Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

100% agree with #1 and #2, but setting aside cookie cutter phrases what has changed over the last ~20 or so years?  We had a balanced budget in the 1990's, and low-ish deficits in the 2000's.  So in 2008 we just hit the SPEND button and never looked back?  And yes, I know that entitlements are driving a lot of that, but why did we lose the will to do something about it? 

GHW Bush cared so much that it cost him an election, probably.  Maybe there's my answer. 

I get what you are asking here and I can't really answer but I do want to try and to start with some clarifications.  

It isn't just the last 15-20 years, more like the last 40.  The Social Security Tax was periodically increased from inception up until the early 1980s and it hasn't been raised since.  

Medicare, which is in a bigger hole than SS, hasn't been increased in the same time despite adding the enormous additional expenditure of Rx coverage.  

Up until the early 1980s (ish) there seemed to be some general bipartisan agreement that this needed to be dealt with and at least some attempts were made to deal with it then all of that stopped for no apparent reason.  

No my effort/guess at why:
It wasn't until fairly recently that SS and Medicare became a HUMONGOUS part of the budget.  According to the Treasury, Federal Expenditures (as a portion of total Federal Expenditures) are:

• 21% SS
• 14% Medicare
• 14% Interest
• 13% Health
• 13% Defense
• 11% Income Security
• 5% VA
• 2% Ed, Training, Employment, and Social Services
• 2% Transportation
• 1% Natural Resources and Environment
• 3% Other

Note that for FY 2024 the Federal Government had:

• $4.92T revenue
• $6.75T expenditures
• $1.83T Deficit

The $1.83T deficit represents 37% of revenues or 27% of expenditures.  


One reason it really doesn't get the attention it deserves is that the problem is so big that anything that could actually solve it would be either:

• An enormous tax increase, or
• An enormous spending cut, or
• Some combination of #1 and #2.  

SS and Medicare taxes make up roughly 33.5% of total Federal Revenues so they would need to be DOUBLED to close the gap.  Alternatively, individual income taxes make up ~50% of Federal Revenues so they would need to be increased (the revenue not the rates) by 67% to close the gap.  

You can't even make an appreciable dent in this without either a tax increase that would send ALL Republicans and most Democrats running (and stall the economy) or spending cuts that would send ALL Democrats and most Republicans running (and have issues of it's own).  

SS, Medicare, and Interest together make up ~50% of Federal Spending.  If you aren't cutting those (and you basically can't) then you can't solve this on the expenditure side without practically shutting down the rest of the Federal Government.  


On the Revenue side, I would argue that a tax increase big enough to make an appreciable impact would quickly run into Arthur Laffer's curve and not generate nearly what was hoped for.  

Up until the early 1980s (ish) there seemed to be some general bipartisan agreement that this needed to be dealt with and at least some attempts were made to deal with it then all of that stopped for no apparent reason. 

bipartisan went out the window to never come back

I get what you are asking here and I can't really answer but I do want to try and to start with some clarifications. 

It isn't just the last 15-20 years, more like the last 40.  The Social Security Tax was periodically increased from inception up until the early 1980s and it hasn't been raised since. 

Medicare, which is in a bigger hole than SS, hasn't been increased in the same time despite adding the enormous additional expenditure of Rx coverage. 

Up until the early 1980s (ish) there seemed to be some general bipartisan agreement that this needed to be dealt with and at least some attempts were made to deal with it then all of that stopped for no apparent reason. 

No my effort/guess at why:
It wasn't until fairly recently that SS and Medicare became a HUMONGOUS part of the budget.  According to the Treasury, Federal Expenditures (as a portion of total Federal Expenditures) are:

• 21% SS
• 14% Medicare
• 14% Interest
• 13% Health
• 13% Defense
• 11% Income Security
• 5% VA
• 2% Ed, Training, Employment, and Social Services
• 2% Transportation
• 1% Natural Resources and Environment
• 3% Other

Note that for FY 2024 the Federal Government had:

• $4.92T revenue
• $6.75T expenditures
• $1.83T Deficit

The $1.83T deficit represents 37% of revenues or 27% of expenditures. 


One reason it really doesn't get the attention it deserves is that the problem is so big that anything that could actually solve it would be either:

• An enormous tax increase, or
• An enormous spending cut, or
• Some combination of #1 and #2. 

SS and Medicare taxes make up roughly 33.5% of total Federal Revenues so they would need to be DOUBLED to close the gap.  Alternatively, individual income taxes make up ~50% of Federal Revenues so they would need to be increased (the revenue not the rates) by 67% to close the gap. 

You can't even make an appreciable dent in this without either a tax increase that would send ALL Republicans and most Democrats running (and stall the economy) or spending cuts that would send ALL Democrats and most Republicans running (and have issues of it's own). 

SS, Medicare, and Interest together make up ~50% of Federal Spending.  If you aren't cutting those (and you basically can't) then you can't solve this on the expenditure side without practically shutting down the rest of the Federal Government. 


On the Revenue side, I would argue that a tax increase big enough to make an appreciable impact would quickly run into Arthur Laffer's curve and not generate nearly what was hoped for. 

Here's where I get confused.  We didn't make any changes for ~40+ years, when we should have been making changes all along to stave off what we need to do now.  We could have cut and trimmed, and made modest tax changes along the way, but instead we did absolutely zero or worse than zero we doubled down and made things worse (Medicare RX prescription coverage).  

It's almost kind of laughable that Bush Sr. did raise taxes back in the day and some of that is what cost him the election.  Obviously other politicians were able to raise taxes, indeed at the state level they raise taxes all the time.  California taxes themselves silly and yet they keep voting for more of the same.  I can show you state after state where the populace is OK with raising taxes and adding new taxes.  
Mind you, I'm not advocating any increased or new taxes at all.  I think we could trim enough from the budget to not need much, but what I'm especially not in favor is is doing nothing and allowing the problem to get worse.  

There is no practicable window now to change this much at all.  We're locked into a trajectory.

Here's where I get confused.  We didn't make any changes for ~40+ years, when we should have been making changes all along to stave off what we need to do now.  We could have cut and trimmed, and made modest tax changes along the way, but instead we did absolutely zero or worse than zero we doubled down and made things worse (Medicare RX prescription coverage). 

If you look at the expenditure breakdown, SS is 21% and Medicare is 14% of Federal Expenditures.  From that the ratio is obviously that Medicare costs roughly 2/3 of what SS costs but here are the taxes:
Social Security:

• 6.2% Employer
• 6.2% Employee
• 12.4% Total (this is also the self-employed rate)

Medicare:

• 1.45% Employer
• 1.45% Employee
• 2.90% Total (this is also the self-employed rate)

2.90% is 23.4% of 12.4% so on the tax side Medicare is less than a quarter but on the expenditure side it is two-thirds.  Ie, without spending cuts Medicare taxes need to be roughly tripled just to get it to where Medicare is "only" falling behind at the same rate as SS.  

Total for the two programs:

• 6.65% Employer
• 6.65% Employee
• 15.30% Total (this is also the self-employed rate)

Total just to get Medicare to "only" falling behind at the same rate as SS:

• 10.55% Employer (6.2% SS + 4.35% Medicare)
• 10.55% Employee (same)
• 21.10% Total (this would be the self-employed rate)

That would be a HUMONGOUS tax increase and it would NOT fix the problem, it would only make it less bad.  

Why don't "the politicians" fix it?  Because a candidate who advocated tripling the Medicare tax wouldn't be a "politician" they'd only be a candidate.  

The Medicare Rx coverage was WILDLY popular with "we the people".  To his credit, when they passed it Senator John McCain made the argument that it was ludicrous to enact such an enormous increase in the costs of the program when the program was ALREADY in a massive hole without addressing the fiscal issue.  He was right, it was ludicrous but it was also wildly popular so they passed it and didn't bother to address the fiscal disaster.  

But let's imagine someone like, say, me, became President and worked hard to cut say Defense spending.  Can you imagine the uproar?  I don't mean cut it "to the bone", but cut it say 25%.  That would mean I'm leaving us open to ... you know, invasion, ruin, weakness, being pushed around, mayhem, etc.

And unfortunately 25% would both not help all that much with the current deficit and probably stunt the economy, which depends on the "military industrial simplicity".

I think there would be, a lot, from certain quarters.  You might recall when Carter suggested we move 2nd ID our of Korea, and when Obama mused about moving 2nd MarDiv out of Okinawa (to Guam, presuming it didn't tip over).  Then we have strategic bases in places like Diego Garcia (technical British I think), Qatar, Germany, Australia, etc.  I agree it would make a dent to move some of these home, and it's quite expensive.

Part of the issue, the main part, is our various overseas commitments (like NATO and others).  We'd have to abrogate most of those commitments, which would be very controversial.  And we plausibly might need more aircraft carriers (depending).  I personally would like a complete review of all our commitments by critical clear thinking people, if any exist.