The Future of Entitlements
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-08-09/future-entitlements
According to a new government report, provisions in health care reform are likely to extend the solvency of Medicare. But for the first time in nearly three decades, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in. We explore the future of entitlement programs, the deficit and the U.S. economy.
Guests
Joseph Antos
is Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
Robert Bixby
executive director of the Concord Coalition
Robert Greenstein
founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Under President Bush, we were told that we should privatize Social Security because people could do better by investing in the stock market. Now, in the midst of a financial crisis, we are told that we can no longer afford it. This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. Whatever the problem, the answer is to cut entitlements.
Moreover, even if we accept the Congressional Budget Office's remarkably pessimistic estimates of future growth and productivity, they still don't see the U.S. in a Greek-style crisis for another 50 years. That seems like a significant amount of time to put things in order. Meanwhile, we are in a serious economic crisis, and this is precisely a moment when deficit spending is necessary. We've been "kicking this can down the road" for years and years now. Why is this the right time to address it?
Finally, as we discuss these issues, commentators inevitably focus on medicare and social security. What about military spending? Recent stories in the Washington Post have revealed that the military budget is such a mess that it's impossible even to conduct an audit. Yet we are told that entitlements are the mark of fiscal excess. Anyone who wants to address the deficit without discussing the military budget (which is probably comparable to Medicare) is advancing a political agenda instead of advocating for budgetary responsibility.
Please address these issues on the show today.
Under President Bush, we were told that we should privatize Social Security because people could do better by investing in the stock market. Now, in the midst of a financial crisis, we are told that we can no longer afford it. This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. Whatever the problem, the answer is to cut entitlements.
Moreover, even if we accept the Congressional Budget Office's remarkably pessimistic estimates of future growth and productivity, they still don't see the U.S. in a Greek-style crisis for another 50 years. That seems like a significant amount of time to put things in order. Meanwhile, we are in a serious economic crisis, and this is precisely a moment when deficit spending is necessary. We've been "kicking this can down the road" for years and years now. Why is this the right time to address it?
Finally, as we discuss these issues, commentators inevitably focus on medicare and social security. What about military spending? Recent stories in the Washington Post have revealed that the military budget is such a mess that it's impossible even to conduct an audit. Yet we are told that entitlements are the mark of fiscal excess. Anyone who wants to address the deficit without discussing the military budget (which is probably comparable to Medicare) is advancing a political agenda instead of advocating for budgetary responsibility.
Please address these issues on the show today.
Ever since the deal cut by Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the early '80s, income tax payers have been enjoying their tax cuts by borrowing from payroll taxpayers. Now it's time for the income tax payers to start paying the payroll taxpayers back. The payroll taxpayers have nearly two decades of the income taxpayers' IOUs in the bank, but now the income taxpayers are going to scream bloody murder.
The real issue of course is health care costs. Our health care is outrageously overpriced as a direct result of our fealty to the private profiteers. Obama's health care reform is the first serious attempt to rein them in. But there's still very much to be done.
A school teacher earning, say, $45,000 per year is taxed for Social Security based on 100% of her earnings.
Meanwhile, a stock broker making, say $250,000 per year is taxed on his earnings UP TO $106,800.00 (less than half of his total earnings).
Never mind the fact that pay is not based on societal worth -- Why not remove the CAP entirely?
How can workers continue to work until 70 or longer,
disregarding the physical side of many jobs, when these are usually the highest paid workers in the work force and companies generally try to replace these workers with younger workers that will make much less?
I am 60 y. Old, unemployed with great skills, experience and education and no one will hire me. So how do i make it to full retirement age 66?
We continue to blame the "entitlement programs" for our National debt. The real problem over the past decade responsible for the increased National debt are the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and 2 unfunded wars totaling well over $1 trillion dollars. The Wars continue unfunded with deficit, supplemental monies to keep the wars going. The fact of the matter Social Security is presently running a trillion dollar surplus and will not run out of money until 2037. The 2016 date is merely when payout starts to exceed pay in. It is extremely easy to fix SS. Here are the AARP simple solutions:
1.Lift the SS Cap above $ 106800 and yearly account for inflation.
2. Extend SS coverage to more workers especially newly hired state and local government employees.
3. Earmark revenue from estate tax for SS.
4. Raise the payroll tax rate 1/20th 0f a percent for 20 years.
The fact of the matter is that the rich are not paying their fare share. Many do not pay taxes at all, and others pay at a rate lower than middle class rates via dividend and capital gain taxes. The real percentage of the rich's income spent on taxes is at a percentage rate much lower than most middle class tax rates. 50% of our largest corporations do not pay any income tax at all due to our corporate tax code.
As far as retiring later, and continue working, we will continue to have a high unemployment rates into the foreseeable future because we don't manufacture anything, we consume. It is a government myth that the U.S. will increase employment with high paying jobs in the future.
Therefore, where will all these over 55, under 70's persons find jobs.
Sincerely,
Warren fro Arlington, VA
Sometimes I think the commenters often show more awareness of the context of the discussion than the panelists do. Seniors, education, health care and many more services which distinguish a civilized society from the failed state should be at the head of the line, not merely allowed the crumbs falling from the table of the young and prosperous.
Teachers, nurses and doctors -- and seniors -- are the some of the most valuable among us. They have either contributed or are contributing -- right now! -- the most to our well-being. As one commenter points out, our cost-cutting focus should be on military spending. At the very least we should find out exactly what it's costing us and where the money is going -- before we talk about cutting Medicare or Social Security. First things first.
My wife is a hospital nurses. From her work I know that a lot has been done to control Hospital costs, but more needs to be done. As an example my wife recently had to have a sist removed from her spine. She had a lumbar lam. (She did extremely well, went home the same day!)
The nero surgeon's bill was $3,000.00, an off the shelf back brace cost $900.00! I think this was an outrageous charge for the simple, nothing special back brace.
All of the discussion about this and that tactic misses the fundamental points. People will need to work longer and/or live shorter (so they don't need to be self-supporting for so long).
I am disgusted that all the guests on this program come from conservative organizations like the american enterprise institute, which are salivating at the thought of cutting, eliminating or privatizing the social safety net. Anything they say should be viewed in that light. Where is the balance? Where is the other perspective to defend these popular programs? The host is quoting "reports" from the ultra-right wing Heritage Foundation as evidence. Are you kidding?! They get most of their funding from the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers. Why don't any of these people discuss the exploding military industrial complex as a way to deal with the debt? They used 9/11 to justify two wars projected to cost 3 trillion dollars and have cost thousands of innocents their lives, yet have we put an end to El Qaeda or the very leaders who perpetrated 9/11? No! Talk about wasteful spending! Not to mention the billions we now spend spying on our own citizens w/o cause. Furthermore it is these same right-wingers who pushed de-regulation of the financial industry and the voodoo economics that got us into the recession we are in and the resultant unemployment and tax shortfalls. Now you are consulting them to get us out of this mess? Is NPR becoming another FOX? I am lamenting the loss of my own voice in the public sphere; the fall of the great American democracy as i witness the rise of the plutocratic corporate empire in its place. This is outrageous!
Re. Social Security: I have worked part time since I was 12 and full time since I was 20 until offered early retirement at 64 when the nation started its economical fall. I have always had to pay social security on 100% of my gross wages. My husband has had to pay 100% on his gross wages since he started working at age 16 and at the age of 72, he is still paying into the fund at 100%. We feel everyone should have to pay social security on 100% of their gross wages. There should be no cap for higher wage earners. If everyone paid social security on 100% of their gross wages, we would not have a shortage of funds to pay all who retire. If Congress stopped raiding the the social security fund, we would not have a shortage.
Re. Medical care: We need universal health care for all citizens just as most of the other so called advanced industrial nations do. Our relatives in Canada, Australia, England and Germany are pleased with their systems and unlike we are being told, they are not dying for lack of care or for lack of USDA approved drugs. On the contrary, they are healthy and living long strong lives. Those of us who have insurance are already paying for those who do not because we pay higher premiums.
Business as usual and it's only going to get worse. To use a baseball analogy, we are in the 3rd inning of a 9 inning game, or rather the 'collapse' of this once great nation.
These are good times right now, enjoy them! Order your football season tickets, watch your ‘reality’ shows, and take your vacations!
The banksters threatened Congress with martial law if they didn’t get their “bailout” in 2008, so who is representing us now for social security and/or decent, affordable health care.
The country is being slowly dismantled, and thanks to the MSM, no one is paying attention.
Support uncensored alternative media, and begin to educate yourselves.
1. You say there are 45 million people on social security medicare. Soon there will be 85 million due to the baby boomer retirees. None of you have mentioned the services/products that will be needed with this surge. Will this not create jobs and new/bigger manufacturing companies which translates into a healthy economy and more taxes? Will this not have a impact positively?
2. The millions of baby boomers who have property and money will be leaving a lot of it to our progeny. Has anyone considered this flow of money into baby boomer progeny coffers when we all die? Won't this be a positive impact on the economy and the economic well being of the generation left behind?
3. I lived near the Salton Sea for years. I do not understand the metaphor used here. It sounds negative but I still don't get it. Is it because it is artificial, is polluted with sewage, or what? I also wonder if those who are not familiar with that body of water even get what you are referring to.
Modern life in America has become extremely uncertain as far as our retirement future. the possible ways to not only never be able to save for retirement let alone keep one's retirement are real: divorce, illness, volatility of the market, continued pressure on small business to compete with large business, competition from other countries, workforce competition....
My mother worked for the FAA. Government provides one of the most secure forms of employment and that has even been hit hard. She hasn't receive any cost of living increases and yet the cost of living increases. She has a pension and medical care and yet she is still worried about being able to take care of herself as she continues to age. There have been cuts on all fronts.
I was born at the end of the Baby Boom. I believe by the time I am ready to retire, we may have some serious issues with benefits due to the near full enrollment of the boomers.
Affordable housing, assisted care etc. will be exacerbated!
Earlier this month, the Social Security trustees announced that the program will be able to pay full benefits through 2037 (and 75 percent of benefits through 2084). No amount of GOP fear mongering can change facts: there is no crisis in Social Security. Certainly not in the foreseeable future. If and when extra funds are needed, there is a quick and easy (though not politically palatable) fix: gradually lift the cap to cover all wages. Today, wages above $106,800.00 are exempt from F.I.C.A. taxation. The extra funds raised by lifting the cap will ensure Social Security's viability for our children and grandchildren.
Holy mackerel. Just caught the podcast of this one last night.
Haven't heard an NPR hour this slanted in a looooong time. Not only was Greenstein outnumbered by the righty 'deficit dodo' types Micheal Lind has so usefully named, but the poor man could hardly get a word in without the 'moderator' belittling his points with digs as inane as they were sweeping.
Not impressed, to say the least.
My wife and I have a running argument over NPR: she argues that we listen quite a bit, and so should regularly support the local affiliate.
I point to shows like this one and argue that we're not the target audience for much of this stuff to begin with. Let the folks who get all warm and fuzzy over Pete Peterson's outfit and the likes of AEI and the Concord Coalition, let them pay to keep the lights on. 'Cause I think it stinks on ice.
Jason: I've been dealing with the same quandary and decided several years ago to contribute only (and directly) to those productions/shows which offer a wider perspective, play fair, and, of course, are quality material. That includes material which is genuinely conservative but not neo-conservative. No more local affiliate membership. No more general contributions.
But the problem is generational. The country's center, which used to be a couple of feet to the right of Dennis Kucinich, has been dragged way to the right. Reagan as dead center (but not dead enough!). Bernie Saunders and progressives as buffoons!
So those of us who are older are horrified by the turn NPR has taken while those who are 25-30 understandably see it as "normal." That doesn't solve your problem -- or NPR's problem. But there it is. Equivalency is offered to you on Washington's terms! (The best public radio, present company excepted, is well away from the Beltway. Satellite and internet radio solve the access problem.)
At last a radio show that finally talks about the work of national actuaries and demographers!
These things could have been worked out decades ago except for the obstruction by narrow, elitist, conservatives who have no interest in the common good or a healthy work force.
We have decreased the FEDERAL REVENUES (taxes!!) for thirty years - what in heaven's name do the Americans think needs to happen? Have we all lost our minds? Is the logic and arithmetic to daunting?
I am tired of listening to the adolescent whining about having to pay taxes. Are we adults that take responisiblity for our country or are we spoiled greedy children?