Thursday, April 26, 2018
Opinion

Budget fix impossible unless elderly sacrifice

Judging by the political reaction, you'd think that Paul Ryan's budget takes a meat ax to Medicare and threatens economic havoc for the elderly. Just the opposite is true: The Ryan budget spares older people from almost any change or sacrifice — and that's the problem.

We have (and, to be fair, this is mainly the doing of Democrats and their intellectual apologists) made those 65 and over into a politically protected class, of which nothing is expected and everything is given.

It is impossible to have an honest debate about the budget — and government's size and role — unless this changes, because aiding the elderly is now the main thing the federal government does. If you remove that, fearing a backlash from the 50 million or so Social Security and Medicare recipients, you condemn yourself to bad choices: (a) you can't deal with deficits, which may crowd out productive investment and risk a financial crisis; (b) you must dramatically squeeze the rest of government, including the social safety net, defense and research; or (c) you must raise taxes sharply, which may further slow the economy.

Even now the magnitude of the problem isn't fully appreciated. Here's one indicator: Under plausible assumptions — including "full employment" and cutting defense and nondefense discretionary spending by a third — the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit in 2023 equal to 6.75 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). To cover that, in today's dollars, would require $1 trillion in higher taxes; that's a tax increase of a third over the 1970-2011 average.

Let me now assert the customary caveats: At 66, I am not against older Americans; I don't want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, which are vital parts of the social fabric; but I do want these programs modernized — to reflect longer life expectancy and the elderly's greater wealth; to lighten the burden on the young (whose taxes support these programs, because almost nothing has been "saved" to pay for them); and to protect government's other functions. Finally, it should be possible to discuss these issues candidly, without being accused of "throwing Grandma under the bus."

It isn't now. Democrats' relentless campaigns against Republicans as threatening to "destroy" Social Security and Medicare have succeeded at intimidation — and, curiously, Paul Ryan is proof.

There are two Ryans: what I call the good Ryan and the bad Ryan. Probably more than anyone in Washington, the good Ryan has highlighted long-term deficits' potential harm to our children and grandchildren. The bad Ryan has fashioned an unrealistic and undesirable budget by trying to accommodate both liberal dogma (don't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits) and conservative dogma (don't raise taxes). Any sensible plan must do both.

Governed by these constraints, Ryan's budget would:

(1) Impose no cuts in Social Security — that's 20 percent of federal spending off the table.

(2) Delay any major change in Medicare until 2023, when recipients could chose either a voucher plan or "traditional" Medicare — that's another 16 percent of spending unaddressed for a decade.

(3) Convert the federal share of Medicaid (federal-state health insurance for the poor) into a block grant to states, and then increase the grant annually at a lower rate than at present.

(4) Increase most other federal spending, including defense, only by inflation after 2023 — a formula that makes no allowance for population growth and could lead to "real" cuts because wages and compensation typically outpace inflation.

(5) Hold taxes at 19 percent of GDP after 2025, just above the 18 percent average of the past 40 years.

(6) Reduce deficits but not balance the budget until 2040.

This budget would have devastating consequences. Increasing non-Social Security and health spending only at the rate of inflation would gradually shrink most other federal programs. (From 2011 to 2030, these other programs would decline by more than half, from 12.5 percent of GDP to 5.75 percent, projects the CBO.) Defense cuts could verge on unilateral disarmament. States and localities would suffer, as the value of federal grants, including Medicaid, shriveled. The FBI, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies would be starved.

By contrast, the elderly would be mainly spared. One reason Democrats won't change Social Security and Medicare is that defending them is so politically rewarding. This, as much as Republican tax intransigence, underlies the stalemate.

The cliché is true: There are no painless cures to budget deficits. But all cures are unnecessarily hard and harsh because we maintain a protected class excluded from any solution.

© 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

Comments

‘Happy hour’ tax cuts may result in hangovers

Evidence is mounting that the $1.5 trillion tax-cut package enacted in December by congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump was a bad idea, not only for the long-run health of the economy but for the short-term political prospects of the ...
Updated: 9 hours ago
Editorial: St. Petersburg’s waste-to-energy to wastefulness project

Editorial: St. Petersburg’s waste-to-energy to wastefulness project

A St. Petersburg waste-to-energy plant now under construction has been billed for years as an environmentally friendly money saver. Now it looks more like a boondoggle, with the cost and mission changing on the fly. It’s yet another example of a city...
Updated: 9 hours ago
Editorial: As USFSP consolidation task force meets, openness and collaboration are key

Editorial: As USFSP consolidation task force meets, openness and collaboration are key

Writing a new law that phases out separate accreditation for the University of South Florida St. Petersburg and folds it back into the major research university was the easy part. The hard work starts today when a new consolidation task force holds i...
Published: 04/23/18
Updated: 04/25/18

Correction

CorrectionCircuit Judge John Stargel of Lakeland is a member of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission who voted against a proposed amendment that would have stopped write-in candidates from closing primary elections. An editorial Saturday inco...
Published: 04/23/18
Editorial: Pruitt sets new low for ethics at EPA

Editorial: Pruitt sets new low for ethics at EPA

Not too many people took then-candidate Donald Trump seriously when he famously campaigned to "drain the swamp" as president. But that shouldn’t give this administration a free pass to excuse the behavior of Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Env...
Published: 04/22/18
Updated: 04/23/18
Editorial: Allegiant Air still has safety issues

Editorial: Allegiant Air still has safety issues

Allegiant Air’s safety record remains troubling, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s reluctance to talk about it is no more encouraging. Those are the key takeaways from a 60 Minutes report on the low-cost carrier’s high rate of mid-flight brea...
Published: 04/21/18

Editorial: Women’s work undervalued in bay area

Even a strong economy and low unemployment cannot overcome the persistent pay gap affecting full-time working women in Florida. A new report shows women in Florida earned 12.5 percent less on average than their male counterparts, and the disparities ...
Published: 04/21/18
Editorial: Florida’s death penalty fading away on its own

Editorial: Florida’s death penalty fading away on its own

Florida lawmakers may never take the death penalty off the books, but stronger forces are steadily eroding this inhumane, outdated tool of injustice. Court rulings, subsequent changes to law and waning public support have significantly suppressed the...
Published: 04/20/18
Updated: 04/24/18

Editorial: A missed chance for open primary elections

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission did a lot of things wrong this week by combining unrelated or unpalatable provisions into single amendments that will appear on the November ballot. It also wasted an opportunity to do one thing right. The...
Published: 04/20/18
Updated: 04/23/18
Editorial: New Cuba president is chance for new start

Editorial: New Cuba president is chance for new start

For all the symbolism, Raul Castro’s handoff of the Cuban presidency this week amounts to less than meets the eye even if his handpicked successor, the Communist Party functionary Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez, is the first person not named Castro to le...
Published: 04/20/18