Why the U.S. may never have a balanced budget again
March 29th, 2012
01:42 PM ET
11 years ago

Why the U.S. may never have a balanced budget again

Washington (CNN) - As Congress prepares to vote on the Republican budget plan submitted by Rep. Paul Ryan, some budget experts believe that he federal government is so far in the red that it may not balance the budget again in our lifetime.

"We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again," said Marc Goldwein, policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "And you know what? We don't have to."


Filed under: Budget • Congress • Republicans
soundoff (37 Responses)
  1. getoverit

    And the Dems will reject the latest Republican proposal. So who's really the "party of no"?

    March 29, 2012 03:11 pm at 3:11 pm |
  2. nick

    Ron Paul could balance the budget in 3 years. And tax hikes aren't the answer. Less government waste is the answer.

    March 29, 2012 03:14 pm at 3:14 pm |
  3. Mikey

    @RealityBites – "For the eight years (2012 through 2019) included in both estimates, the CBO now says costs will run $90 billion more than originally forecast."
    So what you are saying is that for those eight years, the new estimate is about 5% higher than the original estimate. More expensive is more expensive, but that is not a huge difference.

    Everyone has to keep in mind that these are expenses that the public is already bearing in some way or another. The people who will be getting insurance coverage are getting services when they really need them. They are using the most expensive channels, especially emergency rooms. Also, they are not getting preventative care, so they have more expensive health issues in the long run. The hospitals end up bearing those costs and they pass them on to insurance companies and indivuduals. The insurance companies raise premiums when their costs go up. Overall costs are lower when people get prevetative care and advice regarding maintenance of good health.

    This all may be moot, as the SCOTUS may kill this law and we will be back to our existing inefficient system that has 50 – 60 million people uninsured, with lifetime caps, preesiting condition restrictioins for children, 2.5 million young adults thrown out of the system, and no exchanges for individuals and small businesses. That would be a shame. This law should be improved upon, not killed.

    March 29, 2012 03:15 pm at 3:15 pm |
  4. Wire Palladin, S. F.

    Can I at least complain about the supreme court conservatives? My tax money helps pay their salaries and retirement for life. My tax money also pays for their free health care (Cheney's too) for life. In addition to paying for my own health care, I am also burdened to pay for elected republicans health care along the supreme court conservatives health care, and I have no choice. In addition, if they repeal ACA, I will continue to be forced to pay for uninsured republicans who show up at emergency rooms. I am mandated to send my tax dollars and conservative justices benefit from that. I object that tax money for health care goes to people who do not put our national interests ahead of their own political party.

    March 29, 2012 03:15 pm at 3:15 pm |
  5. Jack

    The pusher of Atlas Shrugged babbles again.

    March 29, 2012 03:17 pm at 3:17 pm |
  6. Four and The Door

    ... If Willard Romney has a lower tax rate than I do something is really wrong.
    Are you comparing your income tax to Mitt Romney's Capital Gains tax? There's the problem, rs! You are comparing two completely different types of taxes! See, if you were getting capitals gains your tax rates would be the same. And if Mitt Romney was paying income tax he would probably be paying more than you.

    March 29, 2012 03:22 pm at 3:22 pm |
  7. Fair is Fair

    Hey Wire... gee, that's too bad, huh? I sympathize with you. My tax dollars have to pay for liberal supreme court justices retirement, their healthcare, and democrats who show up at the emergency room uninsured. But ya know, we just can't direct where our tax money is spent, eh?

    March 29, 2012 03:27 pm at 3:27 pm |
  8. Four and The Door

    Ron Paul could balance the budget in 3 years. And tax hikes aren't the answer. Less government waste is the answer.
    Hear ye brother nick! Ron Paul's message about small government is excellent. So instead of continuing to grow the monster with bigger inefficient programs and more bureaucracy like Obamacare and sucking the life out of the economy, why not adjust the government to the existing economy, plan to pay down the debt and give America a fighting chance in the 21st century and beyond? Greedy politicians running up debt need to go. Obama is by far the worst offender.

    Romney 2012!

    March 29, 2012 03:36 pm at 3:36 pm |
  9. Mikey

    @Four – Income is income. I just love it how the very wealthy want to call their types of income something different, so they can justify a lower tax rate than the rest of us. Also, due to a special provision in the tax code, Mitt Romney, and other current and former fund managers get to call their salaries and bonuses "capital gains" and get a 15% rate.

    Romney wants to reduce or eliminate the taxes that people like him, who have hundreds of millions of dollars, pay, such as capital gains and estate taxes. I do not begrudge their income and wealth, just the fact that they want to use their wealth and political power to tilt the playing field farther to the advantage of those who already have huge advantages. It's simply not right.

    March 29, 2012 03:41 pm at 3:41 pm |
  10. Sniffit

    "Are you comparing your income tax to Mitt Romney's Capital Gains tax?"

    Certainly am and should be. His "capital gains" tax is on money he earned by investing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, NOT HIS OWN. THEY took the risks. THEY provided the capital. THEY are the ones who realized a capital gain. Mittens merely made a paycheck/fee off it by essentially advising them how to do it.

    Moreover, there's absolutely no justifiable reason for treating capital agins income differently than any other form of income. NONE. Income is income. All the theoretical ideological blather about "incentivizing" investment by giving investors preferential treatment for their income is COMPLETE BS. Do you really think multi-millionaires will suddenly stop investing and trying to grow their millions just because the return on those investments now gets taxed the same as any other income? I've got news for you: they won't stop. They can't stop. They want more more more more more and I'll tell you something getting to keep 65-70% of your millions in income instead of 85% of your millions in income isn't enough of a difference to have greedy, self-serving millionaires throwing their hands up and deciding that they'll just let their millions lie dormant without growing.

    March 29, 2012 04:04 pm at 4:04 pm |
  11. joyce

    If all the republican stuff is passed and the republicans are elected you will be as disapointed as you were after the tea party crowd made it in 2010.

    March 29, 2012 04:09 pm at 4:09 pm |
  12. Sniffit

    "bigger inefficient programs "

    You mean like Medicare, which runs at between 1.5%-3.0% overhead, as opposed to private insurance companies, which are completely flipping out over the provisions in the ACA that limit them to 20% overhead? Yeah, super inefficient.

    You want to talk about inefficiency? Let's start talking about how "inefficient" it is for private insurers to be paying their top executives 8-figure salaries for finding new and innovative ways to deny their customers the coverage they paid for. You first. Go ahead. Explain to the class why that's not "inefficient."

    March 29, 2012 04:09 pm at 4:09 pm |
1 2