Rep. Sanford: Request for projected debt levels

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

Rep. Mark Sanford wrote:
>
> How would this work?  Let's look at last year.  In 1998, Social
> Security ran a $100 billion surplus.  Washington spent $30 billion,
> and the remaining $70 billion paid part of the existing federal
> debt.  The government didn't use one cent for reform.
>
> Under this approach, however, Social Security's $100 billion surplus
> would have been rebated back to Americans' PRA's.  Every worker
> would have had about one-quarter of what he paid in FICA taxes
> returned to him by the government.
>
Since you are diverting money that would have paid down the public debt
(the gross federal debt is projected to keep growing through 2004), it
would seem that your plan will cause the debt to be higher than it would
be under current law.  This seems to be the case with every plan that
proposes not to reform the benefit structure in any way.  Is this, in
fact, the case for your plan?

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

Source: U.S. Budget, FY 2000; Table 12-2, Summary Table S-14

Reed Davis