Expensive to contain? Treasury says as much.
(note the bottom link: "White House Fact Sheet: The Largest Tax Increase in History Is Looming". The contents are doom and gloom should Congress fail to renew all Bush tax cuts. The economics are staggering and time's a-wastin.
I hope Congress steps up with legislation which retains the most socially progressive components and allows the special interests favored cuts to sail away in the sunset. That might please the grandkids.

"I hope Congress steps up with legislation which retains the most socially progressive components..."

Those are the most expensive elements of the budget. That and paying the interest on our $9.4 trillion debt.

If anything, rampant social programs are what got us into this mess in the first place.

We've spent $600 billion on Iraq, Afganastan and the war on terror, but we've added $2 trillion to the debt. That extra $1.4 trillion went to social programs we can't afford.

Don't forget this factoid: Just a few decades out, if nothing changes, the country will need nearly every tax dollar it collects to pay for Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt.

"That extra $1.4 trillion went to social programs we can't afford."

Yes like Social Security and Medicare. I say let those old folks die. Oh wait a minute, I'll be one of them in about seven more years.

Uh. Never mind. :-)

Greg C

"Yes like Social Security and Medicare..."

Partially correct. Social security has it's own fund and is not part of the general fund (although SS will blow up sooner than later).

HHS breakdown is as follows:

Medicare: 55%
Medicaid: 29%
Discretionary Programs 10%
Children's programs: 3%

If we decide to provide free health care to everyone, Iraq's debt is going to look like tiddly-winks. And yes, your grandkids will be paying for it.

Chris Mullen: "We've spent $600 billion on Iraq, Afganastan and the war on terror, but we've added $2 trillion to the debt. That extra $1.4 trillion went to social programs we can't afford."

I haven't checked your numbers, but other than the new drug program, there were no major new social programs during the $2 trillion Bush debt binge. Cutting taxes below what is necessary to pay for known programs and then afterwards claiming unafforabililty is disingenuous, at best.

The programs were there before the tax cuts, and were being paid for under Clinton. Tax cutters should have the intellectual honesty to impose program cuts along with their tax cuts, rather than pleading Federal poverty in the face of known program costs. Let the voters know what programs need to end to pay for tax cuts, otherwise it's a game of fiscal smoke & mirrors being played at the expense of unrepresented future taxpayers.

Greater inflation seems to be the likely outcome and a more brazen speculator bent the next time around. Some of the bankers in this country should not get off the hook as the Federal Reserve (Fed) try's to keep the proverbial toilet from overflowing.

At a certain point on down the road, the Fed will have to fight inflation and let the economy sink ala 1980-1982. Hopefully, I'm wrong and inflation subsides.