MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Discuss?
Explaining What's Missing From the Obama Budget: Big Entitlement Cuts - WSJ.com
Some excerpts:
Bold emphasis mine. Which elected officials have the most to lose if and when they start slashing the three big entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be nice if for once they did what was best for the country rather than what's best for them politically?
Explaining What's Missing From the Obama Budget: Big Entitlement Cuts - WSJ.com
Some excerpts:
The country is deeply unhappy with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and in theory voters demand that spending be ratcheted back. But that's not the same as wanting spending cut back in the areas where it's really big and really sensitive.
And for now, the simple fact is that politicians aren't convinced that they see in public opinion real signs that voters are ready to applaud a cut in the Medicare benefits Granny receives, or the Social Security benefits they can expect themselves, which happen to be the nub of the long-term spending problem. Given that Washington isn't a land of great courage on these matters to begin with, this view of public opinion is likely to continue to produce what we're all seeing: inaction.
In many ways, the new Obama budget encapsulates this picture perfectly. The budget envisions that spending on all the programs Congress argues about and votes to fund every yearincluding defense programsactually will decline slightly over the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, the budget estimates that spending will rise 71% for Social Security, 72% for Medicare and 115% for Medicaid over the same period, with the increases getting bigger after that. These programs are on autopilot, and will keep eating up tax dollars unless changed.
Yet the Obama budget itself proposes little of significance to change the trend lines on these so-called entitlement programs. The budget summary from the president talks more about what shouldn't be reduced in Social Security than what might be, and it repeats ideas already set in train in last year's health bill to slow down Medicare.
Meanwhile, these underlying realities are almost entirely missing in the cacophonous debate between the two parties about "spending cuts." Contrary to popular belief, people in Washington aren't stupid, and many actually can do math, so what explains the disconnect?
Here it is: When the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans this month about government spending, they found that just 12% wanted to cut spending on Medicare or on Social Security, and only 6% wanted to reduce spending on veterans benefits. Those are the kinds of numbers that don't merely suggest to politicians that there are no rewards for cutting entitlements; they scream that there may well be political punishment for doing so.
Polling in recent months by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News suggests a similar bottom line: Voters want spending cuts in theory but offer limited support for them.
Bold emphasis mine. Which elected officials have the most to lose if and when they start slashing the three big entitlement programs? Wouldn't it be nice if for once they did what was best for the country rather than what's best for them politically?