Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1102)	7/31/2008 3:29:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

"Paygo rules" are not a solution, at least not by themselves. The entitlement spending is problematic under any rules, except rules that contain its growth. Just putting in place a "paygo rule", either means it will be bypassed, ignored or revoked, or that your putting in place political cover for tax increases, neither one will resolve the problem. Having most of the budget consist of fairly rapidly growing programs that automatically increase without any additional budget authority or congressional action of any kind, is a recipe for disaster no matter what type of budgeting rules you put in place. There isn't enough other spending to squeeze out through budgeting rules (even assuming the rules remained in place when the squeeze got hard), to make up for the future increases built in to entitlements. If entitlements where subject to potential discipline * of the budgeting process, having to fight in out with every other program, and with increases not being automatic, than maybe paygo rules might have a major impact, but I think under those circumstance the paygo rules would be likely to be repealed in fairly short order once they start to bite. * "potential discipline" because its not as if the budget process has generally resulted in a lot of discipline on spending so far