CBO: Federal budget is on unsustainable path... »
Posted By gandalff 4 months, 3 weeks ago in Business & Finance
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.
Read Full Story at cboblog.cbo.gov »
342 Views Share Story 49 Comments Report
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 49 (view all)
-
73%
rbiii4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In before some leftists tries to claim that the Health Care reform bills being considered will reduce costs:
Reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
"Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
"On the contrary," Elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."-
88%
nostalgia4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just read the same story from the AP
Reply
Budget umpire: Health care bills would raise costs
Democrats' health care bills won't meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget umpire warned on Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank.
The sobering assessment from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf came as House Democrats pushed to pass a partisan bill through committees, while in the Senate a small group of lawmakers continued to seek a deal that could win support from both political parties.
Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — "the curve is being raised."
Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
The Blue Dog Democrats are the only ones who can save the country from this fiasco
I heard one of the House Blue Dogs today
He said over 2/3 of the coalition is against the health care bills
Not good news for Obama. I saw he was campaigning today for Corzine who is running behind in the polls against the Republican - in NJ no less! -
60%
mesodude4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The GOP's Fleeting Love for the CBO
Reply
Back in January, the Congressional Budget Office issued a preliminary assessment of the administration's stimulus package. It was only a partial look at an out-of-date proposal, but it bolstered Republicans' criticism, so the GOP ran with the misleading numbers. Soon after, a more complete CBO report was issued, it bolstered the Democrats' case, and all of a sudden, Republicans' love and respect for the CBO disappeared.
We're seeing the exact same scenario play out again.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office scored an incomplete Democratic health care proposal, issuing an unhelpful analysis with little practical value. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) not only accepted the CBO numbers as gospel, but called the analysis "the turning point in the healthcare debate."
This week, the CBO ran the numbers on the Democratic cap-and-trade, and in the process, discredited the Republican talking points on the proposal. Cantor's fickle love for the CBO, predictably, faded quickly.
"Today, now we are reading the reports that have come out this week that CBO has now reduced its cost estimate to say that it is only $160 that families will be impacted by the cap and trade bill. I think that now CBO has now entered the realm of losing its credibility."
Um, congressman? If you believe the CBO when it tells you what you want to hear, and reject it when it delivers bad news, it's not the Congressional Budget Office that's "losing credibility."
In January, the New York Times' David Brooks wrote that President Obama is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based. That means he won't sweep a C.B.O. study under the rug simply because the findings are inconvenient."
It's tempting to think, under the circumstances, that the criticism might now be directed at congressional Republicans, except no one has ever accused them of being pragmatic and evidence-based.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu...
-
-
-
-
gandalffComment removed: Spam
-
71%
gandalff4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with rbiii, why would he think the rules apply to him. He certainly did not think the rules applied to "HIS" Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 that he co-sponsored and had pass in the Democratic Controlled Congress and Senate way way way back on Apr 23, 2008.
Reply
He has the attention span of a six year old and the tantrums of a 2 year old if he does not get his way.
http://www.govtrack(dot)us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=...
The fact that the Democratic Controlled houses feel that "Health Care is now a RIGHT" in America and want to change the dynamic of the US in 6-8 months shows that speed means everything to this guy (he says it quite often too) and supports the fact of him acting like a 2yr old that has to have his way immediately or else personal destruction will occur instead of level headed small steps, look for market and economic reactions of each enormous decision piled on another enormous decision backed by fake numbers and unsustainable payouts without the financial backing of the American people. To think that 5 people that the public is aware of are in some of the most prominent positions are tax cheating, tax diverting and flat out liars, tells us that LAW has nothing to do with what he wants either.
The CBO for the record has been wrong about Obama thus far but not in his favor. Things are getting worse not closer to Obama's estimates and the more you add in his entitlements will dwarf anything this country has ever seen.
Speaking of entitlements, why would they (the Democrats) not include Legal Support, ie Lawyer Fees as their first entitlement since it actually is a right afforded in the constitution? Why not put a cap on all Lawyers and have the public pay for Caped Lawyer Fees through taxes first and see how that works out first before putting a cap on doctors and CEO's? After all he could use the actual Constitution as his basis for capping all Lawyer Fees.
After all he wants the SCOTUS to break free of the constitution.
Quote from the article linked below with audio clips of Obama in his own words back in 2001.
Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution
In a radio interview given in 2001, Barack Obama finally articulates his philosophy on how social engineering (socialism) should come and be established here in the United States.
...He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the document that allowed this country to become the most productive and powerful on Earth – how flawed can this document be?
http://www.nowpublic(dot)com/culture/barack-obama-...
http://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Replace the (dot) with the actual (.) and the links will work, other wise someone has me marked as a spammer instead of someone who put the links behind any quotes from articles thus giving them the credit rightly deserved and full credit for their work. -
50%
mesodude4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THEY WERE ONLY OFF BY A FACTOR OF 18....
Reply
For several months, whenever the issue of cap-and-trade comes up, GOP policymakers and their allies immediately turn to their favorite talking point: a cap-and-trade proposal would impose, on average, a $3,128 energy burden on the typical American home. The figure comes from a bastardization of a study conducted by John Reilly, an M.I.T. scientist who supports the cap-and-trade plan -- and who has tried to explain to Republicans why the claim is wrong.
Told, over and over again, that their talking point has no basis in reality, Republican officials nevertheless keep saying it. When the GOP isn't denying climate change science altogether, it's pushing the $3,128 claim.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu...
OK, so we know the Republicans are lying, but what's the actual cost Americans can expect if a cap-and-trade system becomes law? The Congressional Budget Office, which has produced several reports of late that Republicans just love, reported on the expected costs of Waxman-Markey.
...CBO estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion -- or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.
Some households would pay a little more, and some of the nation's poorest households would actually get money back, but the average is about $175 per household, the equivalent, Chris Harris noted, of "a postage stamp per day."
Better yet, the costs go down in future years, as carbon permits are sold, and the proceeds are "rebated to taxpayers."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who pushed the $3,128 line as aggressively as anyone, told Brian Beutler in April he would revisit Republican talking points if additional information came to light.
I'm glad to hear that. Congressional Republicans now have a chance to approach the debate in an honest, serious way. Anyone want to lay odds on whether they keep using the discredited argument anyway?
-
-
100%
icono14 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
86%
Pecossam4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
icono1,
Reply
You comment:
"The numbers aren't there for this bill. Yet the Dems and a few Repbs keep pushing for it.
The question is why; who really benefits from the passage of this bill and by how much?"
Along with "klarissa's" answers, i would add: More POWER over The PEOPLE in their daily lives, which opens the door for future POWER GRABS even FURTHER.
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive2 Replies
-
40%
lfergie8124 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big mess the Republicans go us into and it is going to take a while for the Democrats to get us out of it. The idea the Republicans fail to comprehend is that by putting Americans back to work, it will boost the economy so more tax money will come in to pay off this deficit created by the past Republicans in office. Simple but ignorant Republicans don't get it.
Reply-
70%
rbiii4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry but the long term spending programs (i.e. entitlements like Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security) are ALL DEMOCRAT love children.
Reply
Yes, Republicans have failed to eliminate these programs (or at least curb spending elsewhere to offset the entitlements) but to claim this is all about the "mess Republicans got us into" is either one of the worst attempts at lying or an example of gross ignorance.
Take your pick. -
67%
Wolfie20074 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lfergie
Reply
So the democrats are going to bankrupt the country to save it? Have you been talking to Joe Biden?
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/07/16/joe-quot...
-
-
83%
canadianrancher574 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I propped the story for two reasons, the first one has to do with the medicare issue, there are times that one does go ahead with social programs, but it is best to do so if only one can afford to, and right now is maybe not the time to do so. The second reason was more to do with the overall spending of most governments, it seems to me that the spending of government always grows, year after year under any party, and at times there are tax cuts to try and stimulate the economy but because of increased spending all it usually does is create a larger debt for government,(well maybe not really government but for the people of the county to be sure), the idea of tax breaks is not at times a bad idea but it will only show results if spending is reduced. New social programs can be looked at as only part of the problem, unless government quits growing and spending we will see more demand on government by people which will in the end lead to more socialism. I guess what I am trying to say is if government continues to take more and more money from the people then the people will have less money to sustain themselves and that will either cause chaos or more government programs or a complete collapse of the countries currency because of the debt.
Reply-
86%
gandalff4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I propped your response for the understanding that both parties have and continue to out spend the money coming in to the government . People on here in particular believe that just because some of us have a conservative view on society that somehow we supported all things spent by the last administration. You are correct in that tax cuts do and have always in the past proven to raise more government funds and you are also correct that once these politicians see money they somehow get drunk on power and pork projects to get themselves re-elected.
Reply
Imagine if we were able to keep 100% of our paycheck and our companies were able to cut their corporate taxes in half for just 6 months. How much money would that equate in $ would be less than all the proposed spending and bailouts combined. It would also put the States in a huge surplus in dollars as the American People would then be in control of where the money is spent in each State and thus create the largest revenue in each State the likes we have never seen as they would spend on things they need as well as being able to catch up on bills and saving/investment programs that everyone wishes were back to 2007 levels. That I could get behind no matter what party put this idea out there. -
75%
Pecossam4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
canadianrancher57,
Reply
You state:
"New social programs can be looked at as only part of the problem, unless government quits growing and spending we will see more demand on government by people which will in the end lead to more socialism. I guess what I am trying to say is if government continues to take more and more money from the people then the people will have less money to sustain themselves and that will either cause chaos or more government programs or a complete collapse of the countries currency because of the debt."
As I said during the last campaign for President:
"Better the Capitalist Frying Pan than the Socialist Fire!
Thank you. -
75%
gandalff4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Previous CBO numbers actual to estimate in this link
Reply
Posted on March 24th, 2009
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-v...
-
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
50%
mesodude4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BEFORE THE GOP REDISCOVERS ITS LOVE OF THE CBO.... Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers this morning that the health care reform measures under consideration would likely increase government spending over the next decade, rather than save the government money.
Reply
Congressional Republicans, who routinely insist the CBO is not to be trusted, have, not surprisingly, pounced on Elmendorf remarks.
Ezra Klein responds to this by recommending some ground rules for reform critics, who want to use the CBO findings to undermine reform. Ezra says opponents must do some combination of the following:
a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;
b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth says you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates;
c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;
d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;
e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.
It's unlikely, of course, that conservatives will honor these rules, because to do so would be to be intellectually honest about the exercise. As Ezra explained in June: "In most cases, individuals arguing that health reform is too expensive are dead-set against policies that would make it cheaper. It's a neat trick: Their opposition to real cost controls makes health-care reform pricey, and then they attack it on grounds of cost."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu... -
0%
dizzo491984 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DEM,ARE ON TV NOW TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT THEY'VE DONE PASSING A BILL THEIR IS NO MONEY FOR BUT WILL PASS IT NO MATTER WHAT!!
Reply
PELSIO,RANGEL,HOYER REID AND THAT BUNCH ARE NOT PEOPLE TO BE TRUSTED.. OBAMA PULL THERE STRING AND THEY GO..NO MATTER THE COST TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY STOP THEM WRITE CALL,E-MAIL YOUR REPS-
100%
crespi4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YES, YOU SHOULD TRUST SCOOTER LIBBY, OLIVER NORTH, MARK SANFORD, TED STEVENS, DICK CHENEY, ALBERTO GONZALES, LARRY CRAIG, RUSH LIMBAUGH, ANN COULTER, MARK SAVAGE, JACK ABRAMOFF, THE CIA, THE NSA, AND THE HEAD OF THE KKK!
Reply
Do you even REALIZE what a fool you are coming off as?
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
"As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010."
Please take this as something that I think is worth considering..
There is a difference between debt held by the public and the "public dept".
I had a hard time understanding what was written in this article, I carefully track government spending..It is kind of a sick hobby. whenever I see the term "debt held by the public" I become hyper critical of the words written.
On 7/16/2009 (yesterday)
the public dept was $11,598,417,943,168
the debt held by the public was $7,254,750,253,086
and the dept to Intergovernmental Holdings was $4,343,667,690,082
The reason Bill Clinton could show a surplus his last year was by using those trick words..actually the pubic dept grew, but not the debt held by the public.
The George Bush administration ran with the deceptive word game.
This my sound Partisan, but that is not my intent..I think it is fair: to make note of the fact that the Obama administration has been (up till 6/29/09) socking money into the intergovernmental accounts. The next day he sucked a bunch out and now he shows a $23 billion deficit there..but prior to that he had put back $52 billion.
I have no idea if this was done out of necessity, but being a "lib" I like to think he was doing the right thing.
But it does make his debt held by the public look worser.
The percent of dept to intergovernmental holdings is now about 37.5%.
When Clinton left office it was at about 36%
Bush has had it as high as 43%.
We are talking about trillions hidden behind trick words.
I had another problem with the words "Under current law", I have cruised GovTrack and Thomas and it seems that there is a bunch of law written to define how CBO should score their numbers.
An example would be that under the "pay as you go" rule, the budget projections had to assume that the 2001 tax cuts would expire at the end of 2010. I am a lib and I do at times see stuff from one side, but I imagine there are other examples.
I wish the author had provided a way to find out what "Under current law" meant.
I read the thing a bunch of times...and I felt that I was being decieved.
I am way to dumb to critisize the CBO, but my radar zones in on trick wording.
More News
Daily Finance
Is drop in foreclosures permanent?
Asian carmakers go for a ride, Buffett's BYD slips, Chinese property stocks get the jitters
Will AIG change its name to improve its image?
Good golly, Google. Search giant steals share from Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo
The view from PIMCO: The dollar keeps falling, and that's a good thing
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.