M.D. Harmon: Fiscal alarm's ringing, but will we hit snooze again?
Despite all that's going on in Washington now, it's very possible that President Obama and his posse have actually done Americans a favor in proposing another trillion-dollar addition to the national debt over the next decade.
(The Democrats' health care scheme will really cost far more, but we'll get to that.)
If it passes, of course, the effect of the favor will be substantially mitigated -- a polite way to say tossed in the toilet -- but polls and expressed public reactions are starting to show something new on the part of the population as a whole.
That is, not just tea party participants but Americans in general are starting to express significant concern about the effect of current spending plans on the financial well-being of their children and grandchildren. True, it's a bit late for that to start sinking in, but "better late than never" applies to fiscal sanity as well as scheduling Botox injections.
Despite the best efforts of those in power in Washington to point out the supposed benefits of their plans and use creative budgeting to kick the tin can of costs over the fiscal horizon, people are starting to add up the numbers -- only to find the numbers don't add up.
The Democrats' health care plan is nixed by 48 percent of Americans in a poll average by Real Clear Politics, with 41 percent approving. The most recent polls show disapproval of it running up to 55 percent.
Obama himself has sunk to overall unfavorable status in RCP's average, while Congress is given a thumbs-down by 76 percent of overall respondents.
Here's another poll, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: Some 30 percent of doctors say they will quit if ObamaCare passes, and nearly 50 percent will do that if a "public option" is included.
Leaving health care aside for the moment, many Americans have noticed the stories that say that Social Security, once described as "solvent" for years to come, has started to dig into those famous West Virginia file cabinets where the Treasury bonds set aside to finance future entitlement payments are kept.
This, I guess, is where I have to ask if anyone reading this still thinks that there is actual "money" in their SS account that is "set aside" for their "exclusive" use by the feds.
You have an account, but it's only a number in a computer. Payments to beneficiaries today come from two sources and two sources only:
1. Those who are paying Social Security taxes today.
2. Money borrowed from the Chinese.
So, if you are getting SS checks, you can go down to the store and buy two "Thank You" cards. Give one to your children (assuming they have jobs) and send the other to Beijing.
Yes, thanks to the recession and years ahead of schedule, SS has to start taking money from the Treasury, which doesn't have it. (See 2. above.)
And did anybody read the story about the Walgreens drugstore chain in Washington state saying it won't fill any Medicare prescriptions after April 16 due to reimbursement rates falling 50 percent below the cost of supplying the drugs?
It's already hard in many places to find doctors willing to take on new Medicaid patients -- or, in some cases, to take on any at all. How will that improve when the government adds millions of people to the covered population?
But, you say, the Congressional Budget Office just said that the whole thing will come in at $940 billion over the next 10 years. Surely that's not going to break the bank?
Leaving aside the fact the bank's already broken -- deficits under Obama will total in two years what those under Bush totaled in eight, with more red ink to come no matter what happens on health care -- the CBO was required to use parameters set by Congress for its estimates.
And Congress told it to start applying revenues immediately to benefits that wouldn't be paid out until fiscal 2014.
As blogger Ed Morrissey said Thursday, "If it kicked in right away, the decade-long estimate would obviously be well into the trillions. So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs -- or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate -- through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. (It's) a perfect ending to this travesty."
At the beginning of the current fiscal year, the CBO said that the shortfall required to pay Medicare benefits out to 2075 was $35 trillion (with a T).
Social Security's shortfall over the same period was a mere $5.3 trillion. Just peanuts.
In fact, our fiscal situation has fallen into that category of events covered by the truism that says, "If something can't go on, it won't go on."
The only question is, will we resolve this by considered, rational action that minimizes hardship (knowing that some will be inevitable), or do we implement one more left-wing ideological template with fiscal catastrophe in its future?
The good news is that many Americans are starting to ask the question.
The bad news is that very few people in Washington with a "D" after their names appear to care.
M.D. Harmon is an editorial writer. He can be contacted at 791-6482 or at:
mharmon@mainetoday.com
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
- M.D. Harmon: Summer was journalism's 'silly season,' and it apparently still is
- Our View: Portland superintendent made right call on school fundraising
- Letters to the editor, July 31, 2010
Homeless suffer, deserve better from us - Maine Voices: Paid sick days an issue that all candidates should support
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
47 COMMENTS
Do2nT said...
Republican or Democrat - take your pick. The current troupe of clowns in Congress care more about their respective parties and are more interested in self-service than in really trying to make America better. Insurance reform is about giving the insurance companies some really good pay days as it requires everyone to purchase their product. It does absolutely nothing to reign in the ever increasing cost of provision of medical service. How stupid we are to keep sending the same clowns back over and over and over and over and over again!
March 19, 2010 at 12:48 AM Report abuse
AXeL said...
Well said, MD, but Obama's sad tales of insurance woe trump any threat of a bankrupt America. It's "The Right Thing To Do", so it will be done no matter the cost, no matter the sacrifice and, by the way, the people sacrificing will be the rich SOB's who sign your paycheck (Dems will pass a law forbidding them to lay you off, I'm sure) and the "Wagon-Pullers" whose FICA deductions will double with no discernable benefit. YAY!!!
March 19, 2010 at 2:27 AM Report abuse
windjammer said...
MD Harmon-What a hypocrit as usuaual. Nary a word about the fiscal irresponsiblity that went on for 8 years in the Bush administration which continues to be the foundation of the economic disaster we face today. The man is rediculous-and is taken with a grain of salt-except by the so far right out of sight conservatives of the republican party aka our national-political-extremist- lunatic fringe.
March 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
Nary a word about the fiscal irresponsiblity that went on for 8 years in the Bush administration... Translation: (in a high pitched whiny tone) Bush did it first! Republicans did it first! What's happening now doesn't matter, they did it first! They did it first! La la la la la I can't hear you they did it first!
March 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM Report abuse
grumblestilt said...
If Harmon think Americans don't know that it was the Republicans who crashed the economy, then he's got the brain power of a hake. It is almost hilarious - the Right Wing salivating to get their hands back on the economy they destroyed. Sure people are frustrated that the Democrats haven't fixed everything in just a year, but that doesn't mean they don't know who caused the problem in the first place. Who crashed the markets? Who was overseeing the failed banks? Who controlled the fiscal policies? Who was in control of regulating the financial industries when they crashed and burned? We all know if was the Republican Party. Harmon is a cheerleader. It's all spin and everyone knows he doesn't believe his own claims. It's gross that Republicans like him are happy the country isn't in better shape - especially when it's the Republicans' fault in the first place. Americans are not stupid: We won't forget that.
March 19, 2010 at 8:26 AM Report abuse
Jim said...
Oak --- That was priceless!
March 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
"rational action that minimizes hardship"? Sounds like "compassionate conservatism." What it means is that people will die without coverage here in the US. Congressional Budget Office disagrees with Harmon. See also Krugman's piece in today's NYTimes. Where was Harmon when Bush decided to invade Iraq? Cheering him on. Where is Harmon when it comes to disproportionate outlays for new weapons systems unlikely to have any effect on future battlefields or on the private contractors who are making billions in quasi-military operations? Harmon is silent. Harmon continues to be an advocate for our skewed national priorities. Meanwhile, the shift of money and power to an oligarchy continues quietly but inevitably under the shouting.
March 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
"rational action that minimizes hardship"? Sounds like "compassionate conservatism." What it means is that people will die without coverage here in the US. Congressional Budget Office disagrees with Harmon. See also Krugman's piece in today's NYTimes. Where was Harmon when Bush decided to invade Iraq? Cheering him on. Where is Harmon when it comes to disproportionate outlays for new weapons systems unlikely to have any effect on future battlefields or on the private contractors who are making billions in quasi-military operations? Harmon is silent. Harmon continues to be an advocate for our skewed national priorities. Meanwhile, the shift of money and power to an oligarchy continues quietly but inevitably under the shouting.
March 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
Apologies for the double posting. Oak -- Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in 01 and 03 wiped out the surplus that he had inherited from Clinton. Like it or not -- or, refute the point. Your own whining does not constitute effective argumentation.
March 19, 2010 at 9:48 AM Report abuse
Cadred said...
Grumble -"brainpower of a hake" - don't insult a poor innocent fish. Would someone PLEASE make M.D. disappear.
March 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
AFVET - Clinton's surplus is a myth.
March 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
Would someone PLEASE make M.D. disappear. Thanks for highlighting one of the major differences between liberals and people who believe in freedom. When a liberal reads something that they don't like, they want to keep anyone from reading it. When someone who believes in freedom reads something that they don't like they choose not to read it again.
March 19, 2010 at 9:59 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
Your assertion does not make it so. Bush's tax cuts were not a myth, or do you incorporate them within the fantasies you construct?
March 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM Report abuse
mainemade said...
Of course, M.D. doesn't mention the economic benefit that will result from people actually being covered for catatrophic and often, preventable, illnesses (how do we tax someone who dies prematurely?) and the money that will be saved when a family doesn't lose their home because of medical bankruptcy. It's all interconnected folks. Helping the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden actually helps us all. It saves society the costs associated with lost and failed lives, and actually helps ensure that these people begin and/or continue to be productive taxpayers. Can we call that compassionate LOGIC?
March 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
AFVET - The word myth on my previous post is a hyperlink to another website that contains a very well constructed argument complete with numbers and charts and all kinds of evidence that the Clinton surplus was a myth. Please do not click on the link because you will not like what you read. You are much better off remaining ignorant of the truth. That way you can continue to direct your raging emotions at Bush. It's much easier than dealing with reality.
March 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
Can we call that compassionate LOGIC? There's nothing compassionate about coercion.
March 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM Report abuse
mainemade said...
"There's nothing compassionate about coercion" Oak, my friend, it is a lack of compassion that makes it feel coercive.
March 19, 2010 at 10:52 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
Bastiat said "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education... We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." In this case we oppose state run health care, and are accused of wanting no health care at all. Oh, mainemade? We're not friends.
March 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM Report abuse
mainemade said...
Oak, I am truly sorry that we are not friends. If we were, and if all of us met in the spirit of friendship, I suspect that this world would be a much nicer place in which to live. But please, do not hide behind Bastiat. Declaring that you do not like the solution is not the same as coming up with one. If government does not do it, who will? When will you see that WE are the government and the government is US?
March 19, 2010 at 11:13 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
mainemade - I see that you, like the socialists of Bastiat's day, confuse the distinction between government and society. WE are society, and society is US. Government is an organization within society with the monopoly on violence.
March 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM Report abuse
mainemade said...
Oak, I am not confused. I just disagree with you. Government is whatever we allow it to be through our action or our apathy.
March 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM Report abuse
Oak said...
Government is whatever we allow it to be through our action or our apathy. True. That does not mean we are government and government is us. It means we (society) can influence that organization within society that has the monopoly on violence.
March 19, 2010 at 12:06 PM Report abuse
AFVET said...
I am familiar with the argument, Oak. The surplus was estimated at 127 billion and the Republicans accepted that figure. You may recall that Bush and Gore debated what to do with it in 2000. Gore wanted it to go to S.C. Bush wanted it to go to tax cuts -- and that's what happened. Clinton did not use it to pay down the national debt, true, and that is why the issue is confused today. I resent the fact that you keep calling me and others ignorant. You must have been a great schoolyard bully.
March 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM Report abuse
Oak said...
You must have been a great schoolyard bully. I remember you. You were the kid rolling around, eyes full of tears, crying at the top of your lungs about how life isn't fair. I see little has changed.
March 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM Report abuse
Cadred said...
Still a schoolyard bully. By the way, Oak, it's not that I'm a liberal wanting to make sure no one can read something I don't like that makes me want M. D. to go away. It's because he's a racist, sexist, right-wing homophobe and doesn't merit space in the newspaper.
March 19, 2010 at 1:07 PM Report abuse
Oak said...
It's because he's a racist, sexist, right-wing homophobe and doesn't merit space in the newspaper. Right. You don't like what he has to say, you have zero respect for anyone who might want to read what he has to say, you do not want those people to have the freedom of choice to read his piece because that is not a choice you would make, so you want Harmon to be fired. There's nothing more intolerant than a liberal who preaches tolerance.
March 19, 2010 at 1:22 PM Report abuse
Cadred said...
I'd venture to guess that very few would dispute the fact that Harmon is a racist, sexist, right-wing homophobe. Should I have included bigoted or would that have been redundant?
March 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM Report abuse
AFVET said...
Wow -- whoever I may have been, you admit that you were the bully. That's refreshingly honest. No. I played football, Oak. My tears were sweat. I did not have to worry about being pushed around by the likes of you. Why not defend Bush? You claim we blame him. Of course. He was a disaster, and his tax cuts -- which you can't bring yourself to acknowledge -- have greatly contributed to our current fiscal crisis. Clinton bears some blame for removing regulatory authority. And Obama's deal with the pharmaceuticals also deserves condemnation. But it's not socialism. It is akin to corporatism. While you people rant, the oligarchy grows more secure. If you are intentionally creating a distraction, good work!
March 19, 2010 at 1:40 PM Report abuse
mainemade said...
Cadred, In a white supremacist, capitalist, heterosexist patriarchy, are we surprised that M.D. has the forum and views that he does? Just be patient and remember that they are a dying breed. Focus on how to make the world a more equitable place. We'll get there.
March 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM Report abuse
Oak said...
you admit that you were the bully No I didn't. I neither admitted nor denied your accusation. If I said yes you would say I was honest, if I said no you'd call me a liar. You've already made up your mind, what I say does not matter.
March 19, 2010 at 1:44 PM Report abuse
windjammer said...
And guess what solutions to our current economic disaster the republicans are offering to us these days?. You guessed it-the same failed policies of the past when they were in power. MD Harmon is the republican poster child advertising their economic SOS. The truth is no one has a definitive answer to our economic problems. While the democratics are trying to unravell the mess they inherited-the republicans-attack-attack-attack. They have no intention of helping the nation-not while the democrats are in power. What don't you understand about that - folks?!
March 19, 2010 at 1:53 PM Report abuse
Cadred said...
You're right, Mainemade, but I'd prefer he were on Fox and not regularly on the editorial page of our major state newspaper. And I'm breaking my New Year's resolution, aren't I?
March 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
cadred, Oak argues for the sake of srguing. He thinks its an art and he lives on theroy.
March 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM Report abuse
AFVET said...
Bush's tax cuts, Oak? Were they made? Debate the point, don't obsess about what a nasty little boy you were.
March 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
arguing and theory
March 19, 2010 at 2:50 PM Report abuse
fuzzball said...
Windjammer like most liberals have a very selective memory. The fiercest critics of Bush's wild, irrespondsible were us conservatives. Nothing worse than a Republican afflicted with the same insanity that possesses the dems.
March 19, 2010 at 2:57 PM Report abuse
Oak said...
Debate the point What was the point? Oh yeah, Harmon is harping on the current administration's fiscal policy and you're still mad at Bush. Bush, Bush, Bush... Buuuuu-uuuuush!
March 19, 2010 at 3:02 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
Oak how big did your lips get when you did BUUUU.....UUUSSSHHHH? Maybe I don't want to know. Yeah BUSH. Those who forget history are bound to repeat it so don't forget what Bush did.
March 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM Report abuse
Cadred said...
Fuzzball - The fiercest critics of Bush weren't the conservatives, that's just BS. Oh man, I'm doing it again Mainemade.
March 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM Report abuse
mainemade said...
I know, I know, it's really hard sometimes not to get sucked in Cadred, isn't it? That's why I had to take a break for a while from these pages. I was getting tired of banging my head against a brick wall of hostility, ignorance, and lack of compassion for others. I have come through it with the conclusion that angry people are going to be angry, and I can choose to let them make me angry, or I can focus on how I can assist those working to make this world a better place for all.
March 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM Report abuse
Cadred said...
Thank you, you always make me feel calmer. I need to get off this and find a more positive venue, any ideas?
March 19, 2010 at 3:39 PM Report abuse
grumblestilt said...
Funny how the headline asks if we are going to hit "snooze" again - I am assuming that means re-electing the same losers who fell asleep at the wheel during the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress...
March 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM Report abuse
Oak said...
I was getting tired of banging my head against a brick wall of hostility, ignorance, and lack of compassion for others. Your hubris is showing again.
March 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM Report abuse
otisslee said...
Despite all the MD haters posting here, he is correct. Our "I can't help myself from overspending government" is burying our children. We are seeing a unique phenomenon predicted by some scholars. In a democracy, where a near majority (47%) of the voters pay no federal income taxes at all, how can the government muster the will to be fiscally responsible? Wait til the scale tips to 51% of the voters pay no federal income taxes.
March 20, 2010 at 6:54 AM Report abuse
grumblestilt said...
Despite all the MD haters posting here, he is correct. Our "I can't help myself from overspending government" is burying our children. Actually, that's why Harmon is wrong. The economic crisis and the cost of treating is completely and absolutely a Republican responsibility. Clinton made government smaller and lowered the deficit. Bush and Reagan did the opposite. Obama is simply the guy who was handed Bush's and the Republican Congress's mess - clearly not his choice. You don't like the mess we're handing to our children? Then never elect another Republican. Ever.
March 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM Report abuse
otisslee said...
Grumblestilt, Bush did overspend, no doubt and I will not defend him. However, Obama has already outspent Bush, has been in office 7 years less, and is poised to add trillions more to an already record deficit. It really is Obama by a mile in the spending contest. Regardless, party is not the issue. Spending is the issue, and Government has demonstratsed year after year after year that it cannot help itself. The government is presently elected by an electorate that is 47% freeloaders (pay no federal income tax). God help us when that number exceeds 50%.
March 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM Report abuse
garfield31 said...
I'm a bit confused here...how is it the President's fault when it's CONGRESS who makes and passes the laws, not him?
March 20, 2010 at 8:20 PM Report abuse