Ah, that explains the numbers and approach. It's still inexcusable wiggle-language, all the worse for the source. The paragraph before that is also laughable: using long run growth numbers to excessively inflate medical costs is poor form.
The conclusion is fair though, even if dramatized.
Cut everything and increase taxes?
Can I assume that the basic conversation will go like this?
You: We are massively overspending and will go bankrupt. We must cut spending.
Me: Your solutions are economically suicidal; clawing injections back and raising taxes is bad.
You: Our growing deficit and upcoming balloon payments will cause a collapse (or otherwise undesirable outcomes)
Me: Clawback solutions will only exacerbate the exact same issues you want to avoid.
You: But something needs to be done regardless, and quickly.
Me: Moderate small changes and efficiency/growth covers most of the gap.
You: No, lots needs to be done.
Me: Not really.
I figure I saved both of us pain.
I don't disagree with fiscal responsibility, however I do not agree clawbacks and such are viable or desirable, especially in social services and safety nets. I believe that the central problem is political, not financial, where the US inherently embraces bad systems for ideological reasons.
Funny enough, I just read a report on the Canadian Provincial reports. Apparently every province is on the verge of collapse... I could swear I read the same report from the 60s and 70s, through the 80's collapse. I wish these kinds of reports were meaningful; predictive, I mean. Hell, even the rating agencies don't do their job at the Muni level. *shrug*
I'll stick with the economic analysts.
Limit entitlements to those within 130% of the federal poverty level.
Everything has to be on the table.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
- Edmund Burke