tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post8684351181254674146..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: Which Budget Deficit to Target?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-64795381606457101982006-09-05T16:24:00.000-04:002006-09-05T16:24:00.000-04:00Holding the politicians to a consistent metric sou...Holding the politicians to a consistent metric sounds like a terrific idea. Hmmm - insisting the politicians tell the truth. If I had my way, it'd be a Constituional Amendment, but then how to enforce it?PGLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-89526487233858291742006-09-07T00:27:00.000-04:002006-09-07T00:27:00.000-04:00There was a third accounting method that began to ...There was a third accounting method that began to surface in the argument for private accounts within Social Security. Some proponents of the program wanted to include the resulting reduction of future obligations in the debate on present-budget implications, but since those obligations are not captured in either unified or general budget figures, they really couldn't have done that without accruing in some fashion the total obligations, which would render insignificant (in a rhetorical sense) the future savings.TStockmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14429662359024503711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-8853034284105740922006-09-07T06:40:00.000-04:002006-09-07T06:40:00.000-04:00Thank you for responding to my comment!Problem: T...Thank you for responding to my comment!<br><br>Problem: The "on-budget" deficit excludes Social Security, but includes Medicare and Medicaid. So your measure would apply to the demographic pressures in the two health entitlements , but not to Social Security. Do you want to treat them differently?<br><br>The "on-budget" deficit target is not just a higher fiscal bar than the unified deficit target. It is a qualitatively different target, and it is defined by past political decisions that treat Social Security differently from everything else, including Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, it is a politically-defined measure, not an economic one. If you want to distinguish between short-term cyclical fiscal policy and longer-term demographically driven fiscal policy, then the on-budget deficit may not be the metric you want.<br><br>And while you seem to be advocating on-budget balance as a path toward greater deficit reduction, the traditional advocates for using an on-budget measure have been those most vociferously opposed to Social Security reform (and, consequently, those most opposed to long-term deficit reduction). They have tended to argue that, since Social Security "is in surplus" for another decade, nothing needs to be done to reform it for a while. I fear that, by choosing on-budget balance, you might facilitate those who want to delay addressing the long-term entitlement spending challenges.FrankieMousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10722498318473578086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-79664898033430349412006-09-07T07:09:00.000-04:002006-09-07T07:09:00.000-04:00Yes, I am aware of the strange bedfellows involved...Yes, I am aware of the strange bedfellows involved with targeting the on-budget deficit.<br><br>I would like to see the accounting for all entitlement programs in which eligibility is determined primarily by rules rather than annual discretion taken out of the on-budget account. That includes all parts of Medicare plus Social Security. (I'm still thinking about Medicaid, given the state involvement.) I would further like the eligibility, contribution, and benefit rules for those programs to be in long-term balance.<br><br>Your questions are of the form, "If you cannot get all of it, what will you take?" Those are inherently political questions, so I don't think that favoring the on-budget versus unified target is necessarily more political than any other choice.Andrew Samwickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-41349541837888004232006-09-08T13:36:00.000-04:002006-09-08T13:36:00.000-04:00The office of equal opportunity was to Lydon Johns...The office of equal opportunity was to Lydon Johnson administration health, education and welfare and his great society was to make up his own policy about his war on poverty. Now this getting all along together is owing them more than a good living. There is more of a problem that what their social justice could solve.Gem Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227861168061347589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-78439845141404387622007-10-11T14:09:00.000-04:002007-10-11T14:09:00.000-04:00We must reduce spending and pay off the entire Nat...We must reduce spending and pay off the entire National Debt.Ames Tiedemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02262453687257553162noreply@blogger.com