not at all, because it does not measure the fall relative to what the rise would otherwise have been. an example:Since GDP at any given point in time is the same across all of these different programs, it shouldn't matter whether it's measured in terms of percentage of GDP or actual dollars. The results should be identical in either case.
Program A is currently 2% of GDP. It is slated to grow to 7% of GDP in 20 years, and then fall back to 5% 20 years after that.
Program B is currently 1.5% of GDP. It is slated to grow to 3% of GDP in 20 years, and 5% of GDP 20 years after that.
Cuts are enacted which reduce Program A to 4% of GDP in 20 years, and 3.5% of GDP 20 years after that. Klein would measure this as a 1.5% cut.
Program B is cut to reduce it to 3.5% of GDP in 20 years, and maintain it at that level indefinitely. Klein would measure that as a 1.5% cut.
both cuts are measured as equal, despite the fact that more actual money was cut out of Program A.
Medicare spikes much higher over the next 25 years - which is why choosing 2050 (after the boomers have largely died off) isn't an accurate measure of relative cuts.
see aboveThis is incorrect, mathematically
no, I am complaining that cherry picking dates to make sure that you don't measure the lions' share of Medicare savings is deliberately cherry picking dates in order to avoid counting the lions' share of Medicare savings. I could just as easily prove that you never existed, so long as I was allowed to only include the dates of a year before your birth and a year after your death.You complained that a 10-year time frame wasn't long enough, now you're complaining that a 40-year time frame is too long.
I don't want a time frame. I want a total savings by program.What time frame *do* you want?
ah yes. because the Massachussetts model (which leftists are so keen to point out was the basis for Obamacare) demonstrates that this kind of structure is likely to bring down private healthcare costs? or bring down costs at all? what an interesting notion. and even if they did (which the evidence thus far strongly demonstrates it will not), private savings will improve the governments' deficit?The Affordable Care Act will cost the government quite a bit, yes. Most of which is offset by savings on private health care
two thirds of which are merely overturning Obamacare.Correct; the CBPP itemizes the programs that they are talking about:
$2.4 trillion from Medicaid and other low-income health care programs
this estimate comes from taking the savings that the federal government see's from turning it into a Block Grant and assumes that the States simply 100% drop the burden. Evil, evil state governments.$134 billion from SNAP (i.e. food stamps)
Block Granting Federal programs and leaving the States to figure out solutions that best fit their own populaces is simply smart governance. Currently the incentive structures are deeply flawed, and encourage abuse of the programs by State politicians.
actually if you read your own source, you will note that they have merely assumed that these are low-income cuts. nice.$463 billion in other mandatory programs for low-income people
$291 billion in discretionary programs for low-income people
and I am still waiting for one of you to square for me how Obama's Medicare cuts actually cut more for poor seniors, and start the cuts 8 years earlier for current retirees who have had no chance to plan.