In this thread , we are discovering the joys of micromanaging the federal government at the smallest levels, so I thought I’d starts some threads going after the big chunks as well.
Wanna play? Pretend you are a congress person and look over Bush’s proposed FY2004 budget for Health and Human Services , the largest outlay in the budget.
Can you balance the budget before your congressperson does?
We’ll start with Medicare the largest line item.
Bush says existing law will require expenditures of $246,040,000,000.
He also proposes legislation to modernize medicare:
He estimates these as costing an additional $6,055,000,000.
IANA Lawyer or Economist, so any input as to the validity of these esitmates would be great!
Will they cost what he says, and should we enact them?
I’d like to move to table this discussion and open debate on naming the new postal office in my district for Joseph Blow, a fine citizen from my community.
I hate to burst the bubble so early in this thread, but it would be profoundly unwise to attempt to balance the budget at this very point in time. For the purposes of discussion, I assume that the ultimate aim of balancing the budget is to never ever run deficits, as would be required by a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
The federal budget for the next year will include roughly $2.2 trillion in spending and $1.8 trillion in revenue. A deficit is expected next year of about $385 billion. (I’m not paying close attention to rounding errors.)
So, are we to cut spending or increase taxes by nearly $400 billion for next year? We just passed a $330 billion tax cut, right? If we restore those taxes and lop off some spending, can’t we make it up?
No. The budget resolution passed by Congress foresees about $1.2 trillion in deficits over the next five years – and those tax cuts (underestimated as they are) are supposed to be worth $330 billion over ten.
What about cutting spending? Recipe for disaster. If you sought $400 billion in cuts in one year, you’d either be stopping one out of every two discretionary dollars spent by the government (for things like defense, roads, and education) or radically curtailing essential human services in Medicare and Social Security – which, aside from any political consequences, would probably be considered by many as an immoral act.
Not to mention the macroeconomic effects of such cuts. $400 billion in reduced expendatures accounts for around four percent of our entire economy. Stop that spending and we’re talking very serious economic consequences, which would lead to declining tax revenues and very likely depression.
Deficits matter, and debt matters, but you can’t solve the problem in one year. It takes sustained discipline in fiscal policy, and requiring balanced budgets, no matter what, is just a plain dumb idea.
Neurotik, I’ll vote for your bill if you’ll support my bill to re-number a branch of Interstate 80 running through my district from “Business Loop 80” to “Interstate 380”?
It confuses tourists, and I’m being pressured by the lobbyists for the chambers of commerce and the hotel and tourism industry to act quickly.
(major campaign contributors, BTW, not that that’s relevant or anything, or that my decisions regarding the public good would be influenced by contributions 
) .
No, no, no silly. Those post office naming things are supposed to be automatic. But I’ll vote for your change of highway names if you support my bill for $3 million dollars of urban development aid for Arlington.
And I’ll owe you an Appropriations vote in the future.
I’ll second the $3 million to Arlington
What you want is not a Lawyer or Economist. You need an actuary. Fortunately for you, there are several of us on this message board.
Unfortunately, Medicare is not my specialty. The best I can do is repeat something I was told by a famous actuary named Robert J. Myers. He was the first Chief Actuary of Social Security. He served in that post until 1970. I took a course from him at Temple Univ. shortly after he left the government.
Myers said that from the very beginning, every estimate of Medicare costs proved to be too low. I don’t know whether that’s still the case, but take his comment as a warning.
Kill HR 867-5309 in your committee (a bill related to dairy product labels) and you’ve got my on your $3 mil.
I don’t mean to be threatening, but if you have him kill that bill in committee you can forget about that new bomber contract for the defense plant in your district.
::Begins searching old threads for dirt on Captain Amazing to threaten to give to his opposition at election time::
Gentleman, gentleman. Surely a compromise can be reached. Suppose we just water HR 867-5309 down with some loopholes in the Dairy Sub-Committee, and appropriate some highway construction funds for you, Captain?
Well, I suppose I could be persuaded to agree on a five-year sunset period for the bill. and the people of my district could benefit from widening our portion of the Interstate…
DEAL!
The 5 year susnet is perfect. This will buy my dairy constituents just enough time to avoid some potential nasty and extremely expensive class-action lawsuit since the statute of limitation is only two years!
Now… what was the issue again? Health or something?
Some Medicare thing. All I know is that the conservatives will stone me if I vote for it, but the old people will crucify me if I vote against it…I plan to be sick that day.
You may also want a couple of doctors and/or public health experts, to help you do the cost/benefit analysis of creating incentives for primary care and/or drugs that may pay off down the road in terms of less need for acute care and hospitalizations.
Before you pass the combined Dairy/Interstate bill, I would like to attach this unrelated rider: 300 million in funding for the perverted arts.
Okay, but seriously…
What in hell is with this prescription coverage for seniors? You know, for the first 20 years I was active in politics, I never heard of this. It was not an issue. No one talked about it.
Now, in the last couple of years, suddenly there’s this huge crisis that the government must step in and fund.
But let’s not forget some simple facts:
Does it strike anyone else as being absolutely INSANE that seniors should get an entitlement like this? As it is, Social Security and Medicare costs are ballooning out of sight, and it’s only going to get worse over the next two decades. Why in hell are we adding this gigantic new expense to the problem?
What we should be looking at right now is a fundamental restructuring of both Medicare and Social Security - to CUT funding. By means-testing it. Since seniors as a group are rich, they can pay for their own damned health care. Social security is trickier, because theoretically they paid into the system with their own money. However, given the chronic under-funding of SS, the fact is that the people who are retiring today are getting a tremendous return on their investment, while people who retire in 40 years will be lucky to get back the money they put in, and would have been much better off in private investments.
So really, Social security is little more than a regressive tax, wherein the poor young working people of the country pay hefty taxes so that it can be spent by the older, wealthy people.
So let’s means-test 'em. Bill Gates can pay for his own false teeth and plastic hip. And I think he can do without the $600/mo or whatever he’ll get when he retires.
As far as drugs go, at the very least we have an opportunity to means-test those before they become another untouchable entitlement. Seniors can pay for their own damned drugs. Those who honestly can’t afford to can apply to the government for relief. Giving free drugs to everyone who hits a magic age is idiotic, unjust, and damned expensive.
[mumbling] now, let’s see, where did I leave that thread I created this morning before the day got so busy…oops![/mumbling]
Holy shit, when you assholes pretend to be Congress, you don’t do it half-assed, now, do you?
Ravenman, I shouldn’t have been so careless with my choice of phrases. The 2.229 trillion in Bush’s budget reflects his total requests for expenditures. Since I wished to examine items in that budget closely, I saw no reason to stick to that total, and figured expected revenues are as good a place to start as any. Certainly, any line item requiring additional debt or be taken or an increase in tax revenue be imposed should not pass through without close examination? Your points about the disasters of cutting funding are rather broad, and the whole point of this thread is to see if government is paying its cash in the right places. I’m asking how well Medicare covers its stated goals so we can see what changes might be necessary. Are Bush’s numbers for the mandatory payout realistic? If not, what would be?
december, are you a pension actuary? You may have heard of my father. I agree with you that Medicare is probably underfunded, but by how much?
Eva Luna, yes, a medical type, or even a link to some hard data would be useful here. Any thoughts?
Sam Stone, it’s a big issue now because prescription drugs are doing now what surgery and lengthy hospital stays have done in the past, but Medicare has not caught up with the times. Also, on what are you basing your claim that the old are all wealthy enough to afford healthcare? The 401ks of a lot of 50+ age people went down in flames with the stock market. What’s the current data on what seniors have saved up, and is it enough to make the kind of cuts you are talking about?
I move we say that the 246 billion in Bush’s proposed budget is the minimum needed, and discuss Bush’s modernization proposals. Sam Stone rejects the need for a prescription drug coverage. I support a prescription drug coverage, but only once we settle the issue of what drug companies should be able to charge for new drugs to recoup discovery costs, when the research was funded with tax dollars in the first place.
I reject the notion that private sector competition will achieve the goals of quality healthcare. The HMO model of healthcare is a long way from proving its effectiveness, IMO, and I don’t think we should put our national backup plan (Medicare) on the same model.
Other thoughts?
It’s a well known fact that seniors are the wealthiest sector of society. It makes sense - they’ve had a lifetime to accumulate wealth.
Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t lots of poor seniors. BUt my proposal wouldn’t affect them. All I want to do is means-test it. Surely we can agree that Bill Gates will be able to pay for his own health care? How about people who are on fixed incomes, but have half-million dollars homes, owned free and clear? Why can’t they take a reverse mortgage and help pay for their own medical bills?
Especially when you consider that the money that person is getting was probably taxed from someone who owns nothing, has a big mortgage, and a kid or two to raise.