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.)

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.

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?

I can't see the third graph.

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|




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.

Here's the CBO's analysis of H.R.4529:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/...dmap-Letter.pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 plan

1. Big Cuts in Social Security Benefits for adults 55 years of age or under - and privatize Social Security

2. 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.

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

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



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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.




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.

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.

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

I just guessed because I was too lazy to look it up, but it turns out the correct answer is 59.1 -- still well current retirement age.

I suppose now you'll want me to look up what the retirement age was when SS started....

No, I was being literal. According to Wiki:

Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889
The Old Age Pension program, financed by a tax on workers, was designed to provide a pension annuity for workers who reached the age of 70 years. At the time, the life expectancy for the average Prussian was 45 years. Unlike the Accident Insurance and Health Insurance programs, this program covered Industrial, Agrarian, Artisans and Servants from the start. Also, unlike the other two programs, the principle that the Federal Government should contribute a portion of the underwriting cost, with the other two portions prorated accordingly, was accepted without question. The Disability Insurance program was intended to be used by those permanently disabled. This time, the State or Province supervised the programs directly.[44]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck

Fine, I looked it up, it appears it was 65 back then, too -- six years over life expectency. Based on that, current retirement age should be set to eighty-something.

Yes, when SS was set up life expectancy was 60, the were prepared to pay to 65, they set up a system to which they only planned to pay a small percentage of the population.

When we are designing retirement income, we use 90 as the minimum life expectancy. We had one client turn 90 this year and we have two more that are really close.

Unlike others here, you don't look to see if you know what you're talking about before you post.

Over the past thirty years, Congress has been under split control for four sessions. It has been under full Democratic control for six sessions, and it has been under full Republican control for five sessions. During that same time, Democrats have held the presidency for five terms (including the last time the budget was balanced -- Clinton -- and the last time it was closest to balance -- Carter). Republicans have held the presidency for ten terms, including all the times the budget went up the most. As I've pointed out before, for seven of his eight years in office, Reagan had a Congress with at least one house in Republican hands, as did Bush II for six of his eight years. At no point during their presidencies did the budget ever move closer to balance. Why is that, if Republicans so love balancing the budget?

Congress approves the budget (with modifications, obviously) that the president initially submits. In every year but one, Reagan's submitted budget was larger than the amount Congress finally approved for him, meaning that if they had approved his budget without change, the debt would be even worse. I tried to find similar data on submitted budgets versus approved for all thirty years but did not.

The bottom line is that while Congress approves the final budget, they do not create the budget -- that is done by the president. Yes, it is silly to claim that the president is responsible for all of the budget deficit. It is equally silly, though, to pretend he has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Google can be your friend! A few quotes I found during my search:

Here's a tiny correction for hblask, because he does value accuracy.

We were discussing revenue (18.5% of GDP) as opposed to outlays, and he said the 18.5% figure of Ryan's plan represented a tax cut because "taxes next year are projected to be 25% of GDP." Actually, as of 2008, when the last actual numbers were tallied, revenue (taxes) were 17.7% of GDP. For 2011, the CBO's analysis of the President's budget shows revenue projected at 17.2%. Hblask may have been thinking of outlays, which are indeed in the 21-23% range for those years.

I agree absolutely that any serious budget plan has to reform entitlements, mainly to increase the retirement age by about 20 years, and agree that we should have done it decades ago; the costs now are going to be a lot higher because of our previous inaction.

Here is a link to the historical data:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf

Also, if we really want to know who to blame, we can all look in the mirror.



The quotes here and above are from Wikipedia; the projections are from CBO; the historical data is from an appendix to the current budget.

Democratic Congressman Rush Holt pointed to the difficult decisions he has to make when deciding how to vote.

"Am I voting for my interests or for your interests?" he asked. "And if I am voting for your interests, am I voting for what I think a majority of the people want, or am I voting for what I think you should be thinking?"


It's too bad we can't trust politicians to do what is right because I have even less faith in the American public.

If a guy like this (Charlie Crist) cannot hold off a nutbag like Marco Rubio in the Florida gubernatorial primary, I give up. The death of the socially moderate conservative is terrible for American politics. Crist understands how to operate with some class and that upon his election he had a duty to represent all his constituents.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Monday he has no regrets about supporting President Obama's stimulus package last year, an endorsement that has cost him precious support among conservatives in his Senate primary battle against former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.

"It was the right thing to do," Crist said in an appearance on MSNBC. "Our economy was going off into the abyss and if we didn't have those monies, we would have had 87,000 people out of work today in the Sunshine State. Twenty thousand of those are educators, and how many people does that translate into in terms of the children they teach?

"It was the right thing to do. We needed the money. That's why what every Republican governor in the country took it. It was a common sense approach to take it."

Crist noted that he would not support a second stimulus package.

The governor also defended himself from conservative critics who continue to hector him for appearing with President Obama at a rally for the Recovery Act last February.

"I am a guy who understands that the President of the United States deserves respect, and when the president comes to my state and it's the first time he comes to Florida after he is sworn in about a month before, I am going to be there and represent the people of my state, because I am the governor of all the people, all the 20 million people who live in Florida almost, I am the governor," Crist said.

Crist said there is "no way" he will lose the August primary to Rubio despite his trailing poll numbers. "I am going to win," he promised.



As an aside, Rubio is the one person most responsible for Florida still having such lame laws regarding poker and gambling in general.

Crist is part of the problem. He is a big government Bush-style Republican. He needs to go, if nothing else for the silly belief that having the federal government take a bunch of money from Florida and then giving a fraction of it back somehow helped the state.

I don't know much about Rubio, but he can't possibly be worse.

Good riddance, Crist.

EDIT: I checked Rubio's website, and only disagree with him on a couple things. That puts him in the top 10%.

I did some quick searches on the guy. He seems pretty good. Time will tell but I think he is a winner. I believe it is time for a new generation in the GOP and he seems to fit quite well. I guess time will tell.

Not only is it not terrible, it will be good to get rid of these" wishy washy no back bone unable to make a stand and afraid to speak the truth that they live everyday" people from mucking up the voting results and give us idiots like Obama and Reid in the first place.

Like yourself?

That's totally different.

I agree completely. "The American public" is the lowest common denominator -- they want no taxes but high government services, have no idea that even the services they want/decry are only 6% of the budget, and are too bored, confused, and easily distracted to begin to learn what it would really take to balance the budget, pay off the debt, and run the country successfully.

I know you don't like Gore, but true policy wonks are exactly the kind of people we need to elect. Boring plain people who aren't flashy, don't hog news cameras (he can, but not like some), and maybe *aren't* the kind of guy you want to have a beer with, but who will happily spend 80 hours a week crunching budget numbers and talking policy. I'd love a Washington that was full of people like that, right, left, center, and libertarian. But "the people" want their beer buddies.

The ridiculousness has reached new heights:

I give you the Coffee Party


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...bid=sShzjAlV_wU

What's the major problem with this?

The major problem is that this is silly. What's next, the decaf party?

It all seems like a big song and dance from everyone, the grassrooters, the dems, the gop.

I'm thinking of starting the Latte Party. Do I have any followers?

Sounds a little too French.

Italian, really, but we will draw inspiration from French principles.

The major problem is that the coffee party is a Obama dreamed up scam trying to pass itself off as a grass roots reaction from everyday people.

The facts are that it is a nothing more than an Obama plan trying to create on purpose what happened spontaneously with the Tea Party Movement.

How completely sad that the left has do pretend so hard to be what the right often is.

They bus in protesters that they pay, they force a 'spontaneous' movement that supports the president 100% and they stick their head in the sand about what the people want form them regarding health care.


Makes me feel bad for you guys who bought the lies

Here's a picture of the famous Facebook page that she started that became an organization with 60,000+ members.

Won' let me paste the picture so here's the link


For those of you not inclined to do MORE RESEARCH than the NY Times did before they wrote this story, I will tell you, that the lady has one friend, the guy who quit house to work for Obama's administration.


you'd think they would at least try to lie better, but given that the NY Times, the Washington Post and others have all given puff piece stories completely allowing their lie without even one second of effort to find out what's going on, I guess there was no reason to hide their lies.


Luckily for you guys, there is me.

I'm confused and too lazy to read the details of how this whole thing is an Obama conspiracy. Cliff Notes for morons like me...?

Newspapers report story of a 'grassroots' counter to tea party

Lady claims she's just a person who mentioned she wanted to get together over coffee and talk about what's what and through facebook her 'grassroots' coffee party grew overnight to 60,000+ members who also happen to not like the tea party.

3 major newspapers picked up story and basically copied it. Lone woman wants her voice heard is not alone.

10 minutes with the interweb reveals her facebook friends list contains 1 person, and she has been politically active for years, majorly active for Obama and other left causes.

Think if an organization was started by Glen Beck's son being financed by the NRA and they tried to pass it off as spontaneous movement from a regular person who just got fed up with the way things were working and found suddenly that tens of thousands of people felt the same way and all got together by themselves on a social website that doesn't exist. But worse.