The serious proposal is tailor-made for the three leading presidential candidates. One or all of them should grab it.
The proposal was developed over the past two years by, among others, budget experts from the Brookings Institution and Progressive Policy Institute on the liberal side, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute on the conservative and the Concord Coalition in the middle.
These ideologically opposite groups seldom agree on anything. But they agree on this: As the baby boomers retire and medical costs continue to rise, entitlement spending will soar to terrifying levels. It’s as though every man, woman and child in America now has a $150,000 mortgage, said Stuart Taylor, vice president for domestic, economic and policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, at a press conference.And the tax hikes needed to pay off that “mortgage” will be severe.
So here’s the policy step the group came up with: Take the spending off autopilot and put it back in Congress’ and the president’s hands.
Then, designate red zones in future budgets so that if spending reaches those levels, it’ll trigger automatic tax hikes and/or benefit cuts.
In short, force lawmakers to wrestle with and solve the problem, the group concluded.
“The entitlement programs are on autopilot,” said Alice Rivlin, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“The programs grow every year because of the increase in the number of people who are eligible for them and the rising cost of benefits, especially medical benefits.” That makes it too easy for politicians to do nothing, she said.
So, “Congress and the president should enact explicit, long-term — at least 30 years — budgets for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and be required to review them every five years,” she said.
Furthermore, “the rules for the five-year review must include a trigger ... that requires explicit decisions when projected sending exceeds the budgeted amounts.” The net result would be a budget process that forces Congress “to make choices about the major entitlement programs on a periodic basis.” And that would be a big improvement over the do-nothing situation that exists now.
Some interesting questions and answers followed at the press conference, including this one: “I was wondering what percentage of the coming deficits are related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?” a questioner wondered.
“Not much is the answer,” said Rivlin.
“The defense budget is not a big part of the problem. And I think that’s one of the myths that people think of.
“We’re spending a lot of money on defense. ... But nobody expects the defense budget to grow in the future. The things that grow are especially Medicare and Medicaid, but also Social Security.”
To sum up, the bipartisan group developed a realistic plan to help us get entitlements on sound financial footing. Candidates, it’s all yours.
— Tom Dennis for the Herald