I claim that it is immoral for government to make promises that it does not expect to keep. Today, on the CBO Director’s blog, there is in analysis of a proposal that would satisfy my criteria for morality.

The Roadmap, in the form that CBO analyzed, would result in less federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax revenues than projected under CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario” described in CBO’s June 2009 publication The Long-Term Budget Outlook. Federal spending for Social Security would be slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection period, but the system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline. The budget deficit would peak at 5 percent of GDP in 2034 and then decline. By 2080, the Roadmap would generate a budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP.

How it works:

Traditional retirement benefits [Social Security] would be reduced below those scheduled under current law for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011…

eliminate the income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance…the current tax exclusion for employment-based health insurance would be replaced by a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance…

The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase incrementally from 65 (for people born before 1956), as it is under current law, to 69 years and 6 months for people born in 2022 and later. Starting in 2021, new enrollees would no longer receive coverage through the current program but, instead, would be given a voucher with which to purchase private health insurance…

There is more. The proposals are quite far-reaching. They make the Obama agenda seem tame by comparison. What they illustrate is a set of ideas that would be sufficient to achieve a long-term fiscal outlook that is responsible. One can argue–and many people no doubt would argue–that such proposals are not necessary to achieve fiscal responsibility.

I think that it useful to have the analysis out there, because that shows that it is possible to propose a moral budget. It would be nice if the fiscal policy debate had to work within the perimeter set by only making realistic promises to future government beneficiaries. There would be plenty to argue about within that perimeter, but the arguments would take place within a context that is moral and reality-based.