"We are going to get a crisis like most Americans have never seen." -- David M. Walker, the former comptroller general of the United States, during a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
As companions, read please see: Ron Paul Revolution Excerpts: Economic Freedom and Ron Paul Revolution Excerpts: Money.
"Movement warns of US bankruptcy; Seeks support for overhaul of federal budget" by Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - A new nationwide campaign is warning Americans that unless the federal government puts its financial house in order, the country could be bankrupt in a generation.
The project, organized by Peter G. Peterson, an investment banker who served as commerce secretary in the Nixon administration, and David M. Walker, the former comptroller general of the United States, aims to build grass-roots support for wholesale changes to the federal budget - though the overhaul would require middle- and upper-income Americans to give up some cherished government benefits.
But I'm sure the WAR PROFITEERS and the CORPORATE INTERESTS will be JUST FINE!
The widening gap between government revenues and spending will eventually destroy the confidence in the American economy that has led international lenders to continue to finance the national debt. The national debt is now more than $9 trillion.
"We are going to get a crisis like most Americans have never seen," Walker said during a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
Now, WHO has been warning about just such a thing?
About 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits each day for the next two decades, and the government already spends more than $4 on older Americans for every dollar spent on children's education, healthcare, and other basic needs.
Something out of whack there.
If changes are not made soon, new generations of Americans face either crippling tax increases or Draconian cuts in government programs, Peterson and Walker warned. And the result will be sharply higher interest rates; a weaker dollar; higher prices for oil, food, and other necessities; and greater unemployment, according to a new foundation publication called "The State of the Union's Finances - A Citizen's Guide."
Yeah, I've read that stuff somewhere else, too!
Government programs that are required by law, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps, account for more nearly two-thirds of the federal budget. The mandatory spending on entitlement programs is ballooning so quickly that "there is no discretionary spending left in 20 to 25 years," Walker said, for needs such as highway maintenance and defense programs.
Right, like "defense" is ever going to suffer upon the alter of social programs!!
Heading off disaster will require reining in wasteful and lower priority programs, Peterson said, pointing out that government benefits were originally designed as a safety net for the poorest Americans and that more prosperous Americans who have also grown accustomed to them will have to make sacrifices.
How about SHUTTING DOWN the WAR MACHINE INSTEAD, guys?
A big target for change must be bringing down the cost of healthcare, a major contributor to higher Medicare costs, according to Walker who as comptroller general oversaw the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
RON PAUL!
Peterson and Walker said they hope their message will echo on the presidential campaign trail this year. The foundation plans to meet with advisers to John McCain and Barack Obama and will be evaluating the candidates' policy proposals.
"We are going to do our best to try to make sure it is an issue in the presidential campaign," Walker said.We'll see.
--MORE--"
And I'm not very hopeful, either:
"Analysts see red in candidates' economic blueprints; Say proposals are ambitious but implausible" by Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | July 10, 2008
As the campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama flail away at the details of each other's economic blueprints, independent analysts say neither candidate's plan will balance the federal budget any time soon.
McCain this week contended that by the end of his first term he would erase the budget deficit, projected this year at more than $400 billion.
"The problem with the McCain proposal is that he has an ambitious goal out there with no plausible way of achieving it," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates "generationally responsible" fiscal policy.
Yeah, that sounds like McCain all right!
An analysis of the candidates' tax plans, released last month by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, estimated that both would greatly increase the national debt, now more than $9 trillion.
The analysis excludes the impact of the candidates' healthcare proposals. Obama's expanded-coverage plan would cost an estimated $50 billion to $65 billion a year.
Which we could have if we shut down the occupations based on lies, but....
Obama has proposed raising about $100 million annually in new revenue by allowing the so-called Bush tax cuts for individuals earning more than $250,000 to expire by 2011. A Tax Policy Center analysis that says Obama's campaign proposals would mean tax cuts for all taxpayers earning less than $169,480.
It may all be hot fart mist, but he sounds better than McCain!
Meanwhile, Democrats yesterday jumped on McCain for remarks he made about Social Security on Monday in Denver, where he relaunched his economic plan. "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed," McCain told the audience.
"We've got news for him: That's the way Social Security was designed under [Franklin Delano Roosevelt]," US Representative Kathy Castor, Democrat of Florida, told reporters in a conference call with other Obama supporters, arranged by the Democratic National Committee.
Castor and others said McCain is threatening the future solvency of Social Security with his proposal, similar to one by President Bush, to partially privatize Social Security by allowing younger workers to set aside a small amount in personal savings accounts while preserving benefits of current retirees.--MORE--"
That's strange, because as a lefty I was all in favor of Social Security, etc; however, now I believe as Ron Paul does: use the downsizing of the empire to fund social programs that we promised to people, but start weening the young of the government teat.
