Social Security and Medicare Cuts Are Coming, Whether Politicians Do It or Not
As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor.
As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor.
Plus: Age verification for social media, a bill to ban cannabis "gatherings," and more...
Plus: a listener question on prohibition and a lightning round on the editors' favorite Super Bowl moments
And increase total health care costs to boot.
Legislators will increasingly argue over how to spend a diminishing discretionary budget while overall spending simultaneously explodes.
In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. In 2035, that ratio will be only 2.3 workers per retiree.
Social Security benefits will be cut automatically in less than a decade unless Congress shores up the program before it hits insolvency. Ignoring that is not a solution.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are still the chief drivers of our future debt. But Republicans aren't touching them.
While some Republicans may have had misguided motivations, a few disrupted McCarthy's campaign in order to enact fiscal restraint. Their colleagues were fine with business as usual.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that future deficits will explode. But there's a way out.
If the midterms favor Republicans, their top priority needs to be the fight against inflation—whether or not they feel like they created the problem.
Wait, are the midterms really about entitlement cuts?
From cronyist subsidies to an unfair tax code, there are several key fixes Congress could make to better serve the public.
Top-notch health care, delivered fast and for low cost, really isn’t on the government's menu.
Under current policies, Social Security and Medicare will consume 85 percent of all federal tax revenue by 2050.
The president's new budget plan calls on Congress to tax wealthy Americans' unrealized capital gains.
We must face the reality that the debt does matter.
The House passed the bill this week with little fanfare and broad bipartisan support.
Assorted observations on yesterday's opinions, what they mean, and what comes next.
By divided votes, the justices entered stayed t the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard and stayed the lower court injunctions against the mandate that Medicare and Medicaid service providers require their employees to get vaccinated.
The Supreme Court has asked for responses to the federal government's stay request.
The Biden Administration is seeking to stay lower court injunctions against the mandate.
The district court's justification for a nationwide injunction was decidedly lacking.
Now that a federal appeals court has weighed in, the CMS mandate may reach One First Street.
Are Medicare's fiscal problems even worse than the headline numbers suggest?
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has adopted a more stringent rule for health care providers than OSHA is imposing on large employers.
New analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows massive deficit increase as a result of spending bill’s health care provisions.
When everything's a priority, nothing is.
"Spending trillions more on new and expanded government programs, when we can't even pay for the essential social programs...is the definition of fiscal insanity."
Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, while Republicans occasionally remember they're against big government spending.
The federal health care program is on track for a trust fund shortfall in just five years. But instead of paying for the program that exists, Democrats want to expand it.
Plus, why is no one talking about the Medicare Trustees' entitlement report?
The health program won't be able to pay all of its bills starting in 2026, according to a new Trustees report.
The Senate just passed a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill—and teed up another $3.5 trillion bill in the process.
The spending proposal is likely to be offset by gimmicks and rosy assumptions.
For many elected Democrats, infrastructure is much more than roads, bridges, dams, and waterways.
The White House chose not to include cost estimates for a number of big-ticket health care policies—while still expressing support for them.
A better prescription would be to get government entirely out of health care.
"Direct primary care is about as close to a free market in health care as you've ever seen in our country," says Dr. Lee Gross.
Senators and state officials are proposing ways to sweep aside nonsensical regulations that place geographic limits on telehealth.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death elevates a familiar health care policy dynamic to the foreground of the election.
Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts says yes, while the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes says no.
Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts says yes, while the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes says no.
The GOP’s decadeslong refusal to offer a compelling health care alternative has given Democrats the political upper hand.
Politicians of both major parties are using COVID-19 to advance their pre-existing policy agendas.
The Massachusetts senator failed to expand her appeal beyond a core group of highly educated upper-middle-class voters.
Medicare for All would cost far, far more than he says.