Entire Premise of Cat Food Commission Wrong

[Donnachaidh]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/29/entire-premise-of-cat-food-commission-wrong/


Members of the cat food commission have consistently said that they will put a priority on spending cuts with their recommendations for deficit reduction. Co-Chair of the commission Erskine Bowles has, in fact, made a long-term spending target of 21% of GDP. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has written a report on this target, and finds it completely inadequate and bordering on numerology.

The average level of federal spending over the years since 1970 — about 21 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — does not provide a reasonable benchmark for the level of spending that will be necessary or appropriate in the future <...> Such recommendations, however, fail to take account of fundamental changes in society and government — the aging of the population, substantial increases in health care costs, and new federal responsibilities in areas such as homeland security, education, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. These factors make the expenditure levels of several decades ago inapplicable today.

A careful analysis of these factors indicates that it will not be possible to maintain federal expenditures at their average level for decades back to 1970 without making draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and an array of other vital federal activities.
Over the 40 years from 1970 through 2009, revenues averaged a little over 18 percent of GDP, and expenditures averaged nearly 21 percent of GDP. Those averages reflected a federal government with far less responsibility than today, and a country with a much smaller percentage of elderly people and considerably lower health care costs. Averages for federal spending and revenues in past periods consequently are not very relevant for discussions about how to reduce deficits to economically sustainable levels in the decades to come.

CBPP’s analysis boils down to “things cost money.” Now, if the government wants to give up on the surveillance state (they don’t) or the military-industrial complex (uh-uh), maybe they can get closer to that target. But with an aging population, higher health care costs, more federal responsibilities, and interest on the debt, a 21% target will basically wipe away a host of “unnecessary” domestic programs.

MORE at the link ---

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

2. +1

Wonder what would happen if the function were to list who recs and who unrecs?

[LWolf]

3. k&r

[lib2DaBone]

4. Whatever puts the most money into the pockets of the ruling class...

that is what will become Law...