SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 4

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON  FACTS (OBOF)

                                                             

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 4

IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.      SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE.

2.      FEDERAL SPENDING CUTS.

3.      NEED A FEDERAL BUDGET THROUGH SEPT. 30

4.      LIBYA - WHERE ARE WE GOING ?

5.      DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTHY.

6.      GABRIELLE GIFFORDS-WILL SHE RUN FOR SENATE?

7.      MET A LOYAL READER.            

         SOCIAL  SECURITY  UPDATE

Dr. Allen Smith Ph.D. says, and I agree, that since we seem to be between a rock and hard place as far as borrowing the 2.6 trillion dollars, needed to repay the stolen SS surplus, we need to continue trying to educated the public about the fraud and actual stealing of the SS Trust Fund surplus.  Now, we have gone over and over the facts, but we need to go over them again, maybe in a little bit different way. 

To that end, Dr. Smith has told our story in a different and real simple way that is very easy to read and get the total meaning of what has happened to the SS Trust Fund surplus.  It follows:

 THE GREAT SOCIAL SECURITY THEFT

by

Dr. Allen W. Smith Ph.D.

                                                                          FACTS

1.  The 1983 payroll tax (FICA) hike has generated $2.6 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue.

2.  That surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, in order to  build up a large reserve in the trust fund.  When the surplus years ended and the deficit years began,  the reserve was to be drawn down, as needed, to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue.

3.  If the money had been saved and invested, as was the intent of the 1983 legislation, there would be enough surplus in the trust fund to pay full benefits until 2037, without any action by the government.

4.  When the first surplus revenue showed up in 1985, instead of saving and investing the money, the money was diverted into the general fund and spent as general revenue.

5.  When this practice was continued into the Bush #1 administration, Senator Moynihan of New York was outraged that the surplus Social Security money was being spent on general government operations, instead of being saved and invested for the baby boomers.  In 1990, Moynihan introduced legislation to repeal the 1983 payroll tax hike (FICA), so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue to raid.  The Bush Administration opposed the legislation and it did not pass. 

6.  President Bill Clinton continued to spend the Social Security surplus as general revenue during his eight-year presidency.

7. Although during the 2000 Presidential Campaign, George W. Bush, like Al Gore, promised to end the raiding and put the Social Security money in a lockbox, George W. Bush raided and spent every dollar of surplus Social Security revenue that came in during his eight years as president.

8.  President Obama followed the same practice during his first year in office, while there was still some Social Security surplus to raid.  However, the long-expected period of permanent annual Social Security deficits began in 2010, so there was no longer any Social Security surplus to raid.

9.  For the past 25 years, the United States government has diverted every dollar of surplus Social Security revenue into the general fund and spent the money for tax cuts, wars, and other Government programs. The spent money was replaced with government IOUs, which are nothing more than an accounting record of how much Social Security money has been spent on other things.

10.  The IOUs, in the trust fund are not marketable.  They cannot be converted into cash, or used in any other way to pay benefits. THE $2.6 TRILLION IN SURPLUS SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUE, THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED TO PAY BENEFITS TO THE BABY BOOMERS, IS GONE!  Social Security cannot pay full benefits until 2037, as some suggest.  It cannot even pay full benefits for 2011 without the government repaying part of the raided money.

The next development of importance, were many suggestions of changing the SS program, so that the present SS income would take care of the SS outgo need.  All of them were designed, so as, to, in my opinion, do away with SS all together. 

Then on March 16, 2011, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma gave a speech on the floor of the U. S. Senate, that told the real true story of what happened to the SS surplus.  He used the word "stolen" in describing what congresses and presidents have done with the surplus, almost, from the start of the raised FICA in 1983. 

He then articulated what had to be done, which was to raise the income cap for paying FICA, from $106,800 to $168,000 and to reduce benefits to only the wealthy.  Then, if the money that had been stolen was replaced, SS would be solvent for 75 more years.  The problem with all of that is that, at the present time, there is no one in the Public Market that will loan the U. S. 2.6 trillion dollars.  THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT SENATOR COBURN, FOR THE FIRST TIME, HAS REALLY LAID IT OUT, ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE,  AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.  While we can't yet make the fix, no one, can dispute the truth that Dr. Smith has been saying for the past 10 years.

FEDERAL  SPENDING  CUTS

There is no doubt that we have to cut federal spending, to work to reduce the deficit, and work towards a balanced budget.  We have to show the financial world that we are serious about working towards reducing our National Debt.  If we don't do these things, we will have, and already have, many of those who loan us money questioning our debt worthiness.   

Having said that, in my opinion based on facts that I have been reading and seeing, I have come to the point that I am simply outraged at the way the Republicans, in the House of Representatives are trying to accomplish this.  I believe, that they have much more in mind than, objectively and realistically cutting spending. 

First, they are trying to get us to a balanced budget, in just two or three big sweeps.  That is wrong, again in my opinion.  It always takes longer to solve any problem than to create the problem.  We should cut spending based on reaching a balanced budget in 10 years, for example.  Doing so, it can be done without such drastic steps, that hurt so many people.

Which brings me to the second point.  All of the cuts, they are trying to make, are on the back of middle, working and poor class.  They are all programs that could be classed as social programs.  For example, look at what some, only some, of the cuts would do to people in Oklahoma.  And if they are happening in Oklahoma they are also happening in all the other states, as well.

$18 million would be cut from federal funds for clean and safe water in Oklahoma.¹

2,300 Oklahoma children would be immediately cut from Head Start, which provides comprehensive early childhood development services for at-risk children ages zero to five.²

$65 million would be cut from Pell Grants, affecting all 106,000 higher education students with those grants in Oklahoma.³Job training and employment services would be effectively eliminated^` for 6,300 dislocated workers, 23,000 low-income adults, and 1,700 youths age 14 to 21.⁴

$1.8 million would be cut from law enforcement assistance, taking cops off the beat.⁵

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ONLY THING THEY CAN THINK ABOUT TO CUT AFFECT MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS.  NOT A SINGLE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE, which brings me to the next point.

NOT  A  WORD  ABOUT  THE WEALTHY

OR  THE

CORPORATIONS

This one really hits my hot button!  NOT ONE WORD about the wealthy or corporations.  If anything, they should be cut more than anyone else.  I have even read that some wealthy, have said that they themselves, should pay more taxes.  BUT HOW ABOUT THESE CORPORATIONS?  Look at this.  General Electric, last year, made 14.2 billion dollars in PROFIT, but paid NO federal taxes, NONE.  In addition, they received 3.2 billion dollars in tax credits.  HERE IS THE WHOPPER.  The CEO, Mr. Jeff Immelt, received a 100% pay increase. 

I am sure there are many others just like this.  I just happened to find this one.  Now, how can any Republican look me in the eye and say that this is fair in light of the war against the middle class and poor.  I'm sorry,  war is a harsh word, but doggoneit this is just terrible. 

THE  BUDGET  UNTIL  SEPT.  30^th.

As you probably know, the government has been running on short period resolutions to give all the powers, that be, time to try to work out cuts so that a bill can be passed to fund the government operation from now to Sept. 30.  Then after they get that done they have to start on the budget for the next fiscal year.

The present resolution expires on April 8.  As of now, the administration has proposed 33 billion dollars in cuts.  However, the Freshman group in the House is holding out for 61 billion.  I don't know, of course, what is going to finally happen, but each day it looks more and more as though there might be a government shutdown.

That would be so devastating and I think the real problem is that these Freshmen just don't realize what that means.  The House did pass one funding bill with Riders that defunded Planned Parenthood, the new health law, Head Start, Meals on Wheels that would affect 9,000 seniors and thousands of teachers.  Needless to say, that stopped in the Senate.  However,  look at what the Republicans want to hurt the most.  They simply don't  have any use for a program that, at all, smacks as a social program.

Of course, look at what has happened in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.  EVERY WHERE YOU TURN, IT IS AGAINST THE MIDDLE, WORKING AND POOR CLASS. 

LIBYA - -  WHERE  ARE  WE  GOING?

There isn't a lot to say from my view point.  I think I am one of very few that don't think we should be there and don't think that we are getting out of there any time soon. 

At the beginning, President Obama said that we were going to be there a matter of days, not weeks or months.  He said there would not be any ground troops in Libya. 

Well, it has now past what you could call days and we are now entering weeks.  Also, we have now learned that more than a dozen CIA operatives are in Libya now.  I suppose the President could get by with not counting them as ground troops, but I have heard retired military officers say, that this is a prelude to ground forces. 

I am so afraid that this is going to be war number three and we can't afford it, either in terms of money or lives, if it comes to that.  It was reported on MSNBC, that each Cruise Missile costs one and a half million dollars.  I have forgotten the exact number that we have used, but it is in excess of 100.  If we just consider 100, that is a total cost of 150 million dollars and I know it was more than that.  At a time when Congress is cutting the very livelihood out of so many Americans, it just doesn't make sense to do this.  I know the people of Libya are hurting and that Gaddafi should probably go, but we have a lot of Americans that are hurting too and some Republicans that should go. 

Anyway, I SURE HOPE I AM WRONG.  THIS IS ONE TIME I WOULD BE REAL HAPPY TO BE WRONG.

DISTIBUTION  OF THE  WEALTH

I ran across this little article that I thought was interesting.  I have no commentary about it.   

By Allison Economic Policy Institute

Linn, senior business writer

The Great Recession cost Americans trillions of dollars in accumulated wealth, as home values plummeted, retirement accounts shrank and Americans struggled with joblessness and other woes.

Few were immune to the big losses, but that doesn’t mean the pain was felt equally.

A new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute finds that the richest 20 percent of Americans saw their share of all Americans’ wealth increase by 2.2 percentage points between 2007 and 2009. The remaining four-fifth of Americans saw their wealth decline by the same amount.

The top 20 percent of Americans by wealth controlled 87.2 percent of all wealth as of 2009, according to an analysis by EPI, a liberal-leaning research group. That left the rest of the country with 12.8 percent of all wealth.

The top 20 percent did see their wealth shrink between 2007 and 2009, but not by as much as the rest of the country. EPI said that group had a 16 percent average annualized decline in household wealth, while everyone else saw a 25 percent average annualized decline in household wealth during the same period.

The recession officially ran from December 2007 to June 2009.

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS - WILL SHE RUN FOR THE SENATE?

A Recovering Giffords May Run for Senate

Although Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is still recovering from the infamous gunshot to the head that nearly took her life, supporters and staff are busy murmuring that they are hopeful that she will rehabilitate in time to run for the seat that Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican, is vacating next year, The New York Times reports.

Meanwhile, other prospective Democratic candidates are playing it cool. “I’m in but only if she’s not,” one prospective Democratic candidate told the Times. He spoke of his deliberations but insisted that he not be named. “A Democrat running against her would be doomed.”

                              I  MET  A  LOYAL  READER

That's right, I met with and had a great two hours with a loyal reader.  Howell Joiner of Bixby, Ok. has been reading every word I write, according to him.  I believe he does, because when I am late getting the posting on Monday, I can expect an e-mail from him wanting to know if I was alright.  Actually, he was wanting to know when the posting was coming.  I AM SO GLAD THAT HE DOES AND THAT I GOT TO MEET AND TALK WITH HIM. 

He read between the lines and got the idea that I must be in the Tulsa area.  Bixby, if some of you don't know, is also in the Tulsa area.  So he sent me an e-mail and one thing led to another and we met for lunch last Wednesday.  I truly enjoyed our talk Howell.  By the way folks,  Howell is getting married on June the 4^th.       CONGRATULATIONS!

I would love to hear from any of you out there.  Give me a blast and we can have some discussion one on one, if you like or just write some comments at the end of the posting.

See you next week.  E-Mail   fab_80@cox.net

Floyd

Sources:

1. "House Bill Means Fewer Children in Head Start, Less Help for Students to Attend College, Less Job Training, and Less Funding for Clean Water," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March, 1, 2010
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3405

2. "Projected Reduction in Children Served in Head Start Based on H.R. 1—Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution," Center for Law and Social Policy
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207278&id=26722-18264426-G6X4mkx&t=3

3. "House Bill Means Fewer Children in Head Start, Less Help for Students to Attend College, Less Job Training, and Less Funding for Clean Water," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March, 1, 2010
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3405

4. Ibid

5. Ibid