OECD Says Healthcare, Social Spending Must Be Cut
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
With the Democrats in Congress forced to raise the debt ceiling further timely news about costly social spending and the problems it brings:
Spending on health, education and other social programmes will almost inevitably have to be cut as countries deal with the high levels of debt incurred in the financial crisis and recession, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said on Thursday.
Pointing to evidence from Canada, some of the Nordic countries and others that have had to make big adjustments to tax and spending in the past, the OECD said it was easier to build public support for radical, rapid change than for a long period of austerity to balance the books.
The market-based public sector reforms of the past 20 years, which had included for example more outsourcing and more division between the purchasers and providers of public services in an attempt to raise productivity and efficiency, needed to accelerate, the OECD said
It warned, however, that “the size, scale and speed of government responses to the economic crisis have increased the risks and opportunities for waste, fraud and corruption”. That made strong “integrity frameworks”, from conflict of interest policies to ethics codes, crucial.
This as Obama and the Democrats seek to saddle future generations of Americans with higher taxes, increased government spending, and the goal of a single payer healthcare system. Even Obama admits his Obamakare won’t cover everybody.
What is needed are tax cuts to encourage investment, growth, and hiring combined with dramatic cuts in costly social programs as well as a solid energy policy combining drilling and nuclear power.
But those things make too much sense to happen.
Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.
2:24 PM
So I suppose the Democrats forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend money to unqualified buyers did nothing to make the financial system unstable?
I know you tackled the Reagan topic on your blog but there is plenty of economic data to suggest you are not entirely correct in your summation… I just haven’t had the time to organize together.
10:20 PM
The tax cuts on the rich certainly helped—-the rich. We still had a tanking economy and those of us not-so-rich do not get the loopholes of the wealthy. But I can tell you, my hand shakes every time I write that check before April 15th. You want tax cuts; I want loopholes.
.-= askcherlock´s last blog ..FILL IN THE BLANKS… =-.
11:07 PM
The loopholes are there… you just need to be creative enough to get them!
7:28 AM
Hmmm, wasn’t it creative financing that got us into the financial quagmire? I realize you are talking about taxes and not finances, but aren’t there parallel lines?
.-= askcherlock´s last blog ..FILL IN THE BLANKS… =-.
5:30 PM
I guess you’re right. The rich are such evil people. There will always be problems with theoretically applied economic models. Then we have the macro vs. micro economic quantifiers that are utilized as alleged tools to forecast the entire system. But people want a face to put with the devil and disregard everything else. Who is actually to blame?
.-= theLibertyPen´s last blog ..Blog Interview: Bellator Pro Libertas =-.
8:26 PM
First to address the economic crisis concerns by the above posters, I am a member of the generation that is going to be saddled with the costs incurred by this new administration. There is nothing more infuriating than this current administration spending money like there’s no tomorrow, and also extending the blame onto those who it does not belong to. Word to the wise, “tax cuts for the rich” were actually only about 2% of the already 35% that the “rich” pay every year. And those “rich” people, some of whom are making $200,000 per year, make up only about 10% of the population, and they pay roughly 90% of the taxes. The rich are not entirely to blame for this economic crisis. What happened to those people who bought houses they could not afford? What about those who borrowed money they knew they could not take back? There is not one group to blame and there should not be one group of people deciding the outcome. Onto the topic of this article, which many posters seem to have ignored, throwing money at the problem, particularly in this healthcare debate will do nothing. We need to sit and determine what the best course of action for everyone is. This is not a partisan issue, the Democrats are making it one by trying to pass a polarizing bill. There is not a lot of money to play with, and despite the fact we need a new healthcare plan, we cannot just buy everything for everyone. Social Spending and Healthcare need to be either cut or well thought out, otherwise our country will sink itself into a deficit even worse than the current situation. Then you will leave my generation to pick up the pieces.
10:26 AM
Thanks for your comment. There is actually negative money to play with but that’s why Democrats need to pass Cap and Trade so they can create a source to pay for it.
8:47 PM
Excellent reply Harrison, people often fail to recognize the corollaries.
.-= theLibertyPen´s last blog ..Blog Interview: Bellator Pro Libertas =-.
9:45 PM
Thank you again!