I gave my daughter a tip on being a media critic: “If you see a newspaper article with the words ‘Social Security’ in the title,” I told her, “it’s probably bad.”
Sure enough, the article we were looking at—”Fixing Social Security,” by Washington Post columnist Allan Sloan (4/29/12)—was pretty terrible.
Sloan’s argument is that cuts in Social Security benefits are “inevitable” because of “projections that Social Security’s cash expenses will exceed its cash income as far as the eye can see.” Note the important qualifier: “cash income.” That means excluding Social Security’s investment income. Including that income, Social Security is in the black for the next 21 years, according to the Social Security Trustees’ projections.
Why exclude that investment income? Sloan explains:
We will skip all that stuff about the Social Security trust fund (which has accounting and political significance but no economic significance) and go straight to the number that matters.
To wit: Last year, the Treasury had to borrow $160 billion to give to Social Security so that its checks (okay, its electronic deposits) wouldn’t bounce.
Let’s not skip the part about the Social Security trust fund—it’s important. It’s got $2.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds in it—I’d say that’s rather significant, economically speaking.
Why does the Social Security trust fund have so many Treasury bonds? Because back in the 1980s, the federal government decided to “save” Social Security by raising the payroll tax (and cutting benefits as well). The idea was that Social Security would take in more than it needed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, loan that money to the Treasury, and then in the mid-21st century, the Treasury would pay it back, thus helping to pay for the Baby Boomers’ retirement.
The loaning money to Treasury part worked as planned. Now that it’s time for the paying back part—suddenly the trust fund has “no economic significance.”
Look at the word game Sloan’s playing: “The Treasury had to borrow $160 billion to give to Social Security….” Paying one’s debts isn’t a gift—it’s a legal requirement.
It’s true that Congress could rewrite the laws so that Social Security would forgive those debts—but why should it do that? It would implicate Congress in the grandest of all larcenies—diverting money from the paychecks of working Americans with a promise that it will be used to help pay for their retirements, and then refusing to make good on that promise on the grounds that it has “no economic significance.”
Of course, if Social Security were funded with no income cap, there’d be no “crisis”, manufactured or not.
But beyond that, basing the program on the concept of “insurance”, rather than “assurance” (as in equitable taxation to take truly adequate care of older, disabled and other folks who now qualify for SS, and the whole pay in part is 86ed), was the Roosevelt administration’s attempt to sidestep a “socialistic” solution, and that basis needs to be consigned to the “dustbin of history”, to coin a phrase.
Why did the wapost print these lies? Their right wing editor demands it! Their is no crisis in Social Security! This is a solvent insurance plan that treasury is obligated to pay it’s bonds to. Play this game and expect angry voters!
When it’s time to redeem those Treasury bonds, where is the money going to come from? Treasury doesn’t have it.
Of course, for the Treasury to borrow $160 billion to “give” to SS, it had to issue Treasury bonds, which will also be paid back eventually. No one at the Post would suggest we don’t honor those bonds. It seems the only bonds they are will to not honor are those held by SS.
On the bright side, if the $2.5 trillion in bonds are insignificant and don’t have to be honored, the defict just dropped considerably.
“When it’s time to redeem those Treasury bonds, where is the money going to come from? Treasury doesn’t have it.”
To “Vanya”: Really? Treasury can’t pay on the bonds it sells? That would be quite a shock to all those Wall Street bondholders who came-a-runnin’ to buy them after the 2007-2008 financial crash. Can you name a single bondholder who complained that her Treasury bonds were worthless? Do you know anyone whose bonds “came due” but is now using them as wallpaper? Didn’t you ever wonder where institutional bond traders get their ability to impact domestic policy? How could they if Treasury was selling worthless paper — and get away with it to boot, unless one were to believe that Treasury was involved in a global Ponzi-type scheme, suckering the whole of the Earth’s financial markets.
The U. S. Treasury ALWAYS pays on it bonds. That is why they are so valuable — and so highly prized — as commodities on both the domestic and international markets, and why they remain so popular with Wall Street and foreign countries — including China.
The constant barrage of lies and deceptive omissions do not fool we “elderly inconsequentials” for one moment. Keep up the lies and you will continue to lose our confidence and our monies and our votes for those of you are pushing ugly rags of purported newspapers and those of you who are still in elective office. I am taking the facts as I know and understand them to a meeting being sponsored by a Calif. chapter of AARP and see what kind of lies they try to tell the audience of seniors at their “community conversation” with us. So glad I am 78 and don’t have to live among the liars for another 50 years. ugly – what my country has become.
Countries, including our, go through phases. The one we are in right now is awful, but it is up to us to pull us up, and we can do it. I am ashamed of my country right now, that’s true, and never thought I would live to see this rot boil up out of the dark of apathy. But even though I am of the same age as Sheila, I have children and grandchildren who will work to bring a better day in the future. I wrote the poem below with that in mind:
THIS MORNING
the wind spoke through the trees
reminding us of the great wind
sweeping around the world —
the cries of pain and joy
rising out of our earth;
and it says there are
changes happening.
We walk on the edge of endings.
This is a good day to fly a kite;
the lovely colors of flying
tracing across the blue sky
tugging our souls
that are held by the power
we know of being here.
It takes courage to look at the terror
and destruction caused
by mankind’s carelessness and greed.
We rise out of the despair
of these visions
like the kites of our souls
held firmly in the understanding of women
who face the ordinary cycle
of life and death.
We trust the determination
of our young to find answers
and work hard for peace.
Justice rises out of a poem for mercy
using words sung in community:
LOVE IS THE ANSWER.
LOVE IS THE ONLY ANSWER,
EVEN WHEN
IT IS THE HARDEST THING TO DO.
Elizabeth Barger 2011 from the soon to be published UNDER MY HEART.
Agreed, Sheila. “Ugly” is what this country has become. However, all of us need to understand that funding for any program that helps ordinary Americans is often in “jeopardy.” War isn’t in jeopardy or the biggest military budget on the planet, for example, but anything that works for the little people is often in jeopardy. These are what we call, having “no economic significance.”
Elizabeth, I posted my comment to Sheila before I read yours. I am being a realist. Our choice in this upcoming election is between a crazy Republican Party, full of ideologues, hatred, and bigots and a Democratic Party that talks the talk of progressives but governs, too often, like corporatists. How does this country function to our advantage with another four years of this?
There is a bit of confusion engendered by using the simple term “Treasury Bonds” in this discussion. The bonds held by the SS Trust Fund are NOT marketable bonds as are those bought on the open market. They are Special Issue bonds – in effect an IOU from one part of the Government (the U.S. Treasury) to another (the SSA.) All of this borrowing from the SS Trust Fund began under the Great Prevaricator, R. Reagan, to help pay for the inordinate and unnecessary build-up of the Department of Defense (the world’s greatest misnomer because it is still the Department of [now endless] War ) WITHOUT raising income taxes, and has been continued ever since by so-called Democrats and misnamed Republicans — it’s one of the few areas of agreement between what are in effect two wings of the Corporate Party.
Allan Sloan is a scoundrel who has for years been trying to hoodwink citizens into not demanding the repayment of the SS trust funds. For example, in the Feb. 14, 2005 issue of Newsweek, as their Wall Street editor, he wrote on page 43:
“. . . the fund’s irrelevant folks. It’s an accounting entry, not real money. How the Democrats can cling to the trust fund with a straight face is beyond me.”
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-128246806.html
The SS trust fund surplus was used to justify Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Sloan and others are spinning this idea to bilk the poor and middle classes out of demanding the trust fund be paid back. We are in a battle for the awareness of the American people. We can’t have everything (ie: low taxes on the rich and corporations, military empire, and the social spending we wish). We as a people have to make choices and demand change. If we make too many of the wrong choices for too long we will loose a lot.
I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY LOST IM HOPING FOR A BETTER OUT COME I TRY TO BELIEVE OBAMA CAN DO SOME THING BUT IM RUNNING OUT OF HOPE HE HASNT DONE A THING YET LETS HOPE ALL PEOPLES OF THE WORLD CAN UNITE IN ONE THOUGHT ONLY PEACE AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ITS COMING OR OUR END IS NEAR
Angry, disgusted, violent elderly may have greater significance.
The shocking thing is that WaPo would print something that said T-Bills have no economic significance. Apparently their new editorial policy is that the US government cannot be trusted to pay its bills and therefore must run on a cash and carry basis.
I have this sinking feeling that Romney is going to win as we progressive have no candidate representing us since Obama abandoned most of his 2004 promises and what we assumed were his principles long ago. Will Romney and his Congress end SS? Perhaps the country needs to experience an end before a new beginning. Old Europe has politcally fallen and risen, fallen and risen and now seems to be falling again. Perhaps out turn has come.
Gordon dont sink too low.
I think Mitt will win and make quick changes that will see us up and running again.Paying our bills, and funding our social programs/safety net.All economic indicators will rise.This classic liberal negativism ,defeatism,and gloom(as seen by every member on this story)will give way to confidence.Remember that word?It stems from the individual.Its opposite is hoping that the government will care for all of us from cradle to grave.What a dibilitating belief system.Elaine voices it perfectly when she calls this greatest country on Gods green earth “ugly”.Will will soon be transcending that negativism.
Yep, Romney will solve all our problems. How I don’t know because he keeps his solutions private and spends all his time blasting Obama. Obama is not cleaning up the mess that Republicans left behind fast enough.
He has given us some inkling of what he will do–more tax cuts for the job creators and the uber rich. It’s Bush on steroids and that is, indeed, an ugly sight.
Social Security is not in crisis and will not be, unless some extremely foolish legislators change the plan, which has been in place for many years. I count on it, and want it to be there for my children and grandchildren–my husband and I paid into it as workers, and have the benefits, and they are paying in and should get their benefits. Wise legislators can make the appropriate minor changes to strengthen Social Security and make it last. It is good and it is needed by Republicans, Democrats and Independents, and all Americans.
For those who feel that there’s little difference between the mainstream Republicans and Democrats on 90% of the issues, please join me in voting for a third party candidate. I vote left. However you lean, vote that way, but for a third party. If 15 or 20 percent of the voting populace goes for a third (or fourth or fifth) party, it WILL be noticed. Long established parties CAN be brought down–the British Liberal party gave way to the Labour party, and the New Democratic Party has almost wholly displaced the Liberal Party in Canada.
For 2012, we’re facing the same set of promises and lies from Obama, or the alternative radical neo-feudalism at the core of whatever beliefs Willard chooses to espouse on any particular day. We’re stuck with that “choice,” but if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re part of the problem; you might as well not vote, if you’re looking for an alternative to the corporate regime now occupying all three branches of the US government.
Sheila, I’m second that emotion: I find death’s sting largely ameliorated by the thought that I’ll no longer have to watch this once naively hopeful experiment in democracy dissipate as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman become the preeminent moral and intellectual lodestars of the nation’s “leaders.”
Any parties out side of the two party duopoly are cut off. Structurally left out. Till the structure is changed so that every new party would be automatically represented in all voting localities and have equal coverage on national television you will lose every time.
While I agree with many things you say, steve in oakland, I can’t disagree more with your encouraging people to vote for a third party. People who voted for a third party are responsible for the horrific extreme-right-wing Supreme Court we have right now. They are responsible for, among many other draconian decisions, the “Citizens United” decision which is making our election season even more of a joke than previous elections. They’re responsible for the war in Iraq. They’re responsible for the massive corruption and incompetence that was the Bush administration. People who insist on voting their conscience at the expense of our democracy are selfish, petulant, and immature. We grown-ups know that we must make difficult choices sometimes that will result in a better world, even if it’s not a perfect world.
Jamie H and your fellow grown-ups:
I don’t know which major party enjoys your support, but your statement, “People who insist on voting their conscience at the expense of our democracy are selfish, petulant, and immature,” is one of the oddest that I heard or read in the past few years. Which owns you? Honestly, you value your own conscience less than “our democracy” (whatever you mean by that)?
Also, you said that you agreed “with things [I] say,” which leads me to wonder what those things might be. I mean, I and my posse in the Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, American, Socialist and the other parties, gone and yet-to-come, have been responsible for the Citizen United decision, the war in Iraq and all eight years of Bush Jr.’s administration–what’s to agree with?
What an ignorant rant from the Dimocrat and ReThuglican TROLLs in these comments to try to blame the EVILS of the Two-Party-Cabal on the Third Party Candidates. Gore lost the election for two main reasons. 1. He was an entrenched Good-Ole-Boy-FOB whose Congressmen Daddy had given him all the right strings to pull, who stood by while Bill and Bought-Congressmen/Women killed Glass/Steagal, thus opening the gates for the Fraudsters/Hucksters from Wall Street and Charlotte to run their Mortgage and Other Financial scams which were previously illegal. (MBS,CDR, CDRSquared etc.) Many people in America who could ascertain the Truth hidden by the Lame$treamMedia simply would not vote for him, including Tennesseans where he lost the State. 2. The crooks in the ReThuglican Party managed to nullify thousands of votes in South Florida, Mostly African American.
If the Sheeple would vote for the Man whose principles stood with their own, instead of trying to “Vote for the Winner”, this country would be in much better shape for the 99%. — ROCKY ANDERSON 2012
gore, of course, won the popular vote in 2000 and lost the electoral college thanks to the justices bush’s daddy had placed on the supreme court
and, please, gore didn’t lose tennessee because voters there were incensed about the repeal of glass steagall, gore lost the entire south because most of the remaining white democrats left the party for good after 1996.
nader cost gore ohio…that certainly didn’t help matters
Elaine I think the first and most important move Mitt will make to effect positive economic change will be in a sense-be a non act.He simply will not be a predator president stalking any measurable amount of success.Business will know that some of President Obamas worst ideas…..those ideas that put pressure on businesses ,and were job killers,had been thrown down.And that more so- there would be a four year window for expansion if not more.In the end there are two theories at play here.One is to expand and to fill tax coffers.The second is to shrink and raise taxes to fill those same coffers.One is a recreation of wealth.One is a shuffling of funds.One will pay down the debt.One will print and borrow to at best tread water.
Woodward
What is this talk of popular vote over the electoral college?McCain did far better Pennsylvania in one than the other.So what of it?We all know the reason why we have this process.I have not seen any real movement to change it that effects much.It was formed to give each state,each area an equal voice.In the beginning if not for this every president would be a Virginian.Today maybe a New Yorker.Wyoming would have no say at all.It -among many others might as well opt out of the process.Forget seating house members.They would all be from large cities,probably on the coasts.Think of that ideal for the country(gasp).Farm sense would go the way of the dinosaur.As far as Bush winning in Fla, and securing the election because of the court…. that is bunk.Bush won.Gore brought the charges that stretched up the court system….and lost.And all the recounts Ive seen have confirmed Bushes win.Moral to the story?if a couple hundred students got out of bed to vote in Florida ,history would of been changed.YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT!!!!
What in the world at you talking about, michael e? Companies are posting higher profits than ever while shifting jobs to China. What is this “pressure” that Obama has put on business? So Romney creates wealth…..how?
BTW, in job creation, Massachusetts ranked 47th when Romney was governor.
“What is this talk of popular vote over the electoral college?”
i was simply pointing out to kenneth that his assertion that gore was unpopular with voters wasn’t backed up by the popular vote results. this wasn’t intended to say anything negative about the electoral college.
“And all the recounts Ive seen have confirmed Bushes win.'”
we’ve discussed this before…
“In an effort costing nearly $1 million in pooled funds and some 10 months’ work, a group consisting of a consortium of six major news organizations: the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the L.A. Times), Associated Press and CNN, plus two Florida papers, the Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times, rounded up uncounted ballots from all 67 Florida counties, then commissioned the University of Chicago’s nonpartisan National Opinion Research Center to examine them.
The study’s key result:
Under three models that attempted to duplicate the various partial recounts that were asked for by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court Bush maintained a slight margin of victory.
When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote, under each scenario they found enough new votes that would have narrowly given the Florida election to Al Gore. ”
https://fair.org/index.php?page=1095
Well I will agree it was narrow.Leading to my point about “your vote does count”.After that election many people screamed that it proved the opposite.To me it was the greatest example in history that it certainly does.I believe the Smithsonian still holds the votes.They can be recounted with the proper authorization (and have been many times).
“Well I will agree it was narrow”
that’s nice but that’s not what you originally wrote: “And all the recounts Ive seen have confirmed Bushes win.'”
and, as you can see, that’s not true
Woodward
You can nuance this all day long.There have been countless recounts.Some are still going on today.You are never going to read across the front pages of worldwide newspapers “HOLY CRAP GORE DID WIN”!Now I could be wrong.But i don’t think so.The count has been re affirmed officially.And isn’t that really the end of it?As far as me saying it was not close you misunderstood me.It came down to one state.One area.Maybe less than a thousand votes in a country of hundreds of millions of people.OF COURSE it was close.
no, i agreed it was narrow; that why i wrote “that’s nice” but your original point wasn’t that it was narrow but “that all the recounts Ive seen have confirmed Bushes win.'”
and that’s not true
“There have been countless recounts.Some are still going on today.”
can you link to one that is going on today? that sounds a bit unlikely