This is a fascinating narrated slide presentation which very candidly and clearly explains the system of spending which the national government has here, in the usa.
It was developed at the behest of a presidential candidate who ran against Bill Clinton in 1992 - Ross Perot.
My opinion follows:
The first thing that strikes me as I look at this presentation is how obvious the answers to the problem seem to be. The workings of the national budget have not been a matter of public discourse, and so only a few die hard economists have thought about this topic and have had input into the discussion. The solution to this little dilemma requires thinkers who think beyond the nuts and bolts of money in and money out. The solution will only be found by thinkers who can look at this crossection of government agendas and weigh the worth of each one... these thinkers need to be able to understand not only how money flows, but how people get motivated, and what the rhythm of people's lives is like.
A couple things that jump out at me as I look at these charts.
1) "Gross Domestic Product" I can see is an important thing to factor into the whole picture because more monetary wealth in the nation means it is easier for people to provide the government with revenue. However, I don't see how such a thing could ever be measured. It seems like a figure that could be estimated, or maybe only guesstimated. The writers of the wikipedia explanation for GDP have totally neglected to explain how the data is collected.
2) The main problem facing the economic future of the usa is the projected rise in costs involved in the medicare and medicaid programs. But why do we have to spend so much money, anyway? It would seem that the only pathway that's been trod before that will be guaranteed to reduce medical costs would be the nationalized health insurance programs of countries like Canada. Canada spends far less for procedures and treatment, per person, than the usa does... because those in power have a vested interest in keeping costs down.
As I see it, the perspective we ethnic europeans have on personal health and the field of medicine is pretty skewed. Personal health is not maintained with the aid of doctors and pharmaceuticals. Robust health is only maintained through good life habits, including proper eating patterns, good posture technique, and a healthy measure of physical activity. No doctor can help a person who is ill, and who will not change these life habits around. And it's pretty surprising how a sick person can get healthy without any intervention of doctors, if she or he changes around these habits; naturopathic medicine practitioners disingenuously take advantage of this effect - falsely attributing a person's newfound health to their treatment plans. Now, I understand that exactly because the usa spends such a mountain of money each year on medical research, there are a lot of exciting new medical technologies developed (such as regrowing organs and limbs). In fact, I would wager, that because of the proportion of money spent by the usa on doctors, as compared to citizens of other countries, we could say that the usa is one of the most important powerhouses of medical research today. A drop in spending on the field of medicine would mean that the usa would have to sit back and relax and let that research be done in other parts of the world. But, in my opinion we would benefit as a society very much from shutting down a few of our medical research centers. In this first decade, us USAers have an unhealthy obsession with doctors and medicine. People need to learn how to take care of their own health, and not languish in the arms of the doctor, simply because they have never understood how to form and maintain good life habits.
3) Another thing that I believe ought to be brought up here, is the fact that usa's income tax code is a really convoluted and complex thing. I think that it would be better for all of us if we simplified it. And I'm excited about the proposal of Mike Gravel, during the 2008 presidential campaign where he called for a change to a national sales tax. Myself, I'm not sure of how sound that would be as a form of revenue for government. But it would certainly be more transparent - and would be more palatable to people than having a chunk of their income deducted from their paychecks. A lot of rancor in politics could be dispelled if we made the tax system simpler.
4) If the amount of money paid to social security recipients is a problem - there is another broader answer here... A substantial chunk of the money given to pensioners goes to pay for housing costs - whether that be rent or a mortgage. People in the house of representatives in Washington DC who make $169,000 per year would be totally out of touch with the hardship which housing costs cause low income people. What is the answer? There ought to be a system put in place which encourages houses to lose their monetary value over time. Why should a used house cost the same as a new house? It is absurd that the construction costs of a house which was built in the 1890s have not been paid off by the year 2008. Every time the house is sold, it appreciates in monetary value and this effect is largely, I think, due to the banks having their fingers in the pot of gold. A bank can siphon of the value of each house in a town every thirty years, provided it changes hands at least once over that timeframe. And in return, the bank has added absolutely nothing of value to the community which wasn't there to begin with.
Post new comment