Republican Study Group Proposals

Text here.

Includes raising the retirement age for Social Security an indeterminate amount (The Hill). See expenditure reduction in the table below:

Source: RSC (2024).

Not sure I understand where the 10 year cumulative $1.5 trillion outlay reduction is coming from. Here’s the relevant paragraph (from page 108):

For instance, the RSC Budget would make modest changes to the primary insurance amount (PIA) benefit formula for individuals who are not near retirement and earn more than the wealthiest PIA benefit factor. It would also make modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy. Finally, for these individuals, it would limit and phase out auxiliary benefits for high income earners.384 Again, the RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement. Additionally, the RSC Budget would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform,385 pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages,386 work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work,387 and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth.388

I think this is akin to a magic asterisk, wherein supply side reforms induce massive wage growth providing lots of additional revenue, so a “dynamic scoring” on steroids (but not specificually enumerated in any spreadsheet I see…)

All is this is unsurprising. Consider alternatives using a CRFB interactive here.

On other fronts, see NBC News.


Best paragraph in the document:

Eliminate all woke offices or officers in HHS

The Department of Health and Human Services has multiple offices or officers with titles and responsibilities relating to diversity, climate, equity, and LGBTQ-related activities. Examples include HHS Health Disparities Council and the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity (OCCHE). This RSC Budget would propose eliminating woke, divisive positions and offices within HHS.

8 thoughts on “Republican Study Group Proposals

  1. Macroduck

    This is the standard approach from the Pete Peterson crowd, in terms of the age of those whose benefits would be cut. Those who are most sensitive and most likely to vote – those in retirement and near retirement – are spared. Everyone who has other priorities, like schools and jobs and the environment and Russia invading sovereign countries, becomes a target.

  2. Moses Herzog

    Republican platform: Cut and or abolish Social Security and praise Hitler.

    Sounds like a winner. I assume Blacks, Hispanics, and women will vote for him in droves. It’s how you earn respect if you feel you’re downtrodden. Open your mouth big and wide when the Choo Choo train spoon loaded with feces goes zooming to your mouth—NOW you’re a VIP!!!!!

    Thanks Hillary!!!!

  3. James

    Hello all those GOP voters under 60 – Republicans will force you to work like a mule in traces until you fall over dead in a ditch. But maybe you live in a red state and your GOP political leaders have already convinced you that you don’t need healthcare. That’s the Ron DeSantis/GOP solution
    Also all those people trying to buy a retirement home in Florida and Louisiana but can’t because they can not get home owners insurance should be in an uproar about the GOP’s denial of climate change –
    Or maybe Trump will solve the problem after he gets a $500 million bribe from Russia?
    Also Menzie – not getting much play in the media – but yes – WI Senator Ron “Russian Rubles” Johnson did do Putin’s bidding
    Meanwhile Biden admin/Dems are doing things to help solve the problem

  4. Steven Kopits

    This is not a crazy budget, but it just shows how far out on a limb US fiscal policy is. The RSC projection represents about a 20% reduction in federal outlays compared to the baseline. That’s a lot. And for those who think defense is spared, note that is declines from a miserable 3.3% of GDP in 2025 (the lowest since before WWII) to a European-level 2.4% of GDP in 2033 (or is it 2034?). I’d also add that revenues grow compared to baseline. So it’s a higher tax, lower spend budget, and by a significant amount.

    I think the plan shows a country facing a major fiscal meltdown somewhere in the next decade, and the elderly in particular will not be spared, regardless of who is in power.

    I’d add that the labelling is pretty slopping. No figures numbers, years not aligning on some tables, and as on the graph above, an incorrect label in cell A1 (ie, the table is not in percent of GDP, but rather in nominal dollars).

      1. Steven Kopits

        While this is true, the table is clearly mislabeled. Cell A1, if it is filled at all, should read “Fiscal Budget Category” or something to that effect.

        This tells me, as someone who has worked on or supervised a great many reports with tables in them, that this is the work of relatively junior staff without appropriate oversight by an experienced senior manager. It begs the credibility of the report as a result.

        Having said that, I think it is a worthwhile exercise and highlights some critical issues. I have felt for some time that seniors were going to end up in a vice heading into 2040, and the numbers bear that out. Again, we are rewinding the clock back towards 1950 in terms of population, and I think problems since considered ‘solved’, like Soc Sec and Medicare, will be revisited as a dwindling stock of working age people facing an increasingly large, increasingly service-intensive senior cohort (ie, your and my generation) in a low GDP growth environment overall. One can quibble with the various projections and specific cuts per category, but I think the overall message is the same: unless the US takes on historically unsustainable debt levels, the budget will have to be balanced with reductions in social programs, and primarily those aimed at retirees.

Comments are closed.