Nate Silver does a great job at FiveThirtyEight breaking down where our government is spending money on the federal, state, and local level. After a thorough analysis he concludes what is fairly obvious: growth in government spending is coming from "entitlement programs" like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and (to a far lesser degree) welfare. This analysis leads me to two takeaways:
1) We don't have a spending problem, we have an entitlements problem. When you see plans to slash non-defense discretionary spending remember that's not the problem and that's not grown substantially since 1972. Non-defense discretionary spending has been relatively static for forty years, so those offering plans to slash the budget are wanting to take away government services like education funding, infrastructure investment, and R & D. More to the point, if they take it away it won't do anything to deal with the actual problem we have. It's a solution matching ideology, not necessity.
2) Just because we have an entitlements problem doesn't mean we should eliminate our entitlement programs. There are a number of things driving the entitlement problem. From exploding health care costs to demographic shifts. Some of these problems, like health care costs, can be worked. Some, like the demographics problem, need endured.
We don't have a spending problem, we have an entitlements problem.
ReplyDeleteNo, we do have a spending problem, a huge component of which is entitlements. The best solution towards ending this situation is to stop spending so much money. While it would be great to reduce entitlement spending, it also makes sense to reduce spending in any other place possible.
non-defense discretionary...[has] not grown substantially since 1972.
Define "substantially." According to the White House, non-defense discretionary spending in 1972 was $225 billion (in 2005 dollars), while 2012 non-defense discretionary spending was projected at $522 billion. In per capita terms such spending went from $1075 to $1675 -- a 56% increase. Does that not qualify as substantial?
Just because we have an entitlements problem doesn't mean we should eliminate our entitlement programs.
Given that pretty much no one in any position of political power is calling for their elimination -- I don't even think Rand Paul has gone that far -- isn't this a bit of a strawman?
Some, like the demographics problem, need endured.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
it also makes sense to reduce spending in any other place possible.
ReplyDeleteAnd
Does that not qualify as substantial?
Silver's analysis suggests non-defense discretionary spending has tracked with GDP growth, so any expansion we have managed and some of that expansion may track with the growth of the economy rather than an explosion of programs.
It is ideologically convenient for you to suggest we cut spending, but there is no endogenous imperative to do so. Certainly this spending is under threat of being crowded out by entitlements, but that's an exogenous factor.
isn't this a bit of a strawman?
I don't think so when folks like Paul Ryan are suggesting a complete redefinition of Medicare. It's not an attempt to take Medicare forward, it's an attempt to redefine what Medicare is.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
When I talk about the demographics problem I'm talking about the graying of the baby boomers. We have a swell of folks at or near senior citizenship. This is causing a strain on entitlements, but it isn't a permanent state of being for entitlements.
Silver's analysis suggests non-defense discretionary spending has tracked with GDP growth, so any expansion we have managed and some of that expansion may track with the growth of the economy rather than an explosion of programs.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it matter what it tracks with? The reality is that had non-defense discretionary spending remained constant on a per capita basis that the deficit would be $214 billion lower in 2012 dollars. I don't think that's chicken feed.
It is ideologically convenient for you to suggest we cut spending, but there is no endogenous imperative to do so. Certainly this spending is under threat of being crowded out by entitlements, but that's an exogenous factor.
Hey, I'm all for entitlement reform in order to get our fiscal mess in order, but until that happens spending needs to be cut from somewhere. Just as an unemployed person should view getting a job as the number one priority towards fixing their personal financial situation, it's probably also a good idea to cut back on the daily trips to Starbucks until that happens.
I don't think so when folks like Paul Ryan are suggesting a complete redefinition of Medicare. It's not an attempt to take Medicare forward, it's an attempt to redefine what Medicare is.
So modification/reform=elimination? Your description goes beyond even that employed by the Obama/Biden campaign last year, which typically accused the Ryan plan of "eliminating *the guarantee* of Medicare" and ending Medicare "as we know it." Then again, left untouched and given fiscal realities, Medicare is on track to eliminate itself.
This is causing a strain on entitlements, but it isn't a permanent state of being for entitlements.
You must know something I don't -- do you have info suggesting the worker:beneficiary ratio is set to improve following the boomer retirement?