>>>>So, this means that I will not be able to succeed with my own money because there is at least one poor person who is not succeeding? In other words, the whole ship is doomed to sink because some people fell off the boat?
Not at all. My discussion was addressing WHY CATO FEELS THE NEED TO OBFUSCATE THE REAL COSTS OF THE PLAN AND WHO BENEFITS. To the extent that you think their plan is 'good', you should be disappointed in how they are trying to 'sell' it. Their opponents are going to have a field day with the 'liberties' that CATO has taken with reality. That is what I was criticizing. There are indeed good aspects within their plan, but I think they will be obscured by the debate over their 'salesmanship'.
>>>>Both entitlement and non-entitlement spending is enacted by the government through law. What you mean then, is that entitlements should be off limits to reforms that could be used on other government spending? Entitlements are off limits to common cost savings / adjustments just because they're entitlements? Are the laws governing entitlements unchangeable?
Not at all. But the laws governing entitlements generally carry from year to year. Indeed, that is why they are called 'entitlements'. What you are advocating is to have a knock down, drag out fight every year over each entitlement program, and what benefits need to be cut to meet your magic percentage. Politically impossible. Not going to happen. The Republicans are still smarting over that kind of a debate (decreasing the 'growth' in spending) in a single year and over a single entitlement program (Medicare). The percentage you see as so easy to recover in your 'spreadsheet' is somebody's benefits being cut every year. The beneficiaries of those entitlements will in no way see that as 'savings'. Indeed, to them it will mean reduced income or increased costs.
It is not 'common cost savings / adjustments'. It is a REAL CUT in benefits. It is not cutting 'fraud, waste and abuse'. It is a REAL CUT in benefits. CATO will not get far with that line.
