Wall Street Journal - McCain's Health plan is sound!

[Justforfun000]

As a Canadian I admit to being a little less educated as to the partisanship of the Wall Street Journal...however they are generally known as a prestigious and reputable news source, so what does this editorial opinion mean in relation to the issue? It seems most people here disagree with McCain and think Obama's plan is far better. Does this person raise any new viewpoints or is it just more bullshit coming from people with bias?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225068 ... lenews_wsj

Almost Everyone Would Do Better Under the McCain Health Plan
His tax credit is larger than the current tax subsidy for insurance.
By ROBERT CARROLL

* Article

more in Opinion »

* Email
* Printer Friendly
* Share:
o Yahoo Buzz more
o MySpace
o Digg
* smaller Text Size larger
*

The McCain health-care insurance tax credit may well be one of the most misunderstood proposals of this presidential election. Barack Obama has been ruthless in his attacks. But the tax credit is highly progressive and will provide a powerful incentive for people to purchase health insurance. These features under normal circumstances should endear Democrats to the proposal.
[Commentary] AP

There has been a lot of rhetoric and misstatements, but what exactly does Sen. McCain have in mind? He would replace the current income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable tax credit -- $5,000 for those who purchase family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage. Mr. McCain would also reform insurance markets to stem the growth in health insurance premiums.

What many may not realize is that the federal government already "spends" roughly $300 billion to $400 billion through the tax code to encourage people to pay for their health care through employer-sponsored health insurance. This subsidy takes the form of the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance from both income and payroll taxes.

Still, some 45 million Americans are uninsured; and the growth in health-care spending continues to outpace the growth in incomes and the economy, which portends further increases in the number of uninsured. The employer-based system itself is eroding. Voters should be wondering whether there is a better approach than this subsidy.

Consider the current exclusion. Its value rises with how much someone spends on health care, and how much of this spending is funneled through employer-sponsored health-care coverage. This creates an incentive for people to purchase policies with low deductibles, or which cover routine spending. These policies look a lot less like insurance and more like prefunded spending accounts purchased through employers and managed by insurance companies. Consider homeowners and auto insurance policies. Do these cover routine spending on cleaning the gutters or tuning up a car?

The subsidy encourages people to buy bigger policies that cover more, and leads to greater health-care spending. Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers' sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

By replacing the income tax exclusion with a fixed, refundable credit, the McCain proposal reduces the tax bias for large insurance policies. Because the credit is for a fixed amount, regardless of how much you spend on health care, it helps break the link between the existing tax subsidy and how much is spent on health care. This improves incentives in the health-care market by reducing the bias that has contributed to such a high level of health-care spending.

Moreover, the credit provides a powerful incentive for people to purchase insurance. The two tax provisions -- the new credit and the repeal of the income tax exclusion -- on net provide a substantial tax cut of $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Not only do most Americans receive a tax cut under the McCain proposal, but the tax cut is directed toward low and moderate income taxpayers.
[Commentary]

Consider the family of four shown in the chart nearby, assumed to purchase a $14,000 health insurance policy. The straight line reflects what the family would get under the $5,000 McCain tax credit. The lower line shows the value of the current income tax exclusion, which rises and falls with a taxpayer's tax rate.

What is striking about this picture -- and contradicts Mr. Obama's public comments -- is that the McCain tax credit for the purchase of health insurance exceeds the value of the current exclusion for all income levels shown. Indeed, it generally provides more resources to purchase health insurance than the existing exclusion. The total subsidy for health care would rise from about $3.6 trillion over 10 years today to roughly $5 trillion under his proposal.

How large an effect does this proposal have on the number of uninsured? Based on estimates by career economists in the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis of similar proposals discussed in the Washington Beltway several years ago, the McCain health-care tax credit can be expected to increase the number of insured by 15 million and probably more. The Lewin Group, a respected private health-care research outfit, recently estimated that the McCain credit would increase the number of insured by as much as 21 million. It is true that many may no longer get their insurance through their employer, but they will be given the resources to purchase insurance on their own.

Will the insurance that is purchased be a generous plan with first dollar coverage or low deductibles? It is much more likely to be a plan with higher deductibles that is more focused on providing true insurance against catastrophic losses rather than a more generous plan that includes a lot of prepayment for routine and predictable medical expenses. But this is precisely one of the objectives of the policy: to reduce the current tax bias that encourages people to funnel routine health expenses through insurance policies.

Finally, the credit has important implications for the nation's finances down the road. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the proposal.

There is an enormous unfunded liability associated with the major entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If left unchecked, the growth in these programs will nearly double the size of the federal government by 2040, consuming roughly 40% of the nation's output rather than the 20% today. While the growth in Social Security is largely the result of demographics, the growth in Medicare and Medicaid is also driven by the rapid growth in health-care spending. This is where a proposal like Sen. McCain's can be so important.

The elimination of the income-tax exclusion should reduce private health-care spending; to the extent this reduces the cost of health care, it should also put downward pressure on the growth of Medicare and Medicaid costs. Thus, by removing the tax bias for more generous health coverage, the McCain health credit also has the potential to provide important dividends to the entitlement problem down the road.

Mr. Carroll served as deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury. He is now vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, and an executive-in-residence with American University's School of Public Affairs.

[Gandalf]

As a Canadian I admit to being a little less educated as to the partisanship of the Wall Street Journal...however they are generally known as a prestigious and reputable news source, so what does this editorial opinion mean in relation to the issue? It seems most people here disagree with McCain and think Obama's plan is far better. Does this person raise any new viewpoints or is it just more bullshit coming from people with bias?

A year ago, the WSJ was bought out by Rupert Murdoch's little empire.

So this might be the result of that.

[Dominus Atheos]

[quote="Justforfun000"]As a Canadian I admit to being a little less educated as to the partisanship of the Wall Street Journal...however they are generally known as a prestigious and reputable news source, so what does this editorial opinion mean in relation to the issue?

I can't comment on the accuracy of the article, but I can tell you it's a guest opinion piece that was published by the wsj, not something actually written by the wsj. It gives the information about the actual writer at the end of the article. In this case, it was written by someone who used to work in the Bush administration as the "deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury".

[Shroom Man 777]

Isn't the Wall Street Journal owned by Murdoch, that guy who owns Faux Noose?

[CmdrWilkens]

There are two sides to the WSJ.

The journalism and reporting side is usually first rate (as such things are measured in the US) and obviously they tend to be excellent with financial reporting as well as halfway decent with analysis.

The opinion and editorial page has basically been the permanent refuge of the Ayn Rand wannabe club for the better part of my adult life.

So long story less long for news articles the WSJ is solid, for editorial they have as hard right a slant as the Washington Times or Fox News.

[Guardsman Bass]

Some of these little nuggets bother me-

Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers' sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

Isn't this part of the problem? So many health issues in America are from preventable illnesses, like heart disease and lung cancer - so why would you want to create a health care system designed to punish people for making regular small-scale expenditures in the form of regular check-ups and the like?

We've seen Republicans mention the importance of preventative medicine before; Huckabee mentioned it at least once in the Republican primary debates. How exactly do they plan to get that if they're creating a system that's designed to only really kick in when something becomes a really big medical problem?

[Sikon]

If left unchecked, the growth in these programs will nearly double the size of the federal government by 2040, consuming roughly 40% of the nation's output rather than the 20% today

Current federal spending is 21% of gross national product. Current total government spending 37% of GDP when state & local is considered as well.

That would be total government spending nominally reaching around 57% of U.S. economic output in 2040 if the portion consumed by state & local governments stayed a constant percentage, except that portion is actually rather growing over time.



Adjusted for inflation and total U.S. population, converted to 2008-dollars, total government spending went from $13700 per person in 1992 to $17200 per person annually in 2008.

(Whether or not they noticed a comparable amount of extra benefit, there were tens of thousands of dollars cumulative increase in spending per man, woman, and child over that period, an extra $3500/year by the end of the timeframe compared to 1992 levels).

Increase accelerates over time, from health care and social security to education, such as how more states go from educational spending figures like Idaho's $6400/student to rather Washington D.C.'s $13500/student (2006) and beyond.

So, while the article's quote isn't inaccurate in itself, the quote might have been written instead as:

If trends are left unchecked, the growth in these programs will contribute towards total government spending consuming more than 60% of national GDP in thirty years, rather than the 37% today.

[Vendetta]

We've seen Republicans mention the importance of preventative medicine before; Huckabee mentioned it at least once in the Republican primary debates. How exactly do they plan to get that if they're creating a system that's designed to only really kick in when something becomes a really big medical problem?

They're expecting people to pay for it themselves, and if they can't pay, well, tough shit, shouldn't have been poor.

[K. A. Pital]

If trends are left unchecked, the growth in these programs will contribute towards total government spending consuming more than 60% of national GDP in thirty years, rather than the 37% today.

Is that any problem? Many European nations who adhere to social democracy have similar percentages of GDP re-distributed through government spending (and not "consumed" - assholes who coined the usage of "consume" term regarding government spending are truly despicable).

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe if the government "consumed" 23% more of the GDP, then it could do something about the USA's crumbling infrastructure, shitty education system. healthcare system, communications system, public transportation system, and so on?

[Vendetta]

Maybe if the government "consumed" 23% more of the GDP, then it could do something about the USA's crumbling infrastructure, shitty education system. healthcare system, communications system, public transportation system, and so on?

No, because actually spending that money on anything would be socialist. So they just hoover it up and lose it in massive bureaucratic inefficiency. (CF: Medicare and medicaid have one of the highest per capita tax costs for healthcare in the first world, for the lowest coverage)

[Illuminatus Primus]

Or, heaven forbid, we actually cut military spending that is unnecessary. Oh, but everyone who joins the service does so to "save freedom", and every ounce of appropriations is for America's security.

[chaoschristian]

This article should be retitled: Almost Everyone Who Invests in Insurance & Healthcare Corporate Stock Would Do Better Under the McCain Health Plan

[Surlethe]

The subsidy encourages people to buy bigger policies that cover more, and leads to greater health-care spending. Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers' sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

Why should routine spending -- i.e., preventative care -- not be covered under health insurance? It cuts down long-run costs by reducing the need for catastrophic care and also increases productivity and quality of life in the meanwhile.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The disparity is so nonlinear as to be absurd. If our insurance company had spent what, fifty, a hundred dollars (I have no clue, but I can't imagine it could be more than that) on proper blood tests during my fiancee's pregnancy, it might have averted the catastrophe that they had to cover in full to the tune of $20,000 plus. So extending comprehensive coverage would seem to be in the favor of the insurance companies. Even if our case were a relatively rare one, there would have to be an almost unattainably absurd glut of maintenance coverage to make it unprofitable relative to emergency care.

[Vendetta]

Why should routine spending -- i.e., preventative care -- not be covered under health insurance? It cuts down long-run costs by reducing the need for catastrophic care and also increases productivity and quality of life in the meanwhile.

The entire US healthcare system is based on gambling. You gamble that you won't need healthcare in the future, so you don't pay for it now. Likewise, your health insurer gambles that you won't need healthcare in the future, so they don't pay for it now.

It's wrong and stupid, but it's what the free market will inevitably come up with when faced with a cost it can possibly get away without paying.

[Ypoknons]

I'll reinforce what other people have been saying: since Fox bought WSJ last year, editorial quality has gone down the shitter.

[Patrick Degan]

The subsidy encourages people to buy bigger policies that cover more, and leads to greater health-care spending. Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers' sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

Why should routine spending -- i.e., preventative care -- not be covered under health insurance? It cuts down long-run costs by reducing the need for catastrophic care and also increases productivity and quality of life in the meanwhile.

Alerik the Fortunate pointed out why this is indeed a sensible course of action. The problem is that the American healthcare system is run by accountants, and the only thing they look for is to minimise the upfront bottom-line so as to maximise quarterly profits. Preventative care spending violates this essential logic.

[Sikon]

If trends are left unchecked, the growth in these programs will contribute towards total government spending consuming more than 60% of national GDP in thirty years, rather than the 37% today.

Is that any problem? Many European nations who adhere to social democracy have similar percentages of GDP re-distributed through government spending (and not "consumed" - assholes who coined the usage of "consume" term regarding government spending are truly despicable).

If asked in a different context and answering honestly, most people living in the U.S. would say they didn't notice jack shit for extra benefit from 2008 levels of government spending per person compared to 1992 levels.

(As mentioned in the last post, even after adjustment for inflation and total U.S. population, converted to 2008-dollars, it went from $13700 per person to $17200 per person annually).

In contrast, if it was efficient and effective, they would have noticed major benefit from the $3500/year additional government spending per person, comparable to as if they had that much more private income.

Per person, $3500/year is a substantial portion of total basic living expenses, not quite but almost as much as being able to live in my apartment for free. Did I or almost anyone else really see remotely close to $3500/year benefit? Hell no!

Part of the waste has been military misadventures, but by far the vast majority of the spending increase has been domestic. National defense went from in 1992 being $298 billion or about $465 billion after adjusting for inflation to become now $607 billion. However, a change of under a couple hundred billion dollars a year there, even though substantial, is dwarfed by total U.S. government spending going from being $3660 billion (converted to today's dollars) to $5240 billion, a domestic spending increase way beyond that of the wars even if adjusted for population.

Police, the roads, and so on function now but about the same as they did a few years ago. Life expectancy has been nearly flat. Of those graduating the school system, 55% never learned enough after around 15000 cumulative hours of education to even know that electrons are smaller than atoms, 3% worse in 2004 than 2001, among various indicators stagnating at best over the years. Etc.

Regarding educational performance, that is not just an U.S. issue. As one example, an even greater 41% of Europeans (compared to 27% of Americans) incorrectly think all radioactivity is manmade, which is not merely a factoid but implicitly speaks volumes about a lack of effective education on everything from radioactive dating to astronomy and geology to even early 20th-century history. Improving the U.S. education system may be possible. However, as long as vastly accelerating historical increase in spending beyond already $14000/year per pupil in some states is *assumed* to just be the primary solution despite past results, there's little likelihood of greater focus on politically-incorrect alternatives like more curriculum focus on fundamentals, school vouchers, or forcing unmotivated students to try with direct incentives.

Returning to the main topic, the benefit to cost ratio of marginal, extra increase in government spending and the actual efficiency matters. The cost of every additional trillion dollars spending should not be ignored. Like the old economic saying that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL), increase in government spending comes fundamentally from other income in the end, even if not reflected in income tax rates alone due to being largely hidden within deficit spending, different types of taxes passed onto the cost of goods, and so on.

In the end, a few thousand dollars additional government expenses per person means a few thousand dollars less remaining original private income per person on average, or the equivalent relative to how much one can obtain with the remainder. The portion of GDP outside of government dropping to less than 40% rather than the current 63% would be a huge change.

Even Europe doesn't universally have 60+% of GDP as government, less in some countries, but costs are reflected in lower historical growth rates in the most developed countries and in lesser GDP per capita. The E.U. has average GDP per person of $32700 (2007, PPP), compared to the much greater U.S. $45800 of economic output per person. Similar trends are suggested by various other wealth indicators like the number of cars, the number of computers, the portion of the population able to live in more than an apartment, etc. Like purchasing power parity figures suggest, the average European good is relatively expensive (in part due to all the taxes on it directly and indirectly), down to even drinks in restaurants. Not just gas costs more. Even using restrooms costs money in many locations.

Part of the fundamental difference of opinion is about whether one wants the U.S. to become like Europe. Would one rather live in the U.S. or in Europe?

Of course, an issue here is that many readers of this are Europeans who naturally tend to be biased to think their countries are preferable, perhaps even taught so in schools. Most of the rest are among the portion of Americans would prefer for the U.S. to be like Europe, most Democrats, even though not immigrating due to the difficulties involved or for various personal reasons. So, in the polar opposite of preaching to the choir, I'm talking to a group of readers of which at least 80-90+% have an opposing bias, since this board has experienced ideological stratification as most disagreeing departed, especially from the time of Peak Oil effect predictions onwards.

However, viewing such as desirable overall is not universal.

When it comes to technology, innovation, business, and entrepreneurship, if the European Union was the equivalent of the U.S., they should be managing more since their total population is 60% greater.

But that's not the case, to say the least, whether one looks at computer technology, software, medical breakthroughs, movies, or almost anything. Pretend the U.S. didn't exist for the past half-century or rather that it caused and produced no more than Europe. How much would be missing? List any top ten or top one hundred new technologies and advancements of the past few decades, observing which country caused the most by far.

Societies function whether a majority or a small portion of discretionary economic output remains after government expenses, but there are some factors which have historically contributed towards one 4.5% segment of the world's population causing so much of its progress.

A huge cost if government expenses rise to 60+% rather than the current 37% of GDP is clear. An equally huge benefit to fully make up for that is not particularly suggested by past history, for how little benefit the average person really noticed from the 1992-2008 increase compared to its $3500/year per person extra expense.

Obviously, the details depend on the particular program being discussed. There are a variety of limited, specific increases in government funding in some areas which would be worthwhile if done right, ranging from the space program to alternative energy to even a controlled degree of universal health care spending, if there was reason to expect better than the average congresscritter's boondoggle in regard to a particular proposal.

Yet such is dangerous unless done carefully, since very little prevents accelerating exponential growth from making first 50%, then 60%, then perhaps 70% and beyond of the original GDP become government expenditures. Bureaucracies get entrenched over time, expand, and rarely decrease. Especially with the perfect monopoly, few people in charge of a publicly-funded organization have any real reason to cut costs, save money, and lay off extra employees but instead spend as much as possible, efficiently or not, get rewarded by being able to *always* say a budget increase is needed next year, and so on.* Some individual tax rates have decreased sometimes in U.S. history, since such does not always result in any less overall tax revenue, but spending growth marches inexorably over the decades, at most just slowing sometimes temporarily.

* (There is a partial counter to that within the U.S. governmental system in principle; when often spending occurs on the state rather than the federal level, states with growth-friendly policies can get rewarded with potentially more businesses and individuals moving there or by relative success making other governments look bad if not copied, but, although such contributes to variation like Nevada growing at 8.2% economically versus some states at under 1%, that can have less of an effect over time as more gets shifted to the federal government).

Congress usually always spends until there is a deficit regardless of how much tax revenues increase, like how federal tax revenues went up from $1880 billion to $2520 billion between 2004 and 2008, which could have more than eliminated the original deficit entirely, except annual spending became $640 billion higher, which resulted in a several-hundred billion dollar annual federal deficit instead. (The preceding are federal figures only, since the change in four years was a $1100 billion increase total for all levels of government). Since partisan bias may incorrectly lead to a misconception just blaming this on the Republicans, it is worth noting that the budget plus all other bills are voted on and passed by the legislative branch, not the president. Both houses of Congress have been Democrat-controlled since 2006, not that they even pretend to mind accelerating exponential spending growth.

If actually done efficiently, most basic goals wouldn't cost much. Feed the hungry? A basic $100 to $200 a month of food would cost on the order of $1.2 to $2.4 billion annually per million people, such as under 1 part in 5800 of U.S. GDP per million people. Shelter the homeless? There are less than a million homeless people in the U.S., so basic secured public shelters for that number (even assuming on the order of $400/month per person) would cost around $5 billion a year, compared to government spending of currently $5200 billion a year. If spending can be 1000 times greater without fully managing such, there's little reason to suspect it couldn't become even 2000 times greater and *still* not fully manage such.

Of course, those are particularly extreme examples, but, in general, around two-fifths of GDP going to government expenses would be enough if it was used better, not needing 60+%. Most voters don't think quantitatively, look at past trends versus results, or even attempt to really judge cost versus benefits.

Public tendency is towards automatically always supporting something which superficially sounds good, like rapidly increasing educational spending forever (with little other change to fix the system). After all, the Washington D.C. kids receiving about $14000 a year of educational spending, more than any frugal person's total basic living expenses, yet failing regardless, are *clearly* doing so because the whole issue is just a shortage of funding and *undoubtedly* best solved by taking a large additional percentage of my income to make that $20000 or $25000 each annually instead! Government expenses reaching 60% of U.S. economic output in thirty years could be an underestimate unless current trends change first.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Such exorbitant and inefficient public spending may not be a problem in the future. Current economic trends would suggest that the US, among others, will be significantly poorer simply due to the corrections now unfolding, to say nothing of factoring in addressing sorely under maintained infrastructure and rising resource costs as certain physical and geo-political limits are met.

The current military spending will have to end at the very least, letting TERRUH win.

[Medic]

Apparently Sikon, unless there's a restructuring of the Republican party, (something always thrown out there it seems but I'm not holding my breath, they fell in love with the Christian Right voting bloc, I think I heard last night it was 37 million voters, and they'll keep THAT big-tent together at all costs) there in essence won't be a party for limited government. Obviously Democrats tend to grow it but Republicans from 2000-2006 were hardly fiscally responsible either, nor however was the 110th Congress "Democratic" in my opinion -- unless Joe Lieberman's a Democrat or even a liberal. In reality he was only ever a Democrat-in-name-only, on paper now an independent and in reality a he is and always has been a conservative, if lower case. The House in the 110th was unequivocally Democratic but the Senate was split down the middle, especially considering chance absences by Senator's on a particular vote or another, either side missing just one person could tip the balance one way or deadlock it.

It would be interesting to know just where all the waste ends up going, but that's a full-time job by all appearances.

[Broomstick]

Sikon, could you say all that in a much more succinct manner, or at least have a summary paragraph at the end?

If trends are left unchecked, the growth in these programs will contribute towards total government spending consuming more than 60% of national GDP in thirty years, rather than the 37% today.

Is that any problem? Many European nations who adhere to social democracy have similar percentages of GDP re-distributed through government spending (and not "consumed" - assholes who coined the usage of "consume" term regarding government spending are truly despicable).

If asked in a different context and answering honestly, most people living in the U.S. would say they didn't notice jack shit for extra benefit from 2008 levels of government spending per person compared to 1992 levels.

Well... except for my extended unemployment benefits (an additional 3 months, or a 150% of what I would normally get in a year like 1992), my soon-to-be-in-effect (3 more days!) government-subsidized health insurance (said program did not exist in 1992), the disaster assistance provided by FEMA to my neighbors who were devastated in this summer's tornado and flood episodes, and the national guard deployment to provide security in our local disaster areas to prevent looting and crime and, oh yes, rescue people from the flooding, no I cant say I saw "jack shit" from increased government spending.

If the "average" person saw little benefit maybe it's because the average person, despite current problems, doesn't need government help. Many government programs are need based so you have to be having problems to get the goods. If you don't qualify, well, bravo for not needing assistance.

In contrast, if it was efficient and effective, they would have noticed major benefit from the $3500/year additional government spending per person, comparable to as if they had that much more private income.

How much of that additional $3,500 per year is eaten by inflation? That's got to be at least some portion of it.

And while, yes, I would have preferred my income to have gone up an additional $3,500 between 1992 and 2008 that's not what happened Between 1992 and 2007 my income increased $35,000, or ten times that increase in government spending despite the "taking". In other words, I never missed the money. Of course, between 2007 and 2008 my income plunged, but then I had need of some of that government money. So I can't complain, really. I don't see a downside here. I like having a social safety net, even one as threadbare as the current US version.

Per person, $3500/year is a substantial portion of total basic living expenses, not quite but almost as much as being able to live in my apartment for free.

Holy fuck,where do you live? My rent is $7k a year and in this area I have one of the lowest rents around.

Did I or almost anyone else really see remotely close to $3500/year benefit? Hell no!

This year? Hell yes! A LOT Of people in my area are seeing the benefit of government spending, it's all that's keeping them afloat from emergency housing to subsidized health care to food stamps. That's above and beyond the roads, sewers, water treatment, police fire, and public education that everyone uses to one degree or another.

Part of the waste has been military misadventures, but by far the vast majority of the spending increase has been domestic. National defense went from in 1992 being $298 billion or about $465 billion after adjusting for inflation to become now $607 billion. However, a change of under a couple hundred billion dollars a year there, even though substantial, is dwarfed by total U.S. government spending going from being $3660 billion (converted to today's dollars) to $5240 billion, a domestic spending increase way beyond that of the wars even if adjusted for population.

Right, heaven forbid we spend any money on our own people!

However, as long as vastly accelerating historical increase in spending beyond already $14000/year per pupil in some states is *assumed* to just be the primary solution despite past results, there's little likelihood of greater focus on politically-incorrect alternatives like more curriculum focus on fundamentals, school vouchers, or forcing unmotivated students to try with direct incentives.

For starters, let's ditch the failed experiment "no child left behind" which is really "all children shit on". School vouchers are vehemently opposed by many because they will wind up using tax money to subsidize religious-based private schools at least in part, which those of us opposed to mixing church and state, AND those of us who are already concerned with PROPER science being taught (I assume from the screed I snipped you are one of those) are deeply, deeply concerned about.

As for motivations - even in my day many local businesses offered discounts to students showing A's or B's on report cards, and such are also in existence where I live now according to some of my friends. Chicago is trying to get a program of that sort started. Granted, many of these are local and/or private efforts, but I'd think that would appeal to you. Well, perhaps for those with good grades in high school the government should offer grants/scholarships towards continued education, and perhaps we could reduce student loans (or perhaps the interest on those loans) for good grades in college. Would that please you?

In the end, a few thousand dollars additional government expenses per person means a few thousand dollars less remaining original private income per person on average, or the equivalent relative to how much one can obtain with the remainder.

If you're so destitute that that increase in spending is truly going to break you, you probably qualify for those programs that government spending funds. Your ignoring the benefits of some of those programs, and the fact that some of it is to cover unanticipated disasters (such as floods). Social support reduces crime because hungry people steal shit in order to eat. If you're standing on the roof of your house in the middle of a flood I don't care how rich you are, you aren't going to be hiring a private helicopter to rescue your ass.

Even Europe doesn't universally have 60+% of GDP as government, less in some countries, but costs are reflected in lower historical growth rates in the most developed countries and in lesser GDP per capita. The E.U. has average GDP per person of $32700 (2007, PPP), compared to the much greater U.S. $45800 of economic output per person. Similar trends are suggested by various other wealth indicators like the number of cars, the number of computers, the portion of the population able to live in more than an apartment

So... the world is a better place if everyone owns more than one car? How so? I can only drive one vehicle at a time. Better one reliable car than yard of broken junk, but going by your statement my sister-in-law - who really does have a half dozen cars on blocks in her back yard, and 3 vehicles per driver in her family - is better off than I am. Well, just forget the fact that she's declared bankruptcy twice and defaulted on loans and owes on much of what she has. Yeah, I'm poor but I OWN my car, free and clear. Number of cars alone is not the full story.

And yes, I could have bought a house... but I'd rather be in an apartment I can afford than in a house facing foreclosure, like all too many of my neighbors. Having a McMansion and three cars doesn't make you wealthy if you're on the brink of losing it all.

Even using restrooms costs money in many locations.

Pay toilets used to be common in the US - they're not a solely European thing.

Part of the fundamental difference of opinion is about whether one wants the U.S. to become like Europe. Would one rather live in the U.S. or in Europe?

Welll... I've been to Europe. It's a rather nice place in many ways. I prefer to live in the US, but that's not for financial reasons. However, I believe I could be quite happy living the rest of my life in Europe, should that ever occur for some reason.

When it comes to technology, innovation, business, and entrepreneurship, if the European Union was the equivalent of the U.S., they should be managing more since their total population is 60% greater.

But that's not the case, to say the least, whether one looks at computer technology, software, medical breakthroughs, movies, or almost anything. Pretend the U.S. didn't exist for the past half-century or rather that it caused and produced no more than Europe. How much would be missing? List any top ten or top one hundred new technologies and advancements of the past few decades, observing which country caused the most by far.

Let's just ignore the fact that for much of the 20th Century Europe was either in devastating wars or recovering from them, which sort of fucked up their ability to put resources into innovation in technology and business. They were doing "unimportant" things like rebuilding entire cities. Not the mention the devastation caused by some countries losing a significant portion of able-bodied working-age men to those wars. In the greater context of history the Europeans have been very innovative. I expect they will be so again. Personally, I welcome the competition in those areas because the US was becoming far to arrogant and cocky about it, and a little slack.

If actually done efficiently, most basic goals wouldn't cost much. Feed the hungry? A basic $100 to $200 a month of food would cost on the order of $1.2 to $2.4 billion annually per million people, such as under 1 part in 5800 of U.S. GDP per million people.

That's $50 a week max ... possible ONLY if said person is willing and able to cook, or is part of a household with a cook. Such basic domestic skills as cooking are, I understand, no longer taught in schools although they should be as it's a pretty fucking basic life skill. Truth is, I'd find it difficult to provide a truly healthy diet for that sum and I DO know how to cook AND I have access to garden space. In a city like Detroit, which has no grocery stores (amazing, but true) eating a healthy and adequate diet for $50/week per person is probably not possible.

$25 a week? I don't think that's possible. Certainly not if, like me, you do manual labor for a living. With winter coming on and me having to work outside part of the time I am definitely going to require a jump in caloric intake just to maintain my weight (I lost 5lbs this month without realizing it), and I'm a 40+ female - the men I work with easily consume twice what I do, and the teen/early 20's boys even more than that.

Shelter the homeless? There are less than a million homeless people in the U.S., so basic secured public shelters for that number (even assuming on the order of $400/month per person) would cost around $5 billion a year, compared to government spending of currently $5200 billion a year.

Where do you get $400/month per person? Your ass?

Nevermind that homeless shelters try to provide more than just a roof - the idea, after all, is to help people get back to independent living. While some are, indeed just a place to sleep out of the weather many offer meals, job assistance, referrals to agencies for various things like medical care and drug treatment, all of which cost money. Also because homeless shelters are dealing with many people with hygiene deficiencies there's a cleaning cost to running these operations that private citizens don't encounter You must be much more scrupulous about disinfecting things, and this must be DAILY. Then there are fleas, lice, bed bugs, scabies, etc. which means everything must be sprayed/treated for those, too. There's a cost to laundering bed linens. It's not uncommon that shelters must hire security, because assaults, theft, and rape DO occur in such shelters when they aren't properly secured which is why many homeless, and homeless women in particular, are resistant to staying in shelters. In other words, there's a cost to running a homeless shelter, even one relying on volunteer labor, that goes beyond just the bricks and mortar.

After all, the Washington D.C. kids receiving about $14000 a year of educational spending, more than any frugal person's total basic living expenses

Where the fuck do you get these numbers?

Living on $14k a year is fucking hard, even if you're frugal. That's not "frugal" that's poverty.

best solved by taking a large additional percentage of my income to make that $20000 or $25000 each annually instead!

Here's the root of the problem: you're a greedy asshole. You got yours, fuck everyone else - because you will never lose your job, suffer a disaster, become disabled, or otherwise suffer misfortune, right? So fuck the poor and the unfortunate, you don't need a goddamned safety net. Just step over those inconvenient corpses in the street. How rude of them to get in your way.

[Darth Wong]

As a Canadian I admit to being a little less educated as to the partisanship of the Wall Street Journal..

When I was a youngster, they opposed the breakup of the Bell telephone monopoly. They've been corporatist drones for a loooong time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Sikon, many of the cost overruns could be eliminated if we stopped allowing right-wing maiming of these programs. Medicare and Medicaid cost so much is because of absurd bureaucratic costs that would be eliminated in a single-payer regime.

[Edi]

With his comparison to Europe's population size, Sikon also conveniently ignores the fact that unlike the US, Europe is NOT monolingual and culturally homogenous, which aside from all the rebuilding and recovering population loss after the war makes becoming a juggernaut like the US fucking hard.

So all of his arguments about how Europe should this or should that are just out and out bullshit, because there are those inconvenient tangible real world differences between the two continents that destroy his argument from comparison.