RE: What "values" created the existing system?

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

Rand:
<<<
transition costs estimated to be about six trillion dollars. 
>>>

Well, 6 trillion dollars in the context of the federal budget
over the next 30 years is not that much money. Really.

I can demonstrate that callousness and arrogance with which
the federal government spends your money. Here are the numbers:

* The federal budget for 1999 is about 1.8T. That's T for trillion.
(It's a very big number).
* Assume that revenues increase each year about 4%. 
* Compounding the growth of the federal budget over the
next 30 years at 4%, gives a total revenue stream of over 100T.
* Compounding the federal budget assuming no growth would give
a total revenue stream of 54T.

The difference between no growth and maximum growth in spending
is 48T. Now the question remains to be asked. If the government
simply chose to spend less than the increase in annual revenues,
it should be easy to find 6T out of a total of 48T. At the same
time, federal spending would still increase each year!

Is it too much to ask your government to restrict its spending
growth by a small percentage before it asks you to pay more
money to fix the system?

<<<
One way of looking at this is to say it is equivalent to doubling the present 
tax for about fifty years.
>>>

Not even close. The current payroll tax brings in about $480B per
year. Over a 30 year timeframe, assuming 4% growth, the total
payroll tax comes to about 46T. 6T is only about 12% more. Doubling
the tax would mean 46T more!

The fact is 6T is real small money when it comes to the federal
budget. We could easily pay for the transition costs of a new
system if there was political will to control spending for the
next 30 years.

Michael