Request for Projected Debt Levels under Nadler Plan

[Reed Davis <rdavis2@ix.netcom.com>]

Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
>
> "Like Rep Nadler, I don't support benefit cuts.  The workers of this
> great republic have done more than their share to create the
> wealth on which this society has been built.  The tiny portion
> of that wealth which they now get back in the form of
> Social Security should not be cut in any way, shape or form."
>
> I agree with Mr. Ballard.
>
Is it a benefit cut to work an extra year to help pay for a three-year
longer life-expectancy?  Is it a benefit cut to receive slightly lower
payments because you and your peers raised fewer children, resulting in
fewer taxpayers to support your retirement?  Or might it just be a
responsible way of dealing with reality?
>
> If H.R. 1043 were enacted, general fund revenues would be transferred to the
> Social Security Trust Fund over the next fifteen years.  These funds could
> then be used to reduce the current publicly held debt and reduce future
> interest payments.  The money that would have been spent in the future on
> interest, would now be available to redeem the bonds held by the Social
> Security Trust Fund.  These funds would not be used for other spending or
> tax cuts, because the Trust Fund would have the initial claim on these funds
> due to the initial transfer from general revenues to the Trust Fund.  If we
> simply paid down the debt by this amount, the same amount of money would be
> available to fund Social Security in theory, but Social Security would not
> have the same claim to the money.
>
So the purpose is simply to force future taxpayers to dedicate an increasing
percentage of their tax revenues to Social Security.  The same thing could
have been accomplished by simply writing Social Security a postdated check
to be honored by future taxpayers.  This would have been too obvious,
however.  Many people would have rightfully questioned whether we have the
right to set future tax policy, giving those who are to pay the taxes
little or no say in the matter.

Since you propose to implement Clinton's proposal to transfer 62 percent
of the projected budget surplus to Social Security, I assume that your bill
will result in a similar increase in the debt.  Following are the projected
levels of debt under current law and the Clinton Plan.  I would appreciate
it if you could provide the projected debt levels under your plan, for 2004
and/or later.  Thank you.

Projected debt in    Gross   Gov't  Public
2004 ($billions)      Debt    Debt    Debt
------------------  ------  ------  ------
Under current law   5874.4  2947.9  2926.4
Under Clinton Plan  6776.0  3486.3  3289.6

Reed Davis