tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post1111520387191416105..comments2023-08-25T05:18:29.312-06:00Comments on Madville Times: Simpson-Bowles Plan: No Magic Bullets, Just Long, Tedious Disciplinecaheidelbergerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-31599406980523000372010-11-14T08:21:21.037-07:002010-11-14T08:21:21.037-07:00Stan, I want to get excited by this proposal as we...Stan, I want to get excited by this proposal as well. I am constitutionally opposed to debt. But then I run into Robert Reich, who says reducing the deficit is much more about reining in health care costs and getting the economy moving than slashing government spending. He even <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/1549020696" rel="nofollow">takes on the analogy to family budgets</a>:<br /><br />"No smart family would choose to balance the family budget over borrowing money to send the kids to college. The same logic holds for the nation as a whole. If certain government spending generates higher future productivity, we’d be nuts not to make the investment just to avoid a larger deficit [<a href="http://robertreich.org/post/1549020696" rel="nofollow">Reich, 2010.11.11</a>]. <br /><br />It's tough: we can't keep spending money we don't have. But at the moment, we can't stop spending money we don't have.caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-45823719488891861022010-11-11T17:34:19.537-07:002010-11-11T17:34:19.537-07:00In my opinion, this plan addresses the problem wel...In my opinion, this plan addresses the problem well. I'll actually end up better off day-to-day (in terms of taxes paid) if all these proposals become law (a mighty long shot), but worse off in terms of the value of my investments (mostly real estate).<br /><br />I would have proposed more dramatic and more accelerated increases in the so-called retirement age, for which people would become eligible for Social Security benefits -- say, to age 70 by 2030.<br /><br />We have a huge problem here, and we can't solve it in the near-term. It will take a "sea change" in our whole way of living -- for good. As Hillary Clinton has said (I think), "We don't get a free lunch." Not today, not tomorrow, not the day after that, not ever.<br /><br />I'm glad that Bowles and Simpson steered clear of any value-added tax (VAT) proposal. However, in the long term, I suspect the VAT idea will come up again and again. I could think positively about such a tax in only one situation: That it be devoted entirely to, and only to, a well-administered Kucinich-type universal health care system, and that such a commitment be backed up by a constitutional amendment. But I digress.<br /><br />This proposal contains some goodies as well as some pain for all. Everyone should read the whole proposal right from the source (Cory's link "Under their proposal").Stan Gibiliscohttp://members.authorsguild.net/stangibnoreply@blogger.com