Future of America's financial health is at stake. Comptroller David Walker on 60 Minutes this Sunday

[Roland99]

The Comptroller of the United States, David Walker, will be on CBS' 60 Minutes this coming Sunday, March 4.

DO NOT MISS IT!!

Walker is a key member of The Concord Coalition's Fiscal Wake-Up Tour

Our mission is to cut through the usual partisan rhetoric and stimulate a more realistic public dialogue on what we want our nation's future to look like, along with the required trade-offs. We believe that elected leaders in Washington know there is a problem, but they are unlikely to act unless their constituents better understand the need for action, and indeed, demand it. Members of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour do not necessarily agree on the ideal levels of spending, taxes and debt, but we do agree on the following key points:

* Current fiscal policy is unsustainable
* There are no free lunch solutions, such as cutting waste fraud and abuse or growing our way out of the problem.
* The best way to make the hard choices is through a bipartisan process with all options on the table.
* Public engagement and understanding is vital in finding solutions.
* This is not about numbers. It is a moral issue.

We remind audiences that each of the realistic options comes with economic and political consequences that must be carefully weighed, and that there must be tradeoffs. Those who want to raise taxes are asked to explain what level of taxation they are willing to support and the manner in which the new revenue should be raised. Those who argue that spending must come down from projected levels are asked which programs they would target and how the savings would be achieved. Those who are unwilling to do either are asked how much debt they are willing to impose on future generations.

Our experience is that when audiences are told the facts, and shown that if they demand their "rights" to programs or policies it will have damaging economic effects to other groups or generations represented in the audience, they begin to accept the need for tradeoffs. The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour does not presume to know the "correct" answers, but we are trying to make sure that the American people and their elected leaders are asking the correct questions.

From Sludge's site currently:

U.S. COMPTROLLER: PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL 'MAY BE THE MOST FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE LAW IN 40 YEARS'; Bill Will Add $8 Trillion to Long-Term Medicare Obligations
Thu Mar 1 2007 13:41:11 ET

That Could Already Bankrupt the U.S.

The U.S. government's top accountant says the law that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare may be the most financially irresponsible legislation passed since the 1960s. U.S. Comptroller General David Walker says Medicare -- barring vast reform to the program and the nation's healthcare system -- is already on course to possibly bankrupt the treasury and adding the prescription bill just makes the situation worse. Walker appears in a Steve Kroft report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, March 4 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"The prescription drug bill is probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," says Walker, "because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." He argues that the federal government would need to have $8 trillion today, invested at treasury rates, to cover the gap between what the program is expected to take in and what it is expected to cost over the next 75 years Ð and that is in addition to more than $20 trillion that will be needed to pay for other parts of Medicare. "We can't afford to keep the promises we've already made, much less to be piling on top of them," he tells Kroft.

The problem is the baby boomers. The 78 million people born between 1946 and 1964 start becoming eligible for Social Security benefits next year. "They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later and when those boomers start retiring en masse, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious," says Walker.

As life expectancies increase and the cost of health care continues to rise at twice the rate of inflation, radical reform in health care will be necessary, Walker says. He says the federal government is also going to have to find ways to increase revenue and reduce benefits. The alternative is ugly. Walker shows Kroft General Accounting Office long-term projections that assume the status quo continues, with the same levels of taxation, spending, and economic growth. By the year 2040, Walker says, "If nothing changes, the federal government is not going to be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else...."

DO NOT MISS IT!!

TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY!!!



edit: Oh, and here's Walker from nearly TWO YEARS AGO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701238.html

"The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt," Walker said. "The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina."

...

"To do nothing," Butler added, "would lead to deficits of the scale we've never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country. We've seen them in Argentina. That's a chilling thought, but it would mean that."

...

Walker put U.S. debt and obligations at $45 trillion in current dollars -- almost as much as the total net worth of all Americans, or $150,000 per person. Balancing the budget in 2040, he said, could require cutting total federal spending as much as 60 percent or raising taxes to 2 1/2 times today's levels.

Butler pointed out that without changes to Social Security and Medicare, in 25 years either a quarter of discretionary spending would need to be cut or U.S. tax rates would have to approach European levels. Putting it slightly differently, Sawhill posed a choice of 10 percent cuts in spending and much larger cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or a 40 percent increase in government spending relative to the size of the economy, and equivalent tax increases.

[Benhurst]

1. The World's Only Superpower has run out of cash. I wonder

how that could have happened. What a mystery. Yeah. Sure.

[indepat]

2. Have no worry or fear 'cause as the the nation's debt has mushroomed several trillion

dollars since the early days of now-saint gipper, the mostly untaxed wealth of a precious few has mushroomed by a few trillion dollars.

[Roland99]

3. Well, these obligations dwarf the national debt by several times over.

Curtailing discretionary spending or increasing taxes on the super-rich alone will NOT cure the impending crisis.

There will HAVE to be cuts in benefits along with increased taxes and across-the-board cuts in spending.

It's going to hurt many people for quite some time but what is the alternative? A For Sale sign for the country?

[Benhurst]

4. We might consider not spending more than all the rest of the world

put together on "defense."

[Roland99]

5. True but, again, that amount is DWARFED by the Medicare/SS obligations.

It's spelled out in the articles.

[SharonAnn]

6. Keep in mind that our Social Security money is being used because the rich wanted a tax cut.

It is used to run today's government, because there isn't enough income tax and corporate tax coming in to the Federal government. The upper income levels wanted tax cuts, corporations wanted tax cuts, so our Social Security over-payments are being used.

My attitude is "tough shit", I expect to receive Social Security and Medicare. If the politcians have sold out to the wealthy then they're just going to have to go get the money back. I'm not willing to give up what I've paid for just because they wanted tax cuts. And, let's not forget the tzx subsidies they wanted for various things.

I agree that our economy is in dire straits. The answer is, raise taxes back to where they were and cut back on the wasteful military outsourcing. That'll take care of much of the problem. Then, when you've paid down the debt, you no longer have to amke those huge interest payments.

I have an AP article here, dated December 29, 2000, where President Clinton is explaining how the United states could pay off public debt by 2009. What happened to that "surplus"?

Bullshit, get the money from those who've been taking ours. I'm done with this "self-sacrifice" crap. The greedy SOB's are stealing us all blind and then trying to make us think it's "our" problem.

Bullshit! Don't accept that framing. It's affecting us, but they're causing it.

[Benhurst]

9. Exactly. And medical bills end up being paid one way or the other.

At present we have a very corrupt for-profit system.

It's time for single-payer national health.

And it's past time to stop the corruption and rape of the economy by the military/industrial complex. And lets go back to calling a spade a spade: it's the Department of War, not "Defense." Yeah, fine 'defense' department if 9/11 is an example. It couldn't even take on 19 foreign civilians with box-cutters.

The World's Only Superpower, indeed. We're fast becoming a third world laughing stock of a nation.

[closeupready]

15. Damn right.

n/t

[KoKo]

18. Social Security would be Solvent IF Bush hadn't used it to offset

his War Costs. Congress under Clinton made it solvent to 2,040. They've taken the money and now they want to privatize it so Wall St. can use it and lose it.

There's money to cover SS and Medicare ....by taking away the tax breaks given to the top 1%, the Banks and Corporations. And, it wouldn't need to be drastic.

But, the Bushies want to complete Norquists dream of drowing government in a bathtub...except for the Mighty Defense Budget.

[Roland99]

19. The Bush tax cuts were meant to expire in 2010 anyway. They are not the cause.

The cause of the huge obligations pending in in Medicare/SS is the large number of baby boomers that are and will be dependent upon those benefits.

Our fiscal budget is still under $3 trillion/yr. The obligations this country is looking at for Medicare/SS are over $40 trillion!

[closeupready]

20. sorry your right.

I think I'm thinknig of the GNP. My bad.

[Roland99]

22. No worries. And there's this from the Concord Coalition link I posted below

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/doc/070301-presidentsbudget-issuebrief.pdf

Alternatives to the President’s budget policies face the same hard fiscal realities. The much discussed proposal to repeal the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers would provide only temporary and relatively modest new resources when compared to the CBO baseline. The revenue impact of rolling back the rate cuts in the top two tax brackets to their pre-2002 levels would produce about $30 billion a year through 2010 according to the Tax Policy Center. Repeal of reductions in capital gains and dividend tax rates would provide another $30-35 billion per year through 2010. Those amounts are not trivial, but they would not provide a permanent source of financing for all the potential uses (e.g., providing subsidies to reduce the number of people without health insurance, expansion of existing programs and benefits).

[amandabeech]

31. Spread over a long, long period.

Social security can be largely fixed. Medicare is a bigger problem, and its not just about actual health care. A very substantial amount of nursing home bills are paid by Medicare, and not just for the poor.

We really need a real rework of our overall social insurance system.

And we need to make sure that work actually pays at least as much as investing. More money to those who pay SS taxes on their entire income will help the system, as will upping the income level at which social security taxes end.

I trust that you're not someone who has only a bit of time before retirement to recover financially from personal or family tragedy. Over time, you will see some of your friends and acquaintances experience the negative side of life. Maybe you yourself will suffer. Remember, single women face a must less secure retirement and rely more on social security. Do you know any?

[Roland99]

32. I am at 40 and have no retirement setup.

I went thru my savings during a long period unemployment and a divorce. But, I have positive signs on the horizon with a new job I have so not all hope is lost.

As for single women facing bleak futures? Sure, my ex-wife is one of them.

[indepat]

10. That's just part of the scheme to make it impossible to meet future "entitlement" obligations

while allowing the MIC to make a "killing" in the meantime.

[indepat]

7. All this is known by all with a modicum of knowledge and a smattering of intelligence:that's

why 'pukes have been wildly off-loading the treasury fbo a precious few so they can have theirs now. Their intent all along has been to make sure most of these future obligations cannot be met. Notwithstanding, all ponzi schemes must eventually collapse: it's just going to happen a lot sooner.

[Roland99]

8. Norquist's wet dream.

[SpiralHawk]

34. "You want to know how it happened? Smirk, smirk, smirk. - Commander AWOL

"Well me and my corrupt fatcat republicon cronies ain't talking. So tough noogies, you noisy citizens. Smirk, smirk, smirk."

- Commander AWOL

[rman]

11. Time to take a long hard look at the money system itself:

Money as Debt
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of "Money as Debt" tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its "Duncan Initiative" received high praise from those who previewed it. I recommend it as a painless but hard-hitting educational tool and encourage the widest distribution and use by all groups concerned with the present unsustainable monetary system in Canada and the United States.

[Roland99]

12. Thanks for that. I'll have to check it out this weekend.

[Roland99]

13. Issue Brief: Will the Budget Come Into Balance By 2012?

Just got this in an email from The Concord Coalition:


We have just released a new issue brief looking at the Presidents budget
proposal for 2008. The President aims to balance the budget by 2012, how
does his budget plan to do it? How is this budget different from those of
past years? Find out in:

The President's FY 2008 Budget: Same Priorities in a New Environment.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/doc/070301-presidentsbudget-issuebrief.pdf

[davekriss]

14. The answer: Raise FIT rates progressively

If we have to go back to 50% - 70% marginal rates, than do so. Otherwise what we've witnessed these last 6 years amounts to theft. Money given to the upper classes in the form of tax breaks now taken from all classes in the future in the form of benefits expectations not met. Theft, pure and simple.

Personally, I think there should be a 25% War Tax levied on every person who admits to have voted for Bush!

[KoKo]

16. Walker is fueling the move to allow Privatization of SS?

Would you think? Create a panic because of "entitlements?" :shrug:

[Roland99]

17. Well, he doesn't state to have the answers and does want a bi-partisan solution

He was appointed under the Clinton administration and miraculously hasn't been somehow sh*tcanned by the vile bastard polluting the Oval Office right now.

There WILL have to be sacrifices made on each front (taxes and benefits).

[SharonAnn]

21. Why sacrifices on each front? There weren't benefits on each front!

There wasn't increased income on each front. There weren't subsidies on each front.

The heck with this "Sacrifices will have to made on each front."
Let those who stole the money pay it back.

[Roland99]

23. There are no other options. Besides, the tax cuts are NOT the source of the problem.

As I posted above:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/doc/070301-presidentsbudget-issuebrief.pdf

Alternatives to the President’s budget policies face the same hard fiscal realities. The much discussed proposal to repeal the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers would provide only temporary and relatively modest new resources when compared to the CBO baseline. The revenue impact of rolling back the rate cuts in the top two tax brackets to their pre-2002 levels would produce about $30 billion a year through 2010 according to the Tax Policy Center. Repeal of reductions in capital gains and dividend tax rates would provide another $30-35 billion per year through 2010. Those amounts are not trivial, but they would not provide a permanent source of financing for all the potential uses (e.g., providing subsidies to reduce the number of people without health insurance, expansion of existing programs and benefits).

Plus this:

By 2012, however, the Administration projects that defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be 4 percent lower in nominal dollar terms than their estimated levels in 2007, while spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be 35 percent higher.

...

The growth in spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid raises fundamental questions of generational equity. Older people benefit. Younger people pay taxes. The number of people age 65 and older will double by 2050, while the size of the working-age population will only increase by 16 percent. That will confront those younger generations with larger burdens than future retirees faced when they were working and paying taxes. Although economic growth will help make costs more affordable, that growth alone will not be sufficient to address the growing costs of current-law benefits. Hard policy choices are inevitable. The only question is whether we’ll make them now or let the whole burden of both current and projected deficits fall on the future.

...

The income-relating proposal should be viewed in the long-term context and not as a proposal whose need is driven by the quest for a short-term balanced budget. The prescription drug benefit was unaffordable when enacted. This proposal, if fully implemented, would only shave about $2 trillion from a long-term unfunded obligation of $32 trillion for Medicare as a whole.

Ultimately, Medicare and Medicaid cost growth must be addressed through fundamental health care reform, and not just through cost shifting. That is no reason, however, to avoid incremental steps that make sense on their own and that can achieve substantial savings. As is often observed with policy proposals, perfection should not be the enemy of the good.

[SharonAnn]

24. Universal, single-payer health care would reduce some of the cost.

That affects Medicare.

But, frankly, I don't buy this whole paradigm for Social Security.

I've heard it before. Reagan touted this. We all sacrificed, raised SS tax and raised the limits. The only generation that has paid for grandparents, parents AND ourselves.

What happened? The GOP stole the money. All of it. And they stole even more by running unimaginable deficits. And they plan to steal even more.

They have absolutely zero credibility in my book. And anyone who touts their "talking points" has no credibility in my book.

Solve the fundamental issues first. Then, we can talk about Social Security. But not until the other things are addressed.

Those who stole the money are guilty.

[Roland99]

25. They didn't steal it all. Just the surplus of tax revenue over outlays.

Yes, a "lock box" strategy might have been a good idea at one point and may even still be one but the problem is the unadulterated facts of having a much larger % of the population on SS/Medicare as opposed to working and paying taxes. Oddly enough, if we were to, say, import several tens of millions of immigrants to work and pay taxes.... ;)

Oh, and let's not forget Democrats controlled Congress until 1994.

[ryanmuegge]

26. There's another layer to this whole conversation that hasn't been mentioned...

The nations that finance our debt face even more staggering entitlement and demographic issues. They can't spend the same money twice. They'll use their massive trade surpluses to help ease the pain, but what can we do?

It's a bad situation.

This, along with energy supplies and global warming, is the most important issue of our time (at least for our country).

[KoKo]

27. Would you give up Social Security/Medicare to Privatization CUTS...thats

what the Bushies and AARP are going to be asking you to do. Would you give up SECURITY if you were layed off and Downsized or had Misforune in the coming years to live under a Bush/Reagan/Norquist Mantra of Privitazation where you will Invest in the Stock Market to get a better Return so that YOU will have access to BETTER HEALTH CARE?

Who will decide if YOU have better access than Jeffrey Immelt of GE ...to ACCESS to BETTER HEALTH CARE through PRIVATE HEALTH CARE...though?

WHO DECIDES? :shrug: Would you DEPEND ON THOSE IN POWER NOW...to make those decisions?

[ryanmuegge]

28. I'm not really sure how that's a response to what I said.

There was no value judgment in terms of privitization anywhere in my post. I'm just saying that we're really, REALLY fucked because of our banana republic economy. These entitlement issues are also going to keep other countries from loaning us money, creating a severe recession, thus a decrease in our standard of living.

I wouldn't trust Regan, Clinton, or Bush to do anything. Reagan, and especially Clinton and Bush II have created such massive trade deficits that we're really fucked, therefore their credibility in solving the problem of entitlements is really questionable. Their credibility in doing ANYTHING is suspect.

[KoKo]

29. Is there a "Trade Off" that you would ACCEPT, then...if we are F***d

because of the Bush Banana Republic Economy that we will through off "Entitlements" (Pensions negotiated for years by American Workers) VS "PRIVATIZATION" that will continue to allow the Chinese and Japanese to INVEST in Keeping our DEBT and TRADE IMBALANCE AFLOAT....to keep Wall St. and Corporate CEO's in the BLACK so they can buy and invest in whatever they want?

Decrease in our Standard of Living. FOR WHOM? The UPPER 1% who can afford Multiple Homes in the BEST RESORT DESTINATIONS and FOOD/WINE/SPORTS/ENTERTAINMENT that most of US will NEVER be able to AFFORD?

Agree with you about WHO CAN WE TRUST? WHO "CAN" we TRUST?

It's gone BEYOND anything I could have even IMAGINED...and I've got a pretty good imagination..:shrug:

[KoKo]

30. I posted on the "Fly" and yet I hope folks will read this"Atlas" post

By the time I got back to "Edit" ...I saw my "parentheses" were skewed and my post seemed weird...

I still hope people will read and not post that I was "drinking or drugged" or something else.

I think the DUTY of many Oldie and Newbie DU'ers is to SPREAD TRUTH...however we can get it out there when we are faced with Fox News and MSCorporate Media dogging us and distorting us at EVERY STEP...

:shrug:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

33. Solution? End this stupid flirtation with American imperialism

That's what's killing our budget and turning the United States into such a debtor. We spend almost a trillion dollars annually on this ring of hundreds of bases worldwide, this bloated military and all these nuclear weapons. We don't need them!!! We're not supposed to be empire. Get rid of the vast majority of the bases, the ridiculous weapons, the nukes-- voila, problem mostly solved right there.

[Roland99]

35. Kick for a reminder. On in just a few hrs (East Coast and Midwest)

[JerseygirlCT]

36. It was very good!

but who's going to stand up and do something about it?

[ldf]

37. yeah, yeah, yeah

and i ain't singin' a beatle song.

60 minutes does this piece that is supposed to highlight the financial crisis we are facing.

so, what does the head of the gao say? we are bingeing financially as a nation, and it is unsustainable.

why? boomers.

so, bottom line, regardless of the fact that there was a surplus in 2000.....

then w took office...

and...

he gave a huge tax cut to the rich, so they could piss all over each other in a mutant, bastardized deja vu of reagan's trickle down theory,

the corporations WROTE the legislation so that they got huge tax cuts,

followed by the avalanche of that corporate money going off shore where it would not be taxed,

then hundreds of billions dropped in the black hole of iraq, where no one seriously tries to find out where all those missing billions went,

the flood of american jobs being outsourced, so the jobs that are left do not generate NEAR the taxes the previous jobs generated,

but that's ok because that allowed wall street to go on a binge, because wall street LOVES feeding off the bottom, making the rich even richer,

with, in addition to their salaries, BONUSES of 50 and 60 MILLION to some stockbrokers,

and those ceos who laid off all those people that caused wall street to make that obscene amount of money?

their salaries and "options" go through the roof,

while healthcare continues to skyrocket, forcing people to have to choose between food and vital prescription drugs....

but it's all we boomers' fault. feeding at the public trough.

excuses, excuses, and i don't believe it.

throw all the numbers you want out there. we HAD a surplus, and w pissed it all away. the big players in the stock market always come out ahead, but those trying to invest for their future always seem to be on the losing end.

think of all the elderly that HAD planned for their golden years, only to have it ripped off by the likes of enron, global crossing, etc.

cry me a fuckin' river.

i don't care any more. let the shit hit the fan.

there will obviously be a huge celebration when the last boomer dies off.

then, miraculously, overnight, prosperity will set in.

i hate it that i am TRULY getting to the point of not caring. and the leaders of my party are too fucking SCARED to address it.

:no smilie available to express my contempt:

[Roland99]

38. I've said it more than once in this thread and Walker says it himself

The tax cuts are not to blame
Growing the economy (developing a fiscal surplus) is not going to fix it

We can all bitch and moan and point fingers at this administration but there are many factors out there but if you look at the graphs from the Concord Coalition, the 3 biggest problems are SS, Medicare and interest on the debt.