Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 11:26 AM        Maybe Bush thinks there's oil on the moon and mars...
The Unlocked Box
How Bush is plundering Social Security to close the deficit.
By Daniel Gross for Slate


Feeding Social Security to the defict

Feeding Social Security to the defict
The International Monetary Fund, which usually frets about runaway fiscal policies in developing countries, yesterday released a report that warned of the dangers to the global economy posed by the United States' lack of spending discipline, its reliance on foreign creditors, and its failure to plan adequately for future government liabilities.

Earlier this week, even as he called for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, Treasury Secretary John Snow pooh-poohed the deficit problem and insisted the government has a plan to improve matters:

"Our fiscal situation remains a matter of concern. With major expenditures to protect our nation's homeland security and fight the war on terror, coupled with a recovering economy, we still face a deficit in the $500 billion range for the current fiscal year—larger than anyone wants. But that size deficit, at roughly 4.5% of GDP (compared with a modern peak of 6% during the 80s), is not historically out of range; and it is entirely manageable, if we continue the president's strong pro-growth economic policies and sound fiscal restraint. Indeed, with adoption of the President's policies, our projections show a solid path toward cutting the deficit in half, toward a size that is below 2% of GDP, within the next five years." Said Snow.

The genial treasury secretary, a former deficit hawk, seems literally incapable of speaking truthfully about the deficit. (The same holds for National Economic Council Chairman Stephen Friedman.) In fact, if we adopt the president's policies—which include a host of new tax cuts and massive new spending programs—the deficit won't fall 50 percent in the next five years. It will grow substantially. And if President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress weren't already quietly using every penny of the massive and growing Social Security surplus to cover operating expenses—and planning to continue this habit—the deficits would be even larger.

Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers retire—and comparatively more people are collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are working—the government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised benefits.

So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spent—about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.

In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!

By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion. And the ultimate on-budget deficit will almost certainly be worse. OMB has proven in the past few years that its projections can't be trusted.

The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy. The unprecedented reliance on these funds hides the failure of the administration to ensure that there is some reasonable correlation between the resources it has at its disposal and the spending commitments it makes. Bush & Co. have redesigned the tax system so that collections of the progressive taxes that are supposed to fund government operations—like individual income taxes—have plummeted. Instead, with each passing year we rely for our current needs more on the regressive payroll taxes that are supposed to fund our collective retirement.

The persistence of the administration and its credulous allies in eliding these facts is flabbergasting. Of course, for the Bush administration to give an honest accounting of the deficits, and of the role that Social Security surpluses play in keeping them down, would be to admit the fundamental bankruptcy—no pun intended—of its adventuresome fiscal experiment.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
camacazio camacazio is offline
Mocker
camacazio's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
camacazio is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 11:41 AM       
This is old news, but still depressing. I was kind of hoping for being able to retire without starving to death, but I guess that's asking too much. It's important to point out that social security is meant as a fall-back for, and not a replacement to, saving for retirement. With the constantly tightening work place of the US, however, it's becoming increasingly hard to save for retirement. Luckily, a lot can happen politically in the some 50 years until I hit seniority and hopefully some of that social security will come back to me in some form.

pooh-poohed? flabbergasting? Best news writer ever!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Zebra 3 is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 03:42 PM       
- The thing I don't understand is how can the Moron still hold a 50% approval rating.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #4  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 08:26 PM       
Social Security never was anything other than a source of government funding under a different name. To think that the government has to protect me from my own actions is absolutely hilarious.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
MEATMAN MEATMAN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gainesville, Florida
MEATMAN is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 09:54 PM       
Fortunately, The One and Only... is correct.
__________________
Rogues against Warriors in Battle Stance are like eggs hurling themselves against a brick wall.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2004, 10:08 PM       
There is no oil, but there are a ton of iron and other valuable minerals.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 13th, 2004, 10:31 AM       
and Cheese.

Don't get me wrong. I think going back to the moon is a great idea. I just think W. doesn't intend to do much more than talk about it. You know, like all that money he said he was going to give Africa to fight AIDS.

Everyone made fun of Gore for all his Lock Box talk. I'm kind of nostaligic for it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Zebra 3 is probably a spambot
Old Jan 13th, 2004, 02:47 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
Don't get me wrong. I think going back to the moon is a great idea...
Same here, I still remember Neil Armstrong's famous moon walk. That said, before creating yet another bottomless money pit, why not wage 'war' on disadvantaged American citizens by giving all their own roof over their heads. Reducing the need for food banks. Work with dignity for all, which means a living wage for all workers, so we'll never have to see them shameful, feel good Thanksgiving, Christmas dinners for the needy on the local news, etc.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #9  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Jan 14th, 2004, 02:19 PM       
yea, the space program is cool but i'm affraid it's just a way to give money to the military industial complex.

hopefully only a small fraction of the funding will go to more militarization but i'm not counting on it. :/
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.