Personally I don't care which side of the "aisle" you are on but this irresponsible spending has got to stop. We are bankrupting our country for the sole purpose of short term political gain and eventually it is going to catch up with us, not IF but WHEN... The Long-Term Budget Outlook Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook. Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled. Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two. Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years. In CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for fiscal policy. Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, but much less sharply. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level. Meanwhile, as depicted below, government spending on all activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—a broad category that includes national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades. Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. As shown in the figure below, between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs. The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
Charts from that link: Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios (Percentage of GDP) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/slide2.jpg Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/slide6.jpg
The budget deficit and sheer financial irresponsibility that Obama has introduced is his KATRINA. The way that this Administration has presented information about the stimulus package, cap and tax, and deathcare is downright fraudulent. These lies and attempts to mislead America's most gullible (emotional Obama voters) will leave us in financial ruin.
If you look at the charts, most of it is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest. All the other stuff, include bailouts and stimulus/porkulus is projected to be flat.
And this is why the US needs health care reform ASAP. You simply cannot afford the massively wasteful bureaucracy and hugely bloated overhead of your current private system. The US currently wastes more than 1 in 3 dollars it spends on healthcare and maybe as much as 1 in 2, and the primary cause is the bloated bureaucracy and waste of the US private system. Overall the US spends 16% of its GDP on heath care while the OECD average is only 8.9%! The next highest country behind the US spends only 11%. In PPP adjusted dollar figures the US spends over $7,000 per person while the OECD average is under $3,000. Again, no one else is even close. Norway is second at under $5,000. The pork and inefficiency and general waste in the US private system is truly staggering, and I wholeheartedly agree that it needs to be reformed ASAP. Everyone needs to get behind Obama on this and make it happen. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf As I understand it, Obama’s system provides choice as well. Those who love pork and inefficiency and waste and who don’t mind overpaying by 50% to 100% for their health care will have that option, but for everyone else there will be sane, efficient, first-world system to provide their coverage. Who could possibly object to that? Surely only the private insurance companies who are getting fat off the pork and waste of the current system, or those who have been fooled by their propaganda, would object.
The Congressional Budget Office said yesterday that the plans being discussed to "reform" healthcare will fail to control costs (the primary goal allegedly) and could potentially make them worse. He also said that despite the claims that this would lessen the federal financial burden with regards to healthcare, it will in fact make it worse.
OddsOn, For the record I agree with your underlying argument....SPENDING HAS GOT TO BE DECREASED. But, here's the issues I have with your posts. Where were you in the last 8 years. I'd even say where were you in the last 30 years but that would be unfair. See below... Looking at the above, how can you be so adament about budget issues NOW. Now after one of the worst economic contractions ever. You're only focusing on the 'what' and not the 'why' and you definately are ignoring the 'when'. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that our country is in a budget crisis now but everything was peachy before this severe recession? You want to complain about spending money when to we're trying to get out of this rut. I agree that we have insane amount of debt but this is all cumulative. Didn't happen overnight. I also agree that, while I think we do need to spend while in this recession, government spending is just inherently inefficient and needs to be watched. If you're going to call out both sides of the "aisle", at least aknowledge that this problem has existed for a relatively long time.
Government is the definition of wasteful bureaucracy and hugely bloated overhead. They can't come close to balancing their own budget, yet you think they will magically transform the healthcare industry into a lean and efficient enterprise? That's outrageous! We'll end up with a MUCH more costlier system, and horrible care to accompany it. No thanks.
What is the lag time on economic policies to have an effect on overall economic #'s. Doesn't it take 6 to 8 years before the full ramifications are felt (IE Clinton pushing subprime loans in 98/99 and bubble bursting in 06/07)? Because if you went by that chart, one might automatically assume that the current president is 100% responsible for the deficit and that simply isn't true. I don't only blame Obama for our current deficit but his administration's spending certainly hasn't helped. Bottom line, our government is failing us all with horrible fiscal policy for the last 25 years.
traitor, there were budget surpluses from the mid-1990's to 2000. the huge surplus that he had inherited was the basis of W's tax cut
We're talking about national debt here. Clinton's subprime support (which is another debatable topic itself) is not the reason for the spike in debt during Bush Jr's reign. It was Reagan's and Bush I & II's spending that spiked debt. Yes, you could argue that the combo of Clinton's and GWB's policy's are now affecting Obama's era having to spend a lot.
What does the mortgage business have to do with national spending? Bush and Reagen were neo-cons had spent too much money. if they just tightened up the budget, the debt would have gone down.
While the amount of borrowing decreased during Clinton's years, there was no real surplus. We always spent more than we received. According to government math I think there was one year of a surplus, but according to real math there was a deficit because we spent more than we received. Even though Clinton did not run surpluses, he does give republicans a black eye with his ability to be a much better budget hawk.
Tooting the same horn. I did not back most of Bush's spending, most notably the prescription plan and his lack of immigration control. But I did back the war effort and had a real problem with the way the democrats politicized the whole thing. Don't take this the wrong way but this is where your stereo typing is going to get you in trouble. You see I don't care what political party you claim affiliation with, its the principles behind your vote that I care about. It was never the intention of the federal government to impose so much restriction on the people. All the welfare programs are a complete waste of money and do more to harm peoples ability to improve their situation then any politician will care to admit. The fact is they all like to use them as political carrots. Its time for a moratorium for both immigration and government spending. Put it all on hold for about five years and tell the people to suck it up and get a job or three....and clean up the corruption and abuse.
Honestly this is where my problem with your "principles" begins. It seems divorced from the reality that people are right now having trouble enough holding on to the one job they have, let alone having the ability and/or time to get and hold three jobs. My second issue is with this fantastic idea that we can just turn off government spending, suck it up and dig ourselves out of this mess. Where would you propose cutting government spending? The entitlements? Medicare/Medicaid? Enjoy explaining to the scores of elderly why they can no longer recieve their medicare benifits. Perhaps you will be so bold as to suggest they go back and get a job or 3 at age 72? As far as medicare concerns, people seem to demonize the poor as being listless, worthless drains on the country, totally deserving of their fates while canonizing the rich as being superhuman persons worthy of our respect and undying adoration. Thus you seem to resent giving any of your tax dollars to the single mother working and trying to feed her 2 kids while you cant wait to give your tax dollars to help subsidize Exxon Mobile. Maybe you would cut military spending? Good luck getting that one to pass the sniff test with your fellow republicans and advocates of the "war on terror". Immigration spending? So you would open up the borders by further underfunding our border patrol agents? Education? Yes, because our kids already recieve the best educations on the planet? I could go on and on. My point is you need to come at this problem with more than just libertarian idealogy because in the end that gets you nowhere and makes you look silly.
