Greenspan. He's right, but sometimes you just can't tell the truth.

Greenspan urges SS cuts No, not the Waffen SS, Social Security.

Here's a bit of Mr. Greenspan with some context:

In his testimony before the Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the 77 million members of the baby boom generation start becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.

He said projections show the country will go from having just over three workers supporting each retiree to 2.25 workers for every retiree by 2025.

"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources - demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."

He said taking action now would mean that people still working would have time to adjust their retirement savings plans to deal with smaller Social Security benefits.

Greenspan said at some point the country needed to face the fact that the government has promised more in entitlement benefits than it can afford to pay. He said the problem was even worse for Medicare because it was impossible to estimate what types of costly medical advances will be available in coming years.

He did not mention that Congress late last year, at Bush's urging, adopted a new prescription drug benefit as part of a Medicare overhaul now estimated to cost $540 billion over the next decade.

"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."

While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four decades, Greenspan warned that financial markets will begin pushing long-term rates higher if investors do not see progress in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once baby boomers begin retiring.

As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts or spending increases to be paid for either by spending cuts in other areas or increases in other taxes. Bush has called for the rules to cover only spending increases, not tax cuts.

I have argued this position many times. My solution in part is take away from the DoD..I mean how does one spend $1.1 billion a day? Certainly you could shrink that by two thirds. That frees up ~ $245 billion/year. Now, I'm sure someone will call me weak on defense. Fine. You then have to show me what threat exists in the world today that requires doling out that kinda loot to the DoD. China is certain to be a huge defense player very soon. But it is also in China's best interests to keep Americans happy and consuming.

There are tens of billions of dollars in discretionary spending' that should be reined in before seniors have to eat the excesses of Bush's lower tax, higher spending fiscal policy. Here's a bit from the WaPo article:

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.

The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Serial Reline Killer). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

I am totally against deficit spending. These Republicans are far worse at managing the nation's money, than the Clinton White House. A 17% increase in the DoD's budget..in one year? Come on. Let's show some responsibility. I don't think that Joe Six-Pack knows where his dollars are going.

If Bush was forthright, and said that we need to increase spendng on X, and we're funding it via Y, people could grasp that. But Bush has spent X, and there is no plan to pay for it.

I thought Clinton was marginal as a agent to handle the fiscal affairs of state. I still believe so. But Clinton actually had a veto pen. There is no such evidence that Bush has been given such an implement.

I'm still hopeful that W will find that darn thing, and slice some of the fat of his pork laden budgets.