Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Will we really face up to cutting entitlements?
Date:	1/7/2013 7:01:40 PM

its time to start talking about where we will be cutting entitlement programs in order to complete the work that needs to be done.  The tax program is mostly in place, although the tax code could still use a major overall to simplify and close unintended loopholes.  i’m all for that.

But the big fish remains in the arena of cuts to govt expenditures in order to balance the Federal Budget, and address the deficit we have gotten ourselves into.

But where should we cut?  Make a list of the entitlement programs, of all kinds, and look closely at what cutting them means.     First of all, “entitlement spending programs” doesn’t just mean food stamps, Medicaid and aid to dependent children.   it also includes Social Security, pensions for federal workers, disabled vets & retired military.   it includes money for education from preschool to college & technical training.   These aren’t just anti-poverty programs, it means looking at the flow of money to Baby Boomers who have retired or will retire with programs they thought were secure & above reproach.   But if we believe the federal govt has generally overcommitted to expenses and has too little revenue to cover its obligations, then all these have to be included as part of the problem.

These will be painful choices, because the discomfort of making them is going to have to be spread far & wide.  it will not be enough to divert attention to one area of a program’s waste or complaining that a single group of people (immigrants, for instance) are causing the problem.   At best these views will only offer up puny financial savings.  At worst, they deal brutally with vulnerable groups of people.

   My thinking is that the cuts will have to affect everyone, but we should try to protect truly vulnerable people & critical areas as much as possible.     Cutting back on Medicaid expenses needs to be done carefully with regard to protecting the health of many poor people, cutting education money needs to be evaluated in light of the country’s need to produce knowledgeable workers and  the free public education  necessary for the county’s  future workers.   Merely talking about reducing retirement benefits for ex-military will certainly cause a furor because it seems like a betrayal of patriotic values.

Large scale-backs in Federal dollars are going to have to be tolerated by the Middle Class. 

 When you look at the full scope of federal spending on entitlement programs, you notice that the poor are not the main recipient of tax dollars.   The middle class and upper class are big beneficiaries of govt spending as well.  96% of Americans benefit from some sort of government social program or another.    According to the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2010  20% of entitlement spending went to the top 10% of households, 58% went to middle income households, and 32%  went to the bottom 20%.

“if you want the government to give you something, vote for a Democrat.   if you don’t want to pay for it, vote Republican”.   This may explain how we got ourselves into a pattern of deficit spending, but not how we will get ourselves to the other side of this crisis.    i think we should be ready to make cuts in entitlement spending, but remain a bit pessimistic that the US public is really willing to accept what this will mean.    i think we will find it surprising, and then resist any changes that have a direct and personal impact on us as individuals.    When real cuts are made, they will have impact beyond what’s expected because the effects of government spending are so integrated into the fabric of daily life.  They have been contributing to what we all considered to be normal.   The price of milk is a good example.  Without the recent federal farm bill that provided price supports, the cost of milk would have doubled overnight.   Not too many of us know that or appreciate the positive role that tax dollars were playing in our monthly grocery budget.

Whether conservative or liberal, it remains to be seen if we have the stomach to make the real cuts necessary to reign in the deficit.   We all talk about our willingness to accept changes in our life style until the conversation crosses the line from theoretical to concrete.   My opinion is that the American public isn’t aware of the intricacies of our national social policies and will be unhappily surprised by what is revealed when they are cut.   Our usual position is that spending reductions need to be made in areas that will not affect us personally, and we are best at focusing blame for our financial mismanagement elsewhere. 

Name:	Jim Dandy -	Reply
Subject:	Will we really face up to cutting entitlements?
Date:	1/8/2013 10:48:09 AM

If the price of milk zooms up shortly after Jan. 1, the increase will come courtesy of a venal and feckless U.S. Congress.

No grocery store would hire a clerk who insisted on adding up a customer's purchases with an ancient abacus. Yet a similarly archaic standard is about to be inflicted on the nation's taxpayers and consumers.

Current farm programs—which consist of massive subsides, price supports and various marketing restrictions—were enacted in 2008 and expire on Dec. 31. That should be cause for rejoicing, except that the system is rigged against consumers and taxpayers.

Instead of Americans enjoying a bounty after the clock runs out, federal farm policy will automatically revert to a farm bill drawn up in 1949. That will compel the Department of Agriculture to roughly double the price supports for dairy and other farm products thanks to a mystical doctrine called "parity."

The doctrine was concocted by Department of Agriculture economists in the 1920s to "prove" that farmers were entitled to higher prices than the market provided. The official parity calculation was based on the ratio of farm prices to nonfarm prices between 1910 and 1914, the most prosperous non-wartime years for farmers in American history.

If the market price of milk, for example, fell below parity, the Department of Agriculture intervened in markets in various ways to provide a price floor to benefit dairy producers. This mechanism has been in place for generations, gouging taxpayers and consumers, long after full-time farmers became far wealthier than average Americans.

In recent decades parity was disregarded as the primary gauge for most subsidy programs, as even farm-state congressmen conceded it was a nonsensical standard, given the profound changes in the economy since 1914. Yet parity remains on the statute books. And so, if Congress fails to act, the price of milk and other dairy products will soar. Consumers and much of the food industry will get creamed.

Milk now sells for an average $3.53 per gallon nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price data. Once parity kicks in the price could quickly soar to $7 a gallon, according to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. The USDA could burn through billions of tax dollars buying up dairy products that are unwanted at exorbitant prices.

Farmers will enjoy a brief windfall until consumer demand plummets for their product. Any resulting chaos in the marketplace will almost certainly produce demands for new bailouts of farmers.

The dairy lobby has long been one of Washington's most tenacious. By the 1980s, federal dairy policy cost the average American family enough to buy its own cow. The fact that in the 1980s high dairy prices reportedly contributed to calcium shortages among low-income Americans never registered on Capitol Hill.

The ultimate absurdity of the "dairy cliff" is that there is no need for federal intervention in dairy markets. The supply and demand for the vast majority of food products made in America function just fine without government price controls. The worst disruptions have perennially occurred for a handful of items such as sugar and corn, as well as dairy products, which are under political protection. Politicians have long exploited these disruptions to help drum up donations to their re-election campaigns.

There is no chance that farm-state congressmen will draw the lesson from the "dairy cliff" that they are unfit to rule American farmers, retailers and consumers. This looming debacle is further proof that the only way to reform farm programs is to abolish them.

Mr. Bovard is the author of several books including a new e-book memoir, "Public Policy Hooligan."

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Mr. Socialist, copperline.
Date:	1/9/2013 10:25:42 AM

“indigent free loaders”?   Really, you should drop by your local hospital, go into the neo-natal intensive Care Unit.   Or to Children’s Hospital Cancer program.    Or to any nursing home.   Goodwill industries.   Any mental retardation group home.  

Ask your relatives and neighbors how they paid for nursing home care for their relatives…or ask yourself if you have an extra $6000 a month to put toward Momma’s needs when you can no longer care for her at home.   if you don’t happen to have that much excess in your budget, then your Momma can become an indigent free loader, too.