WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages:
Thank you for registering.
We sent an email to:
Please click on the link inside the email to complete your registration
Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools.
An account already exists for the email address entered.
Forgot your username or password?
This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. Please try again later.
The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username
The email address you have entered is already in use.Please re-enter the email address.
From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.
Create a profile for me in the Journal Community
Why Register?
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
As a registered user of The Wall Street Journal Online, you will be able to:
Setup and manage your portfolio
Personalize your own news page
Receive and manage newsletters
Receive and manage newsletters
Keep me logged in. Forgot your password?
Digg
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it, “simply unacceptable.” Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO thinks it is a death sentence for “working Americans.”
The conservative Americans for Tax Reform said it was “merely an excuse to raise net taxes on the American people.”
And yesterday on TV, Senator Kent Conrad described the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson deficit cutting commission as “shock therapy.”
Please. There's nothing radical or earth shattering about the Bowles-Simpson proposals.
You want something shocking? Try this.
One generation of a once-great nation borrows $14 trillion from future generations so that it can fund a lifestyle it can't afford – and then refuses to entertain reasonable proposals to curtail its lifestyle.
Now, that's shocking. So selfish. But predictably so.
After decades of handouts, of LBJ's Great Society, George Dubya's Medicare D and now Obama's “healthcare for all”, we have a fully entitled nation.
And it's much worse than “me, me, me.” American society is “me, me, me – and make sure you use other people's money.”
If you're curious just how screwed up our perspective has become, I suggest you carefully read through the Bowles-Simpson overview and its accompanying budget savings proposal for 2015.
When you're done, ask yourself, “Is this really shock therapy?”
Take, for example, the 52 separate proposals that would add up to over $200 billion in annual budget savings. Just how damaging would it be to the nation's interests if we didn't fund:
– The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools whose results “have not been demonstrated,” even though its budget allocation has more than doubled. Savings: $1.8 billion.
– NASA's plans for commercial spaceflight, which are simultaneously “commercial” and funded with government subsidies. Savings: $1.2 billion.
– The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has convinced itself that Jim Lehrer requires taxpayer money to compete with Katie Couric. Savings: $500 million.
Or
– Pay hikes for civilian workers at the Department of Defense who have been getting raises at about twice the rate of inflation. Savings: $5.3 billion.
I don't mean to sound flip — after all, the livelihoods of tens of thousands are on the line. But nearly all of the 52 proposals seem like no-brainers.
Merge the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration? Eliminate OPIC? Charge visitor fees to the Smithsonian?
Why haven't these things already been done? Our nation is living on $14 trillion of borrowed money and we're letting folks into the D.C. National Zoo for free?
You may say that I'm cherry-picking the easy, obvious stuff. But that's the point. Most of the Bowles-Simpson recommendations are pretty obvious.
Hiking gas taxes? Reforming medical tort law? Eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction? Simplifying the U.S. tax code?
These ideas have been circulating for years. The only shocking thing is that we have done so little with them.
Consider the Bowles-Simpson proposal to gradually lift the qualifying age for Social Security from 67 to 69 by 2075.
How can this be seen as some kind of cold-hearted, radical reform?
If anything, it's way too meek. An American female born today has a life expectancy of nearly 81 years. And that number is only going higher. Good luck fighting the math.
But this is what happens when you live off of other people's money for so long.
Read Full Article »