Political Visions For The Future Of America

[hblask 1]

Here are three versions of where America is going with government, taxes, debt, etc.The first is Obama's plan, and is called the "Push the tough decisions to the future" plan, or possibly the "I don't understand economics" plan, depending on whether you believe Obama is incompetent or irresponsible:The second plan is the Republican leaders plan, which is unfortunately similar, and is called the "Give him enough rope" plan, or "the party of no" plan, and involves just letting Obama get his way and hope for good election results because of it:The third is the plan by a smalll group of Republicans who care more about the country than their own re-election chances. The group is led by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin:Hmmm, wonder which one Congress will choose.(Not really. If you don't know, just remember the initials AARP.)

[El Guapo 10]

Those are really cool looking graphs and all, but how? I want to see where this comes from.EDIT: Especially social security, it looks as if he grows it, then shrinks it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I could easily make a graph that looked way better than the third one. I would just make them all go to 1% by 2020. It would fall much faster and stay lower for longer. Does that mean I win? Is there anything else to consider?

[JoeyJoJo 20]

I can't see the third graph.

[hblask 1]

Those are really cool looking graphs and all, but how? I want to see where this comes from.EDIT: Especially social security, it looks as if he grows it, then shrinks it.

The plan is called Roadmap For America, and has been rated by the CBO. Here's a link to it if you feel like some light reading:http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1...111search.html|

I could easily make a graph that looked way better than the third one. I would just make them all go to 1% by 2020. It would fall much faster and stay lower for longer. Does that mean I win? Is there anything else to consider?

Well, you need to protect seniors who are counting on SS and Medicare, you have to balance the budget, and get entitlement spending under control. That would be a start, and are things the rest of Congress refuses to do.If you come up with a good plan, maybe you can submit it to Obama.

[hblask 1]

Here's the CBO's analysis of H.R.4529:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/...dmap-Letter.pdf

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Social Security WILL grow and then shrink (under anybody's plan). The bulge is the Baby Boom moving through it, and after that it will shrink as my much smaller generation begins to move through. The first two charts assume a steady growth in every program, which isn't actually going to happen (I have a feeling all three of these graphs are published by the group that supports the third graph, not by the group that supports each one). The third graph is closer to what will happen.I'd find all of these graphs more compelling if they they showed more context. The problem didn't start in 2000. To fully understand the trajectory we're on and have been on, the graph should start with 30-40 years of accumulated real data, rather than fewer than ten full years of real data followed by 70 of estimates.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

A couple of other points:1. Look at the top shaded item, net interest. Why do the first two charts assume that we'll be paying so much more net interest in the future than the third chart assumes we'll pay? The midpoint of all three charts is 2040. In all three charts, government spending as a percentage of GDP is between 25-30% (30% in the first two, 25% in the last). After that point, the net interest takes off exponentially in the first two charts, but holds more or less steady in the third.It can't be because of a balanced budget, not at all. The budget is in balance when the red line and the black line cross. We had a balanced budget when this chart begins in 2000 (a fact I will never tire of pointing out to Republicans), and under Ryan's plan we won't have one again until 2075. That's better than the other two charts, sure, but that means it can't be the explanation for the interest item. It looks like Ryan (or the Heritage Foundation, which is sourced at the bottom) is massaging the chart, making a highly negative assumption regarding interest for the charts of his opponents and a highly favorable one for his.I'm extra skeptical because Social Security has already been massaged to look worse for the others than it will be.2. They're definitly fudging the "no higher taxes" line in the headline. The first two charts show government tax revenue at 18.4% of GDP. Ryan's shows 18.5% of GDP. He's started his chart ahead of the game by giving himself more revenue, a/k/a taxes.

[hblask 1]

Social Security WILL grow and then shrink (under anybody's plan). The bulge is the Baby Boom moving through it, and after that it will shrink as my much smaller generation begins to move through. The first two charts assume a steady growth in every program, which isn't actually going to happen (I have a feeling all three of these graphs are published by the group that supports the third graph, not by the group that supports each one). The third graph is closer to what will happen.I'd find all of these graphs more compelling if they they showed more context. The problem didn't start in 2000. To fully understand the trajectory we're on and have been on, the graph should start with 30-40 years of accumulated real data, rather than fewer than ten full years of real data followed by 70 of estimates.

There is no point in the future where SS, as currently structured, is projected to shrink. The graphs are based on CBO estimates -- the non-partisan government agency which we hire to keep an eye on government spending and make projections.The data from previous years is relatively boring -- spending has really only exploded in the last 8 years.

[hblask 1]

A couple of other points:1. Look at the top shaded item, net interest. Why do the first two charts assume that we'll be paying so much more net interest in the future than the third chart assumes we'll pay? The midpoint of all three charts is 2040. In all three charts, government spending as a percentage of GDP is between 25-30% (30% in the first two, 25% in the last). After that point, the net interest takes off exponentially in the first two charts, but holds more or less steady in the third.It can't be because of a balanced budget, not at all. The budget is in balance when the red line and the black line cross. We had a balanced budget when this chart begins in 2000 (a fact I will never tire of pointing out to Republicans), and under Ryan's plan we won't have one again until 2075. That's better than the other two charts, sure, but that means it can't be the explanation for the interest item. It looks like Ryan (or the Heritage Foundation, which is sourced at the bottom) is massaging the chart, making a highly negative assumption regarding interest for the charts of his opponents and a highly favorable one for his.I'm extra skeptical because Social Security has already been massaged to look worse for the others than it will be.2. They're definitly fudging the "no higher taxes" line in the headline. The first two charts show government tax revenue at 18.4% of GDP. Ryan's shows 18.5% of GDP. He's started his chart ahead of the game by giving himself more revenue, a/k/a taxes.

1. The reason government interest goes down is because there is less deficit spending, and therefore the debt stays constant and therefore interest stays about constant until spending starts to decline. The data is from the CBO, so it is not anybody "massaging" the data. And yes, if we do nothing about SS, we, as a country, will be broke, so a program that puts it on a sustainable path will, of course, show better results. I'm not sure why that should be confusing.2. Taxes next year are expected to be 25% of GDP. 18.5% is less than that. So you can have *lower* taxes AND still be 0.1% above historical averages.

[El Guapo 10]

Here's the CBO's analysis of H.R.4529:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/...dmap-Letter.pdf

Wow. I have only read about half, but why is this getting ZERO air time? (I mean, I know why)This is the first time anyone has actually laid out a plan that is taking care of everything with a longer vision than their political term.

[gobears 0]

Talkingpointsmemo (liberal site obv) has been playing up the Ryan plan quite a bit but mainly because they think more publicity of the plan will help Democrats. Republican leadership sees it the same way which is why they went back to their old do nothing plan and are running away from the Ryan plan.This is TPM's summary but they point out that the Ryan plan1. Big Cuts in Social Security Benefits for adults 55 years of age or under - and privatize Social Security2. Full privatization and phasing out of Medicare. You would get a voucher instead of medicare to buy un-reformed private insurance.So yeah, Ryan wants to reduce entitlement spending. I think that it's similar in some respects to why companies like IBM went away from pensions and towards 401K's as the pension obligations were going to kill them. So they basically cut off the pension option for newer/younger workers who were only offered the 401k option. My dad worked for IBM for a long time and he's one of the lucky ones who gets that monthly check from IBM.I actually like the premise as it's too late to change the rules on the elderly so you'll have to start with the younger generation - however, there will be losers (maybe the folks closest to 55 years or under who have to work longer and need to replace that SS income that they were counting on).There is 0% chance the Republicans will embrace this plan especially since they have the momentum going into next year's election.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Well, you need to protect seniors who are counting on SS and Medicare, you have to balance the budget, and get entitlement spending under control. That would be a start, and are things the rest of Congress refuses to do.If you come up with a good plan, maybe you can submit it to Obama.

Oh, all that makes it more difficult. I'll just let the experts in congress handle it. I trust 'em.

[brvheart 1,768]

Those are really cool looking graphs and all, but how? I want to see where this comes from.EDIT: Especially social security, it looks as if he grows it, then shrinks it.

SB already mentioned it, but its the baby boom silly.

A couple of other points:1. Look at the top shaded item, net interest. Why do the first two charts assume that we'll be paying so much more net interest in the future than the third chart assumes we'll pay? The midpoint of all three charts is 2040. In all three charts, government spending as a percentage of GDP is between 25-30% (30% in the first two, 25% in the last). After that point, the net interest takes off exponentially in the first two charts, but holds more or less steady in the third.It can't be because of a balanced budget, not at all. The budget is in balance when the red line and the black line cross. We had a balanced budget when this chart begins in 2000 (a fact I will never tire of pointing out to Republicans), and under Ryan's plan we won't have one again until 2075. That's better than the other two charts, sure, but that means it can't be the explanation for the interest item. It looks like Ryan (or the Heritage Foundation, which is sourced at the bottom) is massaging the chart, making a highly negative assumption regarding interest for the charts of his opponents and a highly favorable one for his.I'm extra skeptical because Social Security has already been massaged to look worse for the others than it will be.2. They're definitly fudging the "no higher taxes" line in the headline. The first two charts show government tax revenue at 18.4% of GDP. Ryan's shows 18.5% of GDP. He's started his chart ahead of the game by giving himself more revenue, a/k/a taxes.

Why would this give you joy? Republicans love to remember how Newt Gingrich balanced the budget.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Why would this give you joy? Republicans love to remember how Newt Gingrich balanced the budget.

Thanks for the lol. The deficit shrank for two years under Clinton's Democrat-controlled Congress, continued shrinking to balanced under the Republican-controlled, and then spiraled out of control under Republicans for each of the eight years of Bush. Newt had nothing to do with any of it. It began shrinking from Clinton's first year and stopped shrinking and started growing from Bush's.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

The data from previous years is relatively boring -- spending has really only exploded in the last 8 years.

Can you show this? This is national debt, not spending as % of GDP, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Bush years were much more than a slighly accelerated continuation of the last 30 years. Well, actually it's pretty accelerated, looking at this, but the liftoff began with Carter and really took off with Reagan.

[JoeyJoJo 20]

lol @ the chart title

[dapokerbum 0]

lol @ the chart title

Why are you lol'ing the title of the graph. Do you put zero blame on the president ... or do you just think it's funny because it seems they are blaming it ENTIRELY on the president. Just curious.

[JoeyJoJo 20]

Why are you lol'ing the title of the graph. Do you put zero blame on the president ... or do you just think it's funny because it seems they are blaming it ENTIRELY on the president. Just curious.

Well, of the two choices presented, I would pick that they're putting all the blame on the President.But it's mostly because it's worded so bluntly. Not "US National Debt and the Presidents in Office" or something like that, but "The Presidents Responsible For It."

[akoff 0]

Well, of the two choices presented, I would pick that they're putting all the blame on the President.But it's mostly because it's worded so bluntly. Not "US National Debt and the Presidents in Office" or something like that, but "The Presidents Responsible For It."

i always the thought it was congress who set the budget. You know the body that has been controled by democrats most of the last 30 years...

[dapokerbum 0]

Well, of the two choices presented, I would pick that they're putting all the blame on the President.But it's mostly because it's worded so bluntly. Not "US National Debt and the Presidents in Office" or something like that, but "The Presidents Responsible For It."

Nice. That's what I figured but I just was making sure. It does have a certain flair trying to pawn it all off on the president though.

[SweetDee 0]

i always the thought it was congress who set the budget. You know the body that has been controled by democrats most of the last 30 years...

Stop calling attention to...shhhh... here, have a cookie, look at the pretty colors.

[hblask 1]

I actually like the premise as it's too late to change the rules on the elderly so you'll have to start with the younger generation - however, there will be losers (maybe the folks closest to 55 years or under who have to work longer and need to replace that SS income that they were counting on).

I didn't read all the details of the plan, because it seemed similar to others that I had seen. In general, the way this works is people who are within a few years (3? 5? 7?) of retiring get to keep SS as currently structured. People beyond that limit, the middle aged people, get their choice of a buyout lump sum payment in treasury bills plus investments a small percentage (2%?) into basically a 401K. Or maybe they don't have the choice of keeping SS. Then younger people (35? 30? whatever) pay into the 401K, with a promise for low income people that they will be guaranteed a certain amount of income at retirement age, based on their savings and inflation and stuff, to be paid out of the treasury.Certainly the details of ages and percentages and stuff are negotiable, but a plan like this is really the only way out of the coming disaster that is SS. And yes, this is why IBM and everyone else has given up on defined-benefit plans -- they are basically impossible to fund correctly over long time periods.The other thing that I think is necessary, but I don't know if it's part of Ryan's plan, is to raise the retirement age regularly -- say 6 months every 3 years. It has to be fast enough so that we can eventually catch up to increased longevity -- which is, in the end, one of the big reasons for the pending SS crisis. If SS only covered the last 5 or 10 years of life on average, we could easily afford it, but it was designed when lifespans were 45 years.

There is 0% chance the Republicans will embrace this plan especially since they have the momentum going into next year's election.

Sadly, this is true. They'd rather have power than save the country from bankruptcy. And they had their chance with a similar plan under Bush, but chickened out then, too.

[hblask 1]

By the way, the biggest problem with the plan is the transition costs. If it had been implemented when it was first suggested a decade or so ago, the transition would've been relatively painless. It could've been paid for by, say, selling off the radio spectrum instead of having the FCC mismanage it.Now, with SS running a loss last year, and probably permanently starting in 2 years, the transition cost is monstrous. I assume that's why the graph for Ryan's plan goes up for a while, because we have to buy out all the transition people while we continue to pay the currently retired people.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If SS only covered the last 5 or 10 years of life on average, we could easily afford it, but it was designed when lifespans were 45 years.

I believe you're thinking of Otto Von Bismark's Social Security.