Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Reform needed

December 5, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

As a senior on Social Security and approaching Medicare, I don’t get the failure of everyone in Washington. Raising taxes on the “rich” is projected to increase federal revenues by some $850 billion over 10 years. In the same time period, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will increase by $1.5 trillion if nothing is changed. We are not even keeping pace with these program costs.

Washington is projected to get $5.5 billion in revenue next year but has a debt of $17.5 billion. By 2016, the next election, that debt is projected at $20 trillion. By 2020, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will consume two-thirds of the federal budget. Reform and adjustments are desperately needed.

Some agencies and departments will complain that they are just a small portion of the budget and should be spared, but when you are borrowing as much money as Washington is, every penny helps.

Audit every department extensively, cut spending everywhere and raise revenue to meet somewhere near the middle. Demand constructive change.

Comments

rockchalk1977 1 year, 4 months ago

Some Democrats state the $250,000 limit Is 'Unacceptable'

CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living.

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC) & SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): say they aren't ready to commit to Obama's proposals for boosting tax revenue. Instead, Hagan isn't ruling out support for extending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for top earners.

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): said he favored the position to permanently extend the Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than' $1M.

SEN. JIM WEBB (D-VA): is holding fast to his position that tax rates should not be raised on any income brackets.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I don't begrudge anybody and I'm not going to raise taxes, I'm going to collect what taxes are owed to this country,' he said.

So there are some reasonable Democrats out there after all. Obama needs to pull his head out before it's too late.

http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=5b4cb601-236d-4d9a-93a0-591c1a5a0b7e

0

KansasLiberal 1 year, 4 months ago

The only reform needed is to reform the war and spying budgets of the US. We don't need to cut anything for Americans until cuts are made to the war department and the CIA and other spying agencies.

2

gudpoynt 1 year, 4 months ago

"Trillion" is a scary word for individuals, because for most of us, it is orders of magnitude larger than anything we are used to dealing with.

Thus, when confronted by the fact that the U.S. is running a $1 Trillion deficit, it naturally tends to freak one out.

But one would be good to remember that one is not the United States, and that one's household budget is not the national budget.

For instance, my current salary is far less than than the $15 Trillion GDP of the United States.

The number that is important is deficit to GDP ratio, which right now is at about 7%.

Note that this is down from the 8.7% we saw last year. We are moving in the right direction.

Is the debt and deficit something to be concerned about? Of course it is, as a general rule.

But try not to let the numbers scare you into thinking that we're a hair away from finding ourselves in a situation similar to Greece. We are not.

Here's a little history lesson challenge for y'all. Identify the time in the last 100 years when the deficit to GDP ratio was the highest.

1

George Lippencott 1 year, 4 months ago

Such ignorance

If we just continue as is the system will be able to pay about 70% of what has been promised on the income from the existing payroll tax. So the 37 year old above will not get the green weenie.

If we make adjustments we can get to providing most of what has been promised just at a later age.

We could also raise the payroll tax and achieve the same.

WE could also cut benefits. WE could even make it sound like all seniors are greedy geezers and deserve to have there benefits cut.

Or we could cut people off at 85 to be consistent with the expected longevity when the payroll tax was set.

The system was not planned for the longevity we now enjoy.

1

somedude20 1 year, 4 months ago

I can't help but feel that all the cats who are rocking the Social Security now are eating a pie that I never will have a chance to even sniff. Have not stopped working since 15 years of age, 37 now and have been paying for others for a long time but it won't be there for me. Enjoy yours, cause myself and people my age are going to get the green weenie.

1

skinny 1 year, 4 months ago

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

1

Briseis 1 year, 4 months ago

The government people could care less about anyone but themselves. They want the menials money and that's it.

This fiscal cliff ploy is just that. A made up word of gloom and doom to scare folks into turning their money over to the government gulags.

ha ha...and Obama is the perfect front man to whoo people into loving him and turning over their money to him.

Obama already took a mountain of cash from Medicare to give it to Obamacare for the 40 million people that can't pay for themselves.

0

Liberty_One 1 year, 4 months ago

Here's the thing--those programs were nothing more than excuses to raise taxes. The government got to tax your earnings, and hoped that you wouldn't live long enough to collect much in benefits. Back when it was started it worked well enough for the state, but now that life expectancies are so much higher these programs that once were big for revenues are now in the red. The government never intended to have to pay out this much money--that was just a way to trick people into supporting tax increases.

The only common sense thing to do is just phase the programs out.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.