Senator Gregg: Request for projected debt levels

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

Senator Judd Gregg wrote:
>
>   In sum, I agree that reform must be bipartisan, and reflect compromise on
> all sides.  Our proposal is the end result of months of such talks between
> legislators on both sides of the aisle who have been willing to forthrightly
> address the trade-offs that must be made.  Though we are not yet a majority,
> I do believe that an increasing number out in the press and the public are
> "getting it" that the problem won't simply go away by doing, effectively,
> nothing.  Although there is not a Social Security expert writing for every
> newspaper, many journalists are starting to notice that some plans don't
> seem to make any difficult choices at all, whereas others spell them out,
> and that there must be fiscal consequences of taking either position.
> As they ask more questions about the costs of each approach, these
> consequences gradually become better understood.
>
I'm very interested in your plan and impressed with the bipartisan support
it has gained from senators who have a great deal of credibility on the
subject.  I wish you success in crafting a bipartisan plan that will solve
Social Security's problems.

I agree that there are fiscal consequences to all plans, including those
that appear to make no difficult choices.  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, if they
exist.  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

Source: U.S. Budget, FY 2000; Table 12-2, Summary Table S-14
        (see http://people.delphi.com/rd100/ssreform.html )

Reed Davis