From Heritage: "Increasing the National Debt Limit Should Spur Congress to Tackle Entitlements"
Although it has no immediate economic impact, debt held by the government becomes significant over the long-term. Such debt will eventually have to be converted into public debt, which means its economic impact will be felt by future generations. For instance, in 2017 the Social Security system will need to begin drawing from the Trust Fund in order to pay benefits. Since the Trust Fund contains nothing but government debt, the government will need to generate cash to pay back the money it has borrowed. Absent large budget surpluses in the future (a highly unlikely prospect), repaying government debt will necessitate that debt be sold to the public. This shifting of government debt to public debt will not by itself cause the total stock of debt to change, but it will force the Treasury to begin making interest payments that it was earlier able to avoid. As these new interest payments compound, the debt will rise significantly. Absent any other policy changes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that net interest on the public debt will rise to 12.4 percent of GDP in 2050, which will amount to more than $9 trillion per year.And here's the conclusion:
While today's $9 trillion debt seems high, it is small compared to the debt that future generations stand to inherit. In order to spare them this crushing burden, Congress must act now to reform entitlement programs, which will become the main drivers of government spending and borrowing. If it does not, Congress will have to raise the debt limit many more times, and future generations will pay the price.The Democrats' transparent ploy with the SCHIP program is galling on so many levels. First of all, there's the idea that no good deed should go unpunished: the Republican-led Congress passed the children's insurance plan a decade ago only to have it used as a cudgel now by the Democrats. Second, here's a modest program that worked well and focused on the poor kids who need health insurance; now some states want to expand entitlements to people making $80,000 or more. The moral hazard, of course, is that with a new entitlement Americans will let the government pay for insurance - the first step towards the kind of socialized medicine that sends Canadians fleeing south. Finally, the Democrats expansion of SCHIP is paid for with a huge 61-cent cigarette tax (that will disproportionately fall on lower-income Americans) that still won't paper over the budgetary chicanery:
What happens in the sixth year, 2013, under the Democrats' plan? The projected SCHIP spending will drop by 92 percent. After five years of federal spending distorting the private health-insurance market, it will likely be impossible for families who will lose the SCHIP money to find affordable private coverage. When Republicans and Democrats - working together - created the SCHIP program in 1997, we made sure it had 10 years of stable funding. Democrats should follow that example, instead of endangering health coverage for millions of children.Why re-new a good program when there's demagoguery to be made? I think Americans see the game of chicken the Democrats are playing at the expense of kids. They don't want compromise, they want an issue, and they might get one. There's no money left for a new entitlement at the moment in our history when a huge bill is coming due on a half-century of unsustainable expansion. Raise the cigarette tax? That's just the beginning.
Extra - From Captain Ed: "Vetoland, population 4"
2 comments:
Captain Ed:
Let's underscore that last sentence. Bush doesn't want to end S-CHIP, nor does he want to freeze its funding level.
Okay, Cap, good luck with that one. It's kind of like Bush "approving" money for stem cell research. Why, GWB has funded more stem cell research than Washington, Lincoln, and the Holy Roman Empire combined!
House Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina:
"Let's say to them, go ahead, filibuster. Our base will understand what a filibuster is, the American people will understand what a filibuster is. They don't understand this 60-vote-rule business. But they remember which party filibustered against all the civil rights bills back in the '50s and '60s, and to have that same party stand up there and start filibustering against health care for children? Man, I would love that picture."
Post a Comment