Well, maybe I do - if your object is to help the needy rich and corporate america and take from the undeserving poor, then it all makes sense. Let them eat cake! And be sure that we have a tremendous military to enforce our corporate will upon recalcitrant neighbors.
House Republicans led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan have unveiled a plan that would spend $6.2T less over 10 years than what President Obama has proposed. With not a sacred cow in sight, except perhaps the Pentagon, Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity' proposes to limit expenditure on Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and scores of other programs. He also wants to cut the top corporate and individual tax rates to 25%. Despite the appearance of radicalism, the GOP plan would still add $5T to the deficit over the coming decade, although it promises to reach 'primary balance' by 2015, meaning that the budget would be balanced except for interest payments on existing debt. The plan wouldn't balance the government's books until 2040.
CUTTING TAXES ON RICH AND CORPORATIONS WHILE REDUCING BENEFITS FOR THE REST OF THE CITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES. STILL ADDING TO THE DEFICIT UNTIL 2040 AND DOESN'T ALLOW FOR COMING INCREASED INTEREST RATES AND HIGHER INFLATION. ALSO ASSUMES THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WILL REDUCE AND THAT TAXES FROM EMPLOYED WILL INCREASE. Perhaps there is also a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which we can use to reduce our debt. Or, we could hope to catch a leprechaun?
AND AS FOR REVISING SOCIAL SECURITY
per The House Republicans' 2012 Budget Proposal
The first is demographic.
This problem is most clearly seen in the financing for Social Security. Social Security is financed through a pay-as-you-go system, which means that current workers' Social Security taxes are used to pay benefits for current retirees. In 1935 when Social Security was enacted, there were about 42 working-age Americans for each retiree. The average life expectancy for men in America was 60 years; for women it was 64. With these demographics, it was easy for the program to generate sufficient revenue to meet its promises to those over 65. The demographic situation has changed dramatically, however, since the creation of the program. In 1950, there were 3.5 million beneficiaries. Currently, there are over 50 million beneficiaries - an over fourteen-fold increase."
the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
Obviously the Republican document is in error, although the average lifespan was less back when social security was started, the average lifespan for retiring citizens was approximately the same then as it is now and the tables for computing this were based on this fact. In fact all the demographics were considered and included when computing the actuarial tables for social security. That is why the social security system has built up a surplus over the years of 2.6 trillion dollars and remains solvent for the next 26 years and will only require minimal tweaking to adjust to future situations.
The system has been working well for the last 75 years and is scheduled to continue being successful into the future. Why disrupt a successful enterprise? I can only suppose that private interests wish to somehow gain control of the investing power of this trust fund and are lobbying their representative agents to help them. While this would gain those special interests much income, it wouldn't be in the best interests of the participants. Recessions and bubbles in investing circles come and go but the system works and keeps working. Let's keep this fund out of special interests hands.
Using phrases that sound sensible for new programs often mislead the public. But seeing that the actual details cause the opposite reactions should warn us that the proposed plans have something else in mind than our own welfare. It all amounts to a tug of war between the average citizen and the wealthy powers that hope to control our country. So far, the powers are winning and they are stepping up the action without hiding their true feelings.