Washington Post's Robert Samuelson on how to (really) balance the budget

The budget conversation we should be having

"Suppose we increased the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon, from 18.4 cents to 43.4 cents. That would raise $291 billion from 2012 to 2021, estimates the CBO*. Or we could advance the ages for early and full Social Security benefits; one suggestion is to raise them (now 62 and 66) by two months a year until reaching predetermined targets (say, 64 and 70). The CBO reckons the decade’s savings at about $264 billion. How about slowly moving Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67? The savings: $125 billion."

* Higher gas prices would also substantially motivate the public to buy gas-stingy cars, motivating manufacturers to make more of them, hence saving a lot of gasoline, reducing foreign oil imports, reducing our trade gap, and reducing CO2 emissions. Win-win-win-win-win.

"But Obama has no plan to balance the budget — ever. He asserted “every kind of spending [is] on the table.” But every kind of spending is not on the table. He virtually ruled out cutting Social Security, the government’s biggest program (2011 spending: $727 billion). For example, Social Security is excluded from a proposed “trigger” that would automatically reduce spending and raise taxes if certain deficit targets weren’t met. He also put Medicare (2011 spending: $572 billion) largely off-limits."

OK, so Paul Ryan's plans for Medicare are too drastic. But we have to do SOMETHING about entitlements.

Finally:
"Deficit politics are inherently unpopular. One way — maybe the only way — to break today’s deadlock is to alter public opinion so that some government benefits are seen as unnecessary or illegitimate and some taxes are seen as fair burden-sharing. Given better health, longer life expectancy and wealthier elderly, why shouldn’t Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages be raised and means-testing broadened?"

It's all about the baby-boomers getting their act together and making tough choices. I'm a tail-ender boomer, and I know what we need to do. Why can't Congress figure out these simple steps. Politics and pols truly need to GROW some. And we the people need to accept the need for hard choices and not reward the tough citizens with a quick defeat in the next election.

Does that mean I agree with the Tea Party? Are you KIDDING me? Ryan's plan has already been panned as a totally unrealistic approach that caters to much to the political rhetoric of the far right. However, inasmuch that it is broaching the subject of reducing Medicare expenditures, maybe it at least constitutes a realistic starting point.