grab your pitchforks and torches, fellas. Get 'em. They're rich!"
Isn't the House team Red right now ? Doesn't that mean that they are responsible for paying the bills ? How is when team Blue holding the purse it's their fault, and when team Red is holding the purse ... it's still team Blue's fault ?
Also, can we get somebody else in charge ? Neither is really working out.
Something about the blue senate not passing bills?
Maybe?
Maybe because when someone throws trash all over they usually get blamed for it; not the random next person walking by who won't clean it all up.
And granted team Red does its fair share of littering the budget but nothing like the left does. It would be nice if the next person walking by would clean it all; but it's hardly their fault if they don't.
No we can't get somebody else. We don't have competitive elections anymore and we won't ever again.
One idea for increasing SS solvency: senior hunger games. Offer a bounty to anyone on the SS dole who takes out another recipient, say 10% of the, um, retired benefit. And if the action is televised, add in some new revenue--and excitement.
The Gummer Games!
Swords only: Make it like a geriatric Highlander.
Geriatric? Immortals?
What part of immortal did you not understand?
A small amendment from one of the geezers.
We get double the amount for each democrat.
I have already designed the attachments to armor my walker, and determined where to mount the claymores to it. All I need is to figure out how deep the the ground spikes need to be when I trigger them off.
Another, more serious idea for improving SS solvency: annual demographic adjustment. Given the significant increases in US longevity, we need to re-evaluate retirement age. When SS started, very few people made it to 65, and few of them collected benefits for long. We had one episode of ratcheting up the age for full benefits, to 67.5.
We can look at the numbers of workers and retirees each year, and balance the ratio by adjusting the magic age for full benefits. That would ensure solvency forever.
ps. Sure, SS and other social welfare programs are not libertarian, but unless you hope for a complete reset due to revolution/global famine/zombie apocalypse, we are stuck with it.
It should be privatized and the leaches moved to Prison walls. Ready to retire and live off the backs of other people by gov-gun "armed-theft"? Do it inside the prison walls where it should be. If you're not going to support yourself you shouldn't have the freedom to enjoy stealing from others without any consequence. It's self-entitled criminals without any justice in it to be found.
That assumes that life expectancy is even remotely similar among different income groups. It isn’t.
Life expectancy for the lowest income quartile of retirees is comparable to life expectancy in Sudan and lower than India for that same age. And it’s not really individual income as much as it is average income in the community. So it is more of an infrastructure/access thing. Those folks are the ones who also get disabled and can’t work at more physically demanding jobs. So SS and Medicare are only paying those bills and pensions for 8-10 years. Which is only a couple years more than it was when SS was created.
The higher income otoh have gotten all the benefits of increased longevity and medical technology. Living well into their 80’s. And sucking on the public teat on SS and Medicare for 20-25 years.
‘Raising the retirement age’ is, like everything else in US politics, a way to kick the lower income in the teeth and preserve SS, and Medicare especially, as an entitlement program for the higher income (and by retirement wealthy). It is perverse and obscene that we turned Medicare into a money transfer program for older richer individuals and doctors. Rather than an actual infrastructure program.
Or maybe it’s just natures law that incompetency leads to poverty and granting the incompetent “armed-theft” criminal relief will lead to a whole nation of incompetent criminals.
The nature of people isn’t usually that they learn to not be criminals from being rewarded for being stupid and selfish criminals. But it'll certainly create a gangland of dog-eat-dog zero-sum resources environment as it has done throughout history time and time again.
It's not 'nature's law'. It is the US. EXCLUSIVELY American incompetence. Most rich countries set up their elderly medical programs at around the same time. It's very easy to see which ones set an infrastructure goal (increased life expectancy) for that sort of spending - and which one just decided to spend near unlimited amounts of tax money and public debt for the sheer hell of it.
Most rich countries spend much less than the US does on healthcare and retirement for the elderly; they force the poor and middle class to pay much more into the system; they provide more limited services and pay out less. And their programs are still in trouble, which is why they are raising the retirement ages.
Well, as you can see from that graph, life expectancy in the US is lower DESPITE massive healthcare spending. So, the problem isn't that the US is not spending enough, the problem is that the US healthcare system is inefficient and ineffective. And the most inefficient and ineffective part of it is Medicare/Medicaid.
Most rich countries spend much less than the US does on healthcare and retirement for the elderly;
Yes, everyone spends much less. With much better health outcomes.
they force the poor and middle class to pay much more into the system;
I'm sure you and your ilk actually believe that. No they do not force the poor/middleclass to pay more. They have a DIFFERENT form of financing those programs - more in taxes, less in insurance costs, about the same in co-pays/deductibles, much less in bankruptcy exposure. Overall MUCH less
they provide more limited services and pay out less.
They certainly pay providers less. Mostly by viewing their programs as medical infrastructure rather per-transaction - fund the hospital not each bypass in onesies. So more medical providers earn a salary instead of run their own business. Most of them limit their publicly-paid services. What's fucking wrong with that? Better that than govt pays all bills with no questions asked and no controls. And all but a couple countries allow anyone to buy supplemental coverage. And those systems are where markets work MUCH better because insurance companies aren't spending all their time cherry-picking customers.
If you really believe that BS go do it!!! There is nothing in the USA stopping anyone anywhere from starting up an organization to do that... NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL....
But if you really think it works that way you don't need 'GUNS'. You don't need government's GUNS to go out and STEAL what people aren't **************willing************** to labor for. Is this the land of the free or is it the land of SLAVES??
Think about it for a change.
Freak-en lefties. Still the party of people entirely obsessed with human Slavery.
Sorry, but higher life expectancy in Europe is not the result of better healthcare because European healthcare is, in fact, not better.
Such statements are nonsense because the way in which European nations finance their healthcare systems is extremely diverse, ranging from US-like system to fully government-run systems. In the UK and France, it's a tax-financed publicly run system, with much higher taxes on the middle class. In Switzerland and Germany, it is all private insurance carriers and private doctors, with much higher taxes on the middle class and on top of that, much higher insurance premiums as a percentage of income.
How this works differs greatly across Europe. Countries like Switzerland and Germany have fully private insurance and fully private healthcare providers, so your analysis is b.s.
Again, you obviously lack any understanding of European healthcare, since you don't even realize that many European nations have no "supplemental health insurance" because their systems are private to begin with.
Yes, people like me who have lived and worked in Europe for many years.
That's unlike people of your ilk: bloviating, entitled, ignorant Americans who know nothing about European healthcare beyond the nonsense fed to them by US media.
Sorry, but higher life expectancy in Europe is not the result of better healthcare because European healthcare is, in fact, not better.
It is better because the basic level of care (which is all most people need/want most of the time) is actually available to everyone. The lack of access here is why your ilk blames the poor for being ill. The lack of access here is why Americans health begins declining sharply at around age 50 or so. Esp at the lower income levels - where that declining health also then turns into job insecurity (and thus compounds) as employers heavily discriminate against over-50's because of that higher cost.
people like me who have lived and worked in Europe for many years.
I lived and worked there for two decades. Putting together health plans for new branches/divisions in different countries. The stuff you took for granted if you really worked there.
And your assertion that "basic level of care" is more available in Europe than in the US is based on... what exactly?
I blame most illnesses of people on their behavior, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. That's because most illnesses in the West are the result of lifestyle choices.
You have already demonstrated that you know nothing about how European healthcare systems work. You are a liar.
The life expectancy in Sudan is 66 years. The average life expectancy for the bottom 25% is 77 years (Poland is 78). So, you are factually wrong.
Nevertheless, the poor have lower life expectancies than the wealthy in the US and elsewhere (it’s about a 10 year difference, the same as between men and women). That is what happens when you bring in tens of millions of people from poor countries: you get a large population of poor people with health problems and life expectancies corresponding to their countries of origin.
Stop flooding the country with poor and sick migrants to do large amounts of hard manual labor and these statistics will improve.
(Incidentally, what do you think about the unfairness that women live about 10 years longer than men on average? How about we reallocate healthcare and research spending to equalize those outcomes?)
Well, you can thank progressives for that. And the solution is to abolish Medicare and Social Security, together with enforcing immigration laws, eliminating unskilled immigration, and ensuring that the US economy will increasingly be based on high income, skilled labor.
The life expectancy in Sudan is 66 years. The average life expectancy for the bottom 25% is 77 years (Poland is 78). So, you are factually wrong.
No I am not wrong. We are talking about life expectancy of Medicare/retiree folks. Not life expectancy of newborns (aka life expectancy at birth). Medicare doesn't do childhood vaccinations, or change the outcomes of war/homicide, or for that matter cover medical expenses of adults. Those things are how one would address life expectancy BEFORE age 60 or so.
Here's visual data from the WHO re life expectancy AT age 60 from virtually every country. You will notice that virtually no country - Afghanistan, Somalia - has an average life expectancy of less than 15 more years (meaning age 75) assuming they have made it to age 60.
Countries with retiree medical all have a slightly different measure - healthy life expectancy - since the outcome is death for everyone. We of course don't do that. We just spend a shit-ton of money with n questions asked. Hell - we don't even ask why are Americans so fucking unhealthy at the end of their careers (40 years or so of 'employer'/insurance run medical). Americans aren't as unhealthy as Somalis or Sudanese at the beginning of our careers. But let's not ask that question either.
From your source: life expectancy at 60 (data from 2019):
Germany: 24.41
UK: 24.13
Netherlands: 24.08
USA: 23.13
Poland: 22.13
Sudan: 18.64
Furthermore, the slightly lower life expectancy at age 60 in the US has nothing to do with Medicare, and everything with lifestyle choices and immigration.
Americans are unhealthy primarily because of poor lifestyle choices (foremost, obesity, drugs, and violence), secondarily because of immigration of sick people.
The US healthcare system does contribute as well, by stuffing people full of drugs and not treating the underlying causes.
From your source: life expectancy at 60 (data from 2019):
That data is not differentiating life expectancy by income. Nor does it vary that much by income in other rich countries. It does vary here as I said and as you already admitted in your earlier post.
The US healthcare system does contribute as well, by stuffing people full of drugs and not treating the underlying causes.
Yes. The US medical system is designed to keep people unhealthy because that is where the profits are. Healthy people don't spend much on medical. Which is a big reason those European medical systems are cheaper.
You gave it as evidence for your assertion. So either this is the best data you have, or you pulled your "facts" out of your ass.
So what? Even if your specific claim ("Life expectancy for the lowest income quartile of retirees is comparable to life expectancy in Sudan") were true, it has no obvious relationship to the healthcare system in a country.
The primary source of variation in life expectancy across countries is wealth, public health, and lifestyle choices, not the health insurance or medical system.
The US medical system is designed to give entitled Americans what they want and vote for: an oversupply of healthcare services and drugs, regardless of ability to pay, and without judgment or personal responsibility. That is the driver of healthcare costs and the driver of poor health that relates to iatrogenic causes.
Treatments that in Europe would simply be denied or require years of approvals are given in the US at the drop of a hat. Where in Europe a doctor would tell you to get your effing act together and get lost, a US provider will not be judgmental and give you lots of treatment options. Medical providers are happy to play along with it because it is profitable, but the guilty party and cause is the US voter.
It's not that there is some nefarious conspiracy against Americans, this is what American voters have chosen for themselves, just like they have chosen a food system that makes them obese, and a welfare system that makes them government dependent. American voters are greedy, entitled, and ignorant, and American democracy works and gives voters what they want. And then nincompoops like you blame some dark figures for "designing systems" to harm Americans.
Even if your specific claim (“Life expectancy for the lowest income quartile of retirees is comparable to life expectancy in Sudan”) were true, it has no obvious relationship to the healthcare system in a country.
Yes it does when that is the primary rationale for creating a system for that age group and when so much freaking money is spent for that purpose.
The primary source of variation in life expectancy across countries is wealth, public health, and lifestyle choices, not the health insurance or medical system.
Then I will link to the same graph I showed earlier that shows changes in life expectancy v medical spending in rich countries since the early 70's YOU explain it.
Did Americans just decide then - I want to spend my life on the couch stuffing my face with cheetos knowing I will die sooner - but I also want to spend a lot of money on medical? For GENERATIONS - since the American revolution really - Americans were far healthier than Europeans. Noticeably so. Explain why we recently chose to be unhealthy, while spending tons more on medical, starting around 1980.
And then nincompoops like you blame some dark figures for “designing systems” to harm Americans.
Our government medical system was designed. It is not a result of happenstance. That's just a fact. It was not designed by 'voters'. Medicare isn't called the third rail now because issues are discussed and made transparent. Lobbyists exist now - as they existed back when Medicare was created.
What is odd is why 'libertarians' like you choose to be useful idiots for lobbyists rather than, maybe, wielders of sunlight and disinfectant
I'm not sure what exactly you think requires an explanation. Explanation of what?
- life expectancy goes up because of improvements in public health
- healthcare costs go up because as people get wealthier, they like to spend more on healthcare, and because government regulations prevent markets from making healthcare more efficient
- the US is an outlier because the US is an outlier on pretty much everything
Well, yes, indirectly Americans did just that. Since WWII, Americans have been voting for a paternalistic social welfare state that provided medical care, school lunches, food stamps, dietary guidelines, agricultural subsidies, etc., all at the root of the obesity epidemic.
Of course, Medicare wasn't designed by voters; almost all legislation is designed by lobbyists and special interests. But voters keep voting for politicians that promise to keep and expand Medicare. American voters think they are entitled to Medicare.
I'm not defending the current system at all. I'm saying the US healthcare system should be fully privatized. That's the libertarian position.
I'm simply countering the conspiracy theory people like you are spouting. The reason we have the corrupt, ineffective, expensive medical system we have is because US voters keep voting for it. Until you realize that, you can't fix the problem. I'm also countering the nonsense you keep spouting about Europe's healthcare systems, systems you obviously don't understand at all.
It doesn't even matter if you're right (which you aren't). The USA isn't setup to do socialism.
FOR F'SAKES................ OUR FOUNDERS FOUGHT A BLOODY WAR TO *****ESCAPE***** IT so there was a nation WITHOUT IT that was based on FREEDOM.............
If you don't like that; YOU DON'T BELONG HERE!!!!!
MOVE your *ss to your dreamland utopia.
Socialism doesn't equal healthy population with access to medical care
America doesn't equal sick fat people who die early and others who pay through the nose for medical
Anyone who thinks reforming Medicare doesn't involve taking a real honest look at what our medical system is - is far worse than a moron.
Chanting idiots like you are the reason no one should ever take you seriously.
Anyone who thinks Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare (everything government has done) to muck up the healthcare industry .... "doesn't involve taking a real honest look at what our medical system is"...
The very reason it's so F'Ed up is because of central planners like yourself trying to constantly FIX ( MAKE WORSE ) the problem.
This gov-plan will fix it... This gov-plan will fix it... This gov-plan will fix it... This gov-plan will fix it...
And the WORSE and WORSE and WORSE and WORSE it gets...
Is it entirely impossible for you people to LEARN anything from realities???
You're right socialism doesn't equal a healthy population so why in the world are you promoting another new socialist healthcare plan?
Well you're doing a hella job there convincing the American public of your viewpoint.
Older folks (whose health care is socialized - and who also happen to be more R) are ok with the system. Younger folks (who are healthier) are increasingly pissed off about the quality of health care.
There ain't no libertarian moment coming here. And Hayek understood this 70 years ago.
And yet 200 years ago doctors would come to your house for the price of a pizza or for a modern day example; the fairly Non-Nazi controlled dentistry medical healthcare industry still does the same.
Your Old vs Young battle is exactly the problem with socialism. There's no JUSTICE in it; just a constant battle on which [WE] gang RULES/ROBS/ENSLAVES... It's EXACTLY why the USA wasn't suppose to have government healthcare.
Have you seen native born Americans lately? I'm not convinced that immigrants are contributing much to the lousy state of health in the US.
It's not an either/or. Native born Americans have high rates of obesity, drug abuse, violence, and other lifestyle risk factors.
Illegal immigrants suffer from all those factors, and on top of that often arrive with serious medical conditions. Overall, they drag down US life expectancy, and there are tens of millions of them.
Legal, skill-based immigrants tend to be healthier than average, comparable to wealthy Americans, but there aren't enough of them to raise US averages.
Here's a simpler prescription: "Congress should cut spending a lot."
RIP: Robbie Robertson
I pulled into Nazareth
Was feeling 'bout half past dead
I just need someplace
where I can lay my head
"Hey mister can you tell me
Where a man might find a bed"
He just grinned and shook my hand
and "no" was all he said.
I just spent sixty days in the jailhouse
For the crime of having no dough,
Now, here I am, back out on the street
For the crime of having nowhere to go
Take a load off Fanny
Take load for free
Take load off Fanny
And
Put the load right on me.
Bear witness, I'm wailing like the wind
Come bear witness, the half-breed rides again
In these hands, I've held the broken dream
In my soul, I'm howling at the moon
Catch the blue train
Places never been before
Look for me
Somewhere down the crazy river
(Somewhere down the crazy river)
Virgil Caine is the name, and I served on the Danville train
Till Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again
In the winter of '65, we were hungry, just barely alive
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it's a time I remember, oh so well
"I'm uneasy about delegating the president power to appoint "experts." Unfortunately, Congress has proven they will never seriously address the problem unless forced to. "
Are you positive the libertarian solution isn't to add to the bureaucracy? After all if the culture isn't libertarian, isn't forcing them to follow libertarian values the best solution? I mean, we already have a process that resolved this issue, but the culture doesn't care if the process is done well or not, so luckily the solution isn't cultural, it's to add more processes that no one will care if it's followed through on or not.
You hold a chair in Political Economy and you still reason as if politicians were motivated by the long term prosperity of the American people! Did a few decades of Public Choice Theory just pass you by?
The “inefficiency, waste, and red ink” serves the self-interest of politicians. That’s why they are causing this to happen and that’s why it’s not going to change.
I suspect your behavior is also easy to understand by applying public choice theory to you as an academic: you have no interest in actually understanding the causes of political dysfunction or to come up with workable solutions; you, Veronique, just want to maintain your academic brand as the token free market person and get your faux-libertarian writing gigs. The fact that you are ineffective at actually promoting libertarianism or free markets makes you a good choice for your department, since you are obviously non-threatening.
It's hard to write a good article for libertarianism when you need to get reelected to the editorial board, so it's better to use the dysfunction of libertarianism to stay in your comfy position, than to push it anywhere it might be disruptive.
The founders knew that any intelligent, if common, man could handle the reigns of government. Yet the system has evolved to so highly favor incumbency and reward those that support the incumbency that there exists a political class. We need short terms and constant turnover to eliminate the ability to influence votes with money or promises of money in the future.
I have seen reasonable proposals for adopting a lottery for the election of federal officers. I am positive that a randomly elected Congress, with no options for re-election, completely turned over every 6 years could do a better job than what we have.
The problem isn’t incumbency, the problem is excessive centralization and government power.
If government power were local and limited, if the federal government influenced less than 5% of GDP like it used to, incumbency wouldn’t make any difference.
Conversely, when the federal government controls more than half the economy, it doesn’t make any difference whether you have senile pricks like Pelosi and McConnell, or whether you have the latest 30-something Soros protege in power.
European parliaments have lots of turnover, and parliamentarians retire at a reasonable age. But their replacements are simply clones, and parliamentarians are bound by "party discipline", so they are interchangeable cogs.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
I usually like your stuff, Ms. de Rugy, but, seriously? Have the real budgeting power be handed to a Presidential committee that can only be blocked by the joint agreement of both houses of Congress, and then have automatic rollover of the previous budget any time any one of the House, Senate, or President doesn't agree to a change?
Why not just come out and call for the abolition of Congress entirely?
And let's not forget that this shit is coming from CATO, for fucks sake. CATO FOR TOP MEN!
SMDH.
"these programs will drain wealth not only from the government but from the economy."
The government has no wealth. It takes whatever it has from the citizens. It already IS draining wealth from "the economy" and always has.
+100000000. Amazing how easy obviousness gets diluted in making big plans.
Fuck you, cut spending!
The downgrade was a political comment, and nothing more.
There is no genuine question as to the credit worthiness of the United States.
The US Credit rating was reduced largely because of the games played, mainly but not exclusively, by the Republican Party, in refusing to extend the borrowing limit, itself a meaningly concept, and by participating, along with the Democrats in the annual ritual of refusing to reach a budget until the Government either does shut down, or passes a continuing resolution that just pushes resolution of these issues down the road.
Yes, actually having a budget and a process that involves serious negotiations until a budget is completed in proper time would be nice but there is no practical way to do that short of locking them all up until they get so sick of each other, they reach a deal. Sort of like how Popes get elected.
What you really want is a budget that limits the Government action and what Democrats want is a Government that takes action to remedy what they see are people's needs, like health care and education for all. There will never be resolution of that issue under current structure so we will just go on.
And, for bond holders who are really worried about their purchase of US debt, well be worried but you are worried for nothing.
"The US Credit rating was reduced largely because of the games played, mainly but not exclusively, by the Republican Party, in refusing to extend the borrowing limit"
Predictably also believes
"you are worried for nothing"
Ignorance at it's finest.
It isn't so much budget reform that is needed. It is budgeting. The Federal Government hasn't had a budget in the last 20+ years.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
The Simpson-Bowles Commission (2010) demonstrates why the budget is completely out of control. Republicans were against the recommendations because they included tax increases. Democrats were opposed because spending reductions were also recommended. The only way to get smaller government is to charge people for the cost of all this government they appear to want.
They only want it if those ‘icky’ productive slaves have to pay for it.
That has been the running lefts big-government desires. As-if that hasn’t always been obvious. How about a college student tax or a single mother tax or a poverty tax? Yeah see … The left has and will always be the party of slavery. Their big-government desires is EXACTLY the enslavement of others for their own GREED. The magical-oz will grant everyone equal pay and just enslave those 'icky' working ones.... That's the only way their equality works because "armed-theft" doesn't actually create/produce/make anything inherently. (their ignorance)
No; The only way is to NOT ALLOW "armed-theft" (taxes). You're pitching that the solution to "armed-theft" is more "armed-theft".
how about rather reforming the notation agencies?
You know, those who pretended that subprimes were just AAA...