I might be wrong but when the average American has a negative savings rate and the US government continuously increase spending. Maybe we should rethink our spending based on assumed future income, especially when we talk upwards of 500 billion in savings.
show me how the average american could have a negative savings rate. and if you point to depleted 401k plans as the cause, show me how that takes direct consumer intervention to impact. and if you point to 2005 Q3, one quarter does not make a negative trend.
I understand that there will always be some sort of "credit" spending based on assumed income. I'm not arguing black and white no assumed spending any time. My problem is every government project when it comes to money is grossly inaccurate. I would challenge anyone to find one significant government program,project, war, etc...... that was at or less than the initial cost projections? If you can't find one you should ask yourself why would this be any different.
of course there's inaccuracies, government projections don't include a crystal ball. costs change regardless of the project, and regardless of the party who controls the project.
if a program is underfunded more than the projected allocation for the program, the government isn't doing enough. if a project is underfunded, it could be taken a step further. if a war is underfunded, you risk lives.
i would challenge you to justify the completion/end of a program as soon as the last penny from the initial allocation is spent, with no regards to the implications.
and honestly, with a george w bush picture in your signature, i find it incredibly naive that you deride health care spending in the face of massive budget deficits with a low personal savings rate - when... uh oh
|The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (Pub.L. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066, also called Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) is a law of the United States which was enacted in 2003. It produced the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history.|
The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.
One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.
Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." 
hmm, funny how we forget. if there's any chance in hell you can refute the current plan while supporting the medicare reform act, i think we'd all love to hear it.