From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:46:52 GMT
 <1992Sep1.114100.19959@midway.uchicago.edu> <92245.105436DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Sep2.004308.19812@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep2.004308.19812@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) says:

   Mr. Sugent:

    Recommend any sources you like.  The probability is high that
I've read them already.  I have no intention of getting into a flame war,
but when I see information posted which, IMO, after reading the evidence
is incorrect, I will take the time to correct it.  If that's flaming,
then so be it.

>  If you are so convinced that every cent of the money we are spending
>on social security is reducing poverty, why are you against means-testing

Well, I've never voiced either of these opinions.  Every cent of SS money
does not go to reducing poverty.  I would be willing to accept a minor
amount of means-testing in SS, if it were done on a sliding scale, not
simply a dichotomous means-test.  The best method would probably be taxing
SS benefits, since the administrative means are readily available.

>so that we can give to others that need it more?  Means-tested programs
>are far more effective at alleviating poverty than those that are not
>as more of the money can be focussed _at the poor_.

Offer your evidence.  As you note below, I've pointed out a number of
studies that indicate support for my view.  I have also seen a number
of studies that indicate the future will not be as much of a problem
as we fear, as long as countries make relatively minor adjustments in
taxation and benefit pay-outs over the next two decades.

>  Actually, I know you are going to make some remark about other
>countries not collapsing under their pay-as-you-go programs, you will
>then recommend I read Munnell's book.  I then make a remark that you
>need to look to the future and recommend that you read articles on
>the future of pension funds in various nations (especially concerning the
>boomers etc.)  I will also point out the black hole these programs create in
>other countries, etc.
>
>   You see, I already have the argument down pat.  I'm not interested
>in having it with you again.   Besides, it all detracts from my main
>point that entitlements are the problem running away with the deficit.
>I think I have established this rather clearly.  I have made several
>suggestions for fixing it as well, but most importantly I have tried
>to note the size and scope of the problem for netters who may be interested.

I've never diaagreed with this.  It is the main problem, yet the numbers
in the academic literature that I've seen are not nearly as pessimistic
as those you suggest.  I agree that it will take political courage.  I also
think we should be willing to admit that it won't be painless.

Where I think you err, and in fact mislead netters, is in suggesting that
we can just cut off entitlements to the rich, and nobody will get hurt.
In fact, I believe, and the evidence I've cited before supports me, that
cutting entitlements will result in an increase in poverty among the
elderly.  That doesn't mean that I'm against cutting entitlements.  In fact.
I am in favor of it.  It just means that I think we should be aware of the
likely consequences, and be aware of the political heat that will generate.

In addition, I think your arguments are weakened when you employ data that
are less than factual.

>  The politicians and much of the media are so afraid to say "entitlements"
>that there is much disinformation on the topic.  I'm sure that many
>people have heard that "defense" and "congressional pork" can be cut to
>balance the budget.  The raw numbers (such as growth rates of "mandatory
>spending" vs. "discretionary spending" and the fact that mandatory spending is
>already over 70% of our budget) tell a different story.  Anyone who doubts
>me is free to read the _Time_ and _Economist_ articles I cited, although
>there are many other sources as well.  In fact, just check out
>the congressional budget.

Time and Economist, while good general interest magazines, are not the best
source of inforamtion.  The academic literature that I've cited in the past
is much more reliable.



>  As a previous poster noted, 15% of all those receiving social security
>make over $50k/year.  I do not at all understand the morality of
>taxing a family of four making $38k a year to give
>to those people making over $50k a year who are not (in general) trying
>to raise a family.  This 15% would save about $45billion/year in
>social security alone.
>  In reality, I think such means-testing isn't politically feasible.
>We will probably have to start taxing the benefits, exclude a COLA
>here and there, etc.  My confidence that the problem will be resolved
>is low, but with entitlements expected to reach 900 billion by 1996,
>the next president may start feeling a lot of pressure to address this
>issue.
>
>  As I said, I'm not up for another endurance post on the matter, so
>unless you come up with some _new_ arguments, I'll just let you have
>the last word and let it pass.  You may want to look up my sources.

As you see, Mr. Sugent, we really agree much more than we disagree.  I
do resent your claim that I have resorted to flame wars.  I generally
flame back, especially once I receive private notes of a flaming nature.
I also resent your willingness to misinform others about my opinions,
as you did in claiming that I thought every dollar of SS goes to
poverty reduction.


Most of what I post is excerpts from reliable academic studies of the
problem or paraphrases of the same.  It seems that you want me to keep
quiet so that you can persuade the netters to see things the Sugent way.
Sorry to break up the tea-party.  If I read information which, IMO, is
incorrect or misleading I will respond.  Feel free to ignore me, but at
least some netters will know that you aren't the only font of wisdom on
these issues.


Dennis G. Shea       MY thoughts, NOT PSU's
Penn State University
"Still supporting debate, unlike some netters."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections