> Ken wrote: > In other words: > > We need to overall Social Security. Oh wait isn't that the same story that's > been
Mr. Greenspan has been very wobbly about SS - some days he likes Mr. Bush's proposals and other he doesn't. He seems to be torn between his inclination for Republicans and his love of fiscal conservativism. In any event, here's what he had to say on that: His comments came in response to a question on how Congress can design a set of budget rules to control mandatory entitlement spending, such as Medicare and Social Security, which comprises about 59% of the U.S. budget. Mr. Greenspan said such a mechanism isn't needed for Social Security, since the program's spending forecasts are "very well defined." The situation is different for Medicare and Medicaid, whose spending forecasts are much less predictable. "If you are going to restrain it to some level which the economy can afford, of necessity it means that there will be less medical care available than is projected under current law," Mr. Greenspan said. He didn't suggest the level of such a cut, but put the decision in Congress' court. "It's very difficult to know what that figure is," Mr. Greenspan said "This is what lawmaking is all about." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154882 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
