This short article provided
by the Brookings Institution goes hand in hand with the issues we have been
discussing in class. Remember when we
had to decide budget cuts during our class exercise a few weeks ago? It may be interesting to comment on how your
cuts align with the plan created by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan
Simpson.
This seems like an altogether reasonable and effective strategy, however, it essentially ignores the real issues, IE what to actually cut. Though the article mentions scaling back our defense spending, it has been established that even bringing our defense spending to zero would not put us on track on its own. The real difficulties in balancing the budget do not come in the whether to reduce services or raise taxes question, they are what to cut, and what taxes to raise. All the same though, it is good to have politicians recognizing that the changes need to come on both sides of the equation.
ReplyDeleteThe strategy of slowly transitioning into a period of higher taxes and lower government spending sounds like a good plan to me. I don't think this sort of thing can be implemented over night and if it was it would probably disrupt the economy's growth. If I were creating a plan to decrease the government deficit I would start with raising the retirement age and reforming health care. If people were able to receive better healthcare all around they wouldn't be afraid of insurance and afraid of going to the doctors office. This would make it very reasonable to raise the retirement age so that it is closer to the average lifespan of Americans. I would also cut military spending because I personally don't see the reason why we need to increase the numbers in our submarine fleet at this point in time like Mr. Romney does.
ReplyDeleteWhile my cuts were certainly more dramatic in theory, I agree with the parameters of this proposal as it stands. Its time that we amend social security and medicare, and restructure them to our changing society. The way we work and retire today has changed, as have age expediencies and common medical ailments. And yet our policies around these variables have remained the same. Social security is a life-long program, so it will be difficult to change on so many American's currently enrolled. But it will be necessary. Nobody wants to see cuts to programs that affect them directly, and politicans are reluctant to do anything major--as these are the same people that elect them into office. But its past time that we start making sacrifices as a nation. Gone, are the days of American supremacy. In the world we live in today, it is globalized, and individual companies have higher GDPs than a lot of nations combined. The structure of our international economy is more meshed together, with interdependences inherent throughout. Its time to take this into account with our public policy. Time for change and restructuring. The politican who presents these sacrificial cuts will probably be hated, and ridculed by the masses. But they will be a brave soul, and historically heroic if they can get their changes passed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHard to add to these comments, but Andrew's last par there really hits home to the issue as far as I see it. Sacrifice. From what I know about the American public it's that we've been promised a lot, and it's very difficult for individuals to elect someone who will take those promises away. I see this especially problematic because our debt and deficits are due to a multitude of events and actions with which the US public are unhappy... "Why should WE pay?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with Beth. I would also add to the education system that needs a lot of support. As we have seen in other articles, less people are going to college as a whole and a lot of the ones that do are not prepared.
ReplyDelete