Search the Community

CBO Report | The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan (March 2012) Let's not turn this into a name-calling or political punchline-tossfest. I hope the academic tone of this report will inspire a similarly academic discussion. Takeaways * - I am pretty uneducated, and of course, there are various other necessary disclaimers in any attempt to make future projections. Starting with, no president could set policy in stone for 40 years. Ryan's plan appears hinged upon slashing spending. Very specifically, we would see little change in (% GDP) spending in "Major Mandatory Health Care Programs" from Actual, 2011 figures up through and including the 2050 projection. It would increase from 5 to 5.5 to 6%, and then dip down to 5.75% in 2050. The Extended Baseline Scenario on the other hand, has this number rising steadily and reaching 10.75% by 2050. Identical numbers for social security spending. The spending slash: "Other Mandatory and Defense and Nondefense Discretionary Spending" will drop from 12.5% in 2011, to 6.75% in 2023, and ultimately to 3.75% in 2050 under the Ryan plan. Extended Baseline has this number dropping from 12.5% to 8% in 2023, to 7.75% in 2050. Total spending as % GDP in 2050: 16% vs 26.5%, Ryan vs Extended Baseline. The reason I lay those numbers out is because, per the report, "spending in this category has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II. Spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year during that period." I believe that that this 'discretionary spending' category covers everything apart from SocSec and healthcare. I do not see how Ryan's plan for slashed spending approaches the realm of feasible. Actually, I would say the Extended Baseline is also optimistic. On the other hand, Extended Baseline scenario entails a rise in Total Revenues from 15.5% 2011 actual to 21.25% in 2023, and 26.25% in 2050. I believe this is expected to come from taxing (please fill me in on where else the Total Revenue may be derived, if I'm wrong --) The Ryan proposal would see this number rise from 15.5% to 18.75% in 2023, and subsequently fixed at 19% through 2050. This is accomplished only by the spending cuts specified above, from 24% 2011 actual to 16%."Debt Held By the Public" would fall from 68% GDP, 2011 actual, to 10%. The Extended Baseline forecasts "Debt Held By the Public" to be 40% in 2050; a gradual reduction from the 68% 2011 actual figure. I believe this is characterized as unsavory but possible. On the other hand, Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario has spending balloon from 24 to 39.25% in 2050, revenues capped at 18.5%, and the debt figure in excess of 200% -- something characterized as completely unsustainable. Definitions: Extended Baseline are projections "which adhered closely to current law"; Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario "incorporated several changes to current law that were widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period." That the extended alternative numbers are so thoroughly alarming is, I think, well... thoroughly alarming So I'm hoping some far more intelligent people than I are going to chime in here and have a good discussion about spending and budget issues in general. I'm not looking for a ridicule-or-defense of Ryan, or any other candidate. It seems clear that this country is facing highly significant challenges in shaping its long-term budgetary future. What's there to be done? What are various approaches, and what are their strengths/drawbacks? I hope that most everyone who reads this thread will find in it something to learn from somebody else. We often talk about rising above political platitudes, empty slogan, biased "debating" and needless partisanship. Let's do that here, and have a real discussion.