SS & MORE PART 14

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
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 14

IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.  The fate of Social Security.

2.  The Koch Brothers to kill Social Security.

3.  How we can solve the Debt crisis, really.

4.  Vote an educated vote.

5.  Don't miss this Last Minute Addition

CONGRATULATIONS

&

TRY  AGAIN

In the last posting I offered $25 to the third person that sent me an e-mail about the posting and $15 to the fifth person to write.  CONGRATULATIONS  to TN and DH.  They were the two winners. 

Thanks to so many of you who did not win.  Since there were so many of you, we'll give you one more chance.  Remember, I promised not to list your name or give anyone your e-mail address. 

This time I'll give $25 to the fifth person to write and another $25 to the eighth person.  I'll give $15 to the tenth person.  TN and DH are not eligible to win this time.  This will be the last time I will do this.  My e-mail address is    fab_80@cox.net

You may wonder, why is he doing this?  Just one simple reason, I want to get an idea of how many of you are reading my blog.  THAT IS THE ONLY REASON.  IT'S NOT A SCAM OF SOME SORT, YOU HAVE MY WORD ON THAT.  I was raised on the basis that your word was your bond and that a hand shake was as binding as a written 10 page contract.

THE  FATE  OF  SOCIAL  SECURITY

IS  AT  STAKE

To understand where we are now and how we got here, it is important to know what all has happened with regard to Social Security (SS) since 1983.

To begin with I want to explain that 90% of what follows was researched and written about by an unusual and dedicated man.  He is Dr. Allen W. Smith Ph.D.  He has taught economics at Eastern Illinois University for 30 years and has spent the last 10 years of his life researching and writing about Social Security. 

About 11 years ago, he was doing some research in Washington D. C. on another subject, when he ran across some startling information about Social Security.  Long story short, he dropped what he was doing and has devoted his life, ever since, to trying to educate the public as to what has happened to Social Security.  He has written three books on the subject, been on countless radio talk shows and television.  I have been fortunate to have been working with him for the past five years or so.

SOCIAL  SECURITY

Social Security became the law of the land in 1935.  In the seven and one half decades since, there have been many changes in coverage and benefits.  I am only going to talk about where we are today and developments that have brought us here. 

However, if you want to know every detail regarding every change since implementation one of the best reports, in my opinion, can be found on "Social Security: West's Encyclopedia of American Law".  

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-security-united-states

The present name is Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI).  Note the word "Insurance".  Almost everyone looks on SS as though it is an entitlement program.  It is not.  An entitlement program is one in which the government provides the money.  An insurance program is one in which you pay a premium that gives you stated benefits, when you meet certain requirements.    This is an insurance program and you pay a premium every time you get a pay check.  That premium is known as the Federal Insurance Contribution Account (FICA).  Everything relating to SS calls it INSURANCE. 

In 1982, President Reagan appointed a blue ribbon commission, headed by Allen Greenspan, to study the status of SS which was starting to fall short, in the near future, of receiving enough income to meet outgo.  Also, there was going to be a greater demand in the future when the Baby Boomers started retiring.

Prior to 1983 the FICA paid for the benefits of the previous generation.  The new plan raised the FICA, so that those paying into the insurance program were paying for the previous generation and their own generation.  You might say a double whammy. 

It was determined that by doing this, there would be $3.7 trillion in the SS Trust Fund by 2018, when it was felt the Baby Boomer Generation would be drawing SS, and FICA income would not meet outgo.  That then, is when the Trust Fund would pay the difference until 2041, when the youngest Baby Boomer would be 79 years old.  It was felt that, by that time, there would be enough income to meet outgo.  

Social Security has always been and is a self-supporting insurance program.  The plan was a very good one and would have worked, except for one thing. 

The SS Trust Fund was always suppose to be kept separate from General Revenue.  However, it was officially made illegal to use it as General Revenue in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which Bush Sr. signed into law.

The problem today is, that starting in 1987, Democrat and Republican administrations, both, have stolen the SS Trust Fund and used it as though it were General Revenue and have spent ALL of it on other programs.  It is the biggest fraud and embezzlement ever perpetrated on the American people.  They have stolen  2.6 trillion dollars of the SS Trust Fund.

By getting the thinking of SS as an entitlement program, instead of insurance, they have no trouble even convincing themselves that it is part of the deficit problem. 

You may recall that when Geo. W. Bush wanted to make his big tax cut, he referred to the great surplus the Fed. Government had and that the government was taking to much from the tax payers.  The big surplus, he referred to, was the SS Trust Fund plus a small true budget surplus that Clinton had actually brought about.  But, it was the SS Trust Fund that made it seem so big.

Because of the steeling of all the Trust Fund, SS is now falling short of enough income to meet outgo.  So the Government is now having to put money into the SS program, BUT, what is being put into the program now is nothing more than a small down payment on what has been stolen from the program.

WHAT  IS  THE  FUTURE  OF  SOCIAL  SECURITY?

In view of the deficit and debt problems, there are a number of plans to reduce the cost of SS, including raising the eligibility age, reduce cost of living adjustment, and including privatizing the program, which would be the total elimination of SS. 

There was a study commission, that President Obama appointed, to make recommendations regarding the entire deficit and debt problem.  Senator Coburn (R OK) was a member of that commission.  They  made the recommendation, that the only thing that needed to be done regarding Social Security was, to raise the FICA cap, which currently is $106,800, so that all those making above that amount would also pay FICA.  That does not seem to satisfy many others and some want to do away with SS all together.

NOW, THE FOLLOWING MAY SEEM RATHER LENGTHY TO SOME OF YOU, BUT BELIEVE ME, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I BEG OF YOU TO READ IT AND ALL THAT FOLLOWS THAT.  THIS IS IMPORTANT!!

 

The Koch brothers' campaign to kill social security

The rightwing industrialists have spent millions funding opinion-forming propaganda to undermine a vital public service

Robert Greenwald  guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 June 2011

The Brave New Foundation's new film, Counter the Koch Billions; Protect Social Security. Video: Brave New Foundation

Documents and interviews unearthed in recent months by Brave New Foundation researchers illustrate a $28.4m Koch business that has manufactured 297 commentaries, 200 reports, 56 studies and six books distorting social security's effectiveness and purpose. Together, the publications reveal a vast cottage industry comprised of Koch brothers' spokespeople, front groups, thinktanks, academics and elected officials, which has built a self-sustaining echo chamber to transform fringe ideas into popular mainstream public policy arguments.

"The Koch brothers job is to do everything they can to dismember government in general," Senator Bernie Sanders says in this video. "If you can destroy social security, you will have gone a long way forward in that effort."

Koch Industries spent $857,000 on lobbyists in 2004, one year before George W Bush tried and failed to privatize social security. They also donated $104,660 to his campaign. The attacks on social security needed more time to stew in the echo chamber before they could be mainstream, and given the increase in lobbyists, they have risen dramatically.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, the brothers spent $20m on lobbying, according to the Centre for Public Integrity. And they've diversified their donations to a slew of Republican opinion leaders – and strategic Democrats who oppose revenue increases like Senator Ben Nelson and Governor Andrew Cuomo. But traditional lobbying has now given way to the larger, more insidious propaganda campaign aimed at changing the terms of debate on social security.

The Koch brothers' echo chamber has successfully written the messaging for the AARP, a traditional defender of social security for all generations, which recently opened the door to cutting benefits. The Koch echo chamber begins with think tanks like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Mercatus Centre at George Mason University and the Reason Foundation, which owe their founding and achievements to Koch backing. These thinktanks take their $28.4m in Koch funding and produce hundreds of position papers distorting the long-term health of social security.

"The Koch brothers fund organizations, and you have economists and political scientists working there, and they are very, very good at getting on television," says Sanders. "They are very effective in getting their positions out into the media."

The authors of these hundreds of self-described policy studies, newsletters, commentaries and books are then paraded through television, print and online news media. Their distorted message is amplified through shows like Hannity, on Fox News, with its 3.3 million viewers per episode, or CNBC's Kudlow Report and its roughly 300,000 viewers per episode, night after night after night. Gradually, influential opinion-formers in venerable news outlets will also react and have already begun to referee disputes on new "middle ground" that has, over time and through the actions of AARP and the Koch echo chamber, grown tolerant of the Koch brothers' talking points. Eventually, elected officials react to the Koch echo chamber and typically shift their position for reelection or the next campaign.

Influential opinion-formers in venerable news outlets will react and have already begun to referee disputes on new "middle ground" that has, over time and through the actions of AARP and the Koch echo chamber, grown tolerant of the Koch brothers' talking points.

The investigation revealed Koch-supported policy fixes, and specific language repeated across each document, such as raising the retirement age or eliminating cost of living adjustments for social security dependents and beneficiaries. These Koch ideas percolate through the echo chamber and into the mainstream. The frequency and repetition of the arguments supplant more popular policy recommendations like scrapping the social security tax cap, which would free individuals earning more than $106,800 annually to pay taxes on all of their wages, like everyone else.

Almost overnight, it seems, a historic and popular public service like social security faces extinction. But it's no mystery how this has happened: behind that outcome, the Koch echo chamber has been churning for years.

WELL, that gives you an idea of what we are up against to save Social Security.  IT'S  GOING TO TAKE EVERY SINGLE EFFORT WE CAN MUSTER TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY.  TO THAT END, I HAVE BEEN QUOTING A REPUBLICAN SOME LATELY AS HE SEEMS TO BE SAYING A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT SUPPORT OUR VIEW POINT AND I AM GOING TO AGAIN.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I HAVE CHANGED, WHATSOEVER, FROM BEING A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT.  IT JUST MEANS THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN HAVE SOME RIGHT HEARTED MEN THAT ARE GOOD THINKERS.  I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM ON EVERYTHING, BUT ON SOME HE IS A HELP TO OUR VIEW POINT. 

The following is very important and reflects a number of thoughts that should be adopted by many.  There are some that I don't agree with and I will write in a comments at those points.

May 24 2011

How We Can Solve the Debt Crisis. Really.

By Senator Tom Coburn

Bloomberg News

Leaders in Washington will soon have to decide whether to pursue a serious deficit-reduction agreement before the 2012 elections. Last month, Standard & Poor’s cut the outlook on the U.S.’s long-term credit rating from stable to negative for the first time since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If we don’t change course soon, the next shot won’t be across our bow, but at our hull.

Congress’s lack of action is a major reason why I’ve spent several months meeting in an informal group called the Gang of Six with the hope of presenting a comprehensive deficit- reduction plan. We’ve made real progress, but we reached an impasse recently when it became clear the group wouldn’t agree to the kind of serious entitlement reform that would lead to a bipartisan deal.

While our impasse is frustrating, it is important for the American people to understand that the real hurdles are more political than philosophical. Neither party wants to compromise its political advantages or its brand heading into the next election. Republicans want to be able to say they have resisted revenue increases while Democrats want to be known as the champions of entitlement. What the American people want, however, is bravery, not branding.

Revenue Increases?

In practice, neither party needs to compromise its core values, just its political agenda. I’ve argued that Republicans should be willing to consider increases in revenue -- not through higher tax rates but through eliminating tax earmarks, such as that for ethanol, and other expenditure that misallocates capital. To create the conditions for putting revenue on the table, there must also be a commitment to spending cuts and entitlement reform. After all, America’s looming debt is the product of an entitlement crisis more than a revenue crisis.

I can't agree with the Senator that our debt is more the result of entitlements than a revenue crisis.  When, in eight years, you go from an actual budget surplus to a large deficit plus draining every cent out of the Social Security Trust Fund, there is a spending and a revenue problem. 

When you consider the, well known, Bush tax cuts, that were not paid for by reducing spending and two wars that were not paid for by reducing spending, then you have a revenue problem.  You simply cannot spend that kind of money in that way without causing a debt problem.  I am not convinced that entitlements, alone, have caused our debt problem and I know that Social Security has not.  It has always been, and is now, self- supporting.  The money that the Government is now having to put in to Social Security is simply a small repayment of Social Security money that was embezzled.

Republicans who consider this offer to be a "tax increase" are mistaken and are unwittingly opening the door to genuine tax increases. Doing nothing and waiting for a debt crisis will probably result in accelerating inflation and higher interest rates as well as emergency austerity measures, which may include direct tax-rate increases. Worst of all, the U.S. would face financial repression through the debasement of the dollar, leading to a decrease in the purchasing power of every American. This would be the worst form of tax increase. Any of these outcomes would devastate the middle class and wipe out vast amounts of wealth. Republicans who say they are "holding the line" aren’t holding the line on anything but a talking point.

Averting Meltdown

Still, many Republicans believe they can secure additional spending cuts and help avert an economic meltdown without putting revenue on the table. I’m sympathetic to that argument. I’ve put holds on hundreds of bills that weren’t paid for, fought to eliminate countless earmarks sponsored by members of my own party, and proposed hundreds of amendments to cut spending.

I agree with the Senator on part of this paragraph and disagree on part of it. He has said, in the past, that an agreement for raising the debt ceiling can not be reached, without some form of revenue enhancement and, yet, here he is saying that he is "sympathetic" to not putting revenue on the table.  It seems to me we may have a contradiction here.  And, in the next paragraph, he says revenue has to be put on the table. I certainly agree with him regarding putting holds on bills that weren't paid for and fought for elimination of earmarks, even from his own party.     

However, having worked to expose and cut waste, I’m convinced we will never reform entitlements without putting revenue on the table. To attempt otherwise would require a Republican supermajority that will never happen in our democracy. We’re much more likely to enter a depression first.

Democrats have a similar problem. Many of them prefer to mislead the American people by claiming that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are fine, when they should be embracing the reforms that will protect those programs and the people who depend on them. By 2022, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt will consume the entire federal budget. Social Security, which Democrats say is secure until 2037, is already running deficits ($49 billion last year). These programs are "safe" only while the international financial community agrees to lend us money -- which may not be for long.

The Senator points out that SS is already running a deficit of $49 billion last year.  I submit that SS is not running a deficit  at all, unless our Federal Government is going to say to the American people that they, the Federal Government, are not going to make good on the bonds that they issued  based on the good faith and credit of the Federal Government. 

The Federal Government owes the Social Security Insurance program $2.6 trillion.  I further submit to you that the $49 billion is just a small down payment on what is owed to Social Security.  Therefore, Social Security is still self-supporting.  If all of this involved a large finance company, there would be a number of people in prison by now.  The Federal Government simply cannot treat the American people like this.  

Political Games

What is really happening behind closed doors in Washington would both sicken and inspire the American people. Some in both parties continue to play political games. Yet, many elected officials on both sides are willing to make hard choices. More than 40 senators have come together to discuss the crisis; dozens have privately expressed their willingness to take bipartisan action. But, right now, the possibility of a win-win agreement for America is being turned into a lose-lose stalemate because too many self-serving politicians, special-interest groups and political consultants in Washington are invested in the status quo.

Senator, what a tremendous statement.  I commend you for your honesty here and in other places that I have taken note of recently.

Accept Reality

The solution is obvious. Democrats have to accept the reality that structural entitlement reform is necessary. Republicans have to accept the reality that in order to get Democrats to make those changes we will have to agree to tax reform that will increase revenue but not rates. This solution isn’t a betrayal of either party’s values, but a defense of those values on behalf of future generations. Again, doing nothing would be the real act of betrayal that would lead to both higher taxes and the demise of entitlement programs for the poor and elderly.

If our leaders fail to make these choices before the next election, voters will have no choice but to replace them with leaders who will.

Published in Bloomberg, May 24 2011

Permalink: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/5/how-we-can-solve-the-debt-crisis-really

VOTE AN EDUCATED VOTE !!

Between now and November 2012, there will be $2 BILLION spent on trying to convince you and me that their point is the only one you should listen to.  This will come from Republicans and Democrats alike. 

The real problem, as far as you and I are concerned, is trying to determine what is truth and what is fiction.  From past experience, the backers of the Republican party have mastered, both with money and promotion ability, the smooth and convincing mis-representation of facts and, sometimes, outright lies.

Notice, I have said the "backers of the Republican Party."  The big donors give to PACs and various organizations that will promote the donors view point.  They can't give direct  to a candidate, because the federal law only permits anyone to give $2,500 directly to a candidate per election cycle.

The first finance reporting period for this election cycle, began late the week of the 19th.  There are other finance reports that are due by June 30.  the information from those reports won't be available until after this posting.  The first reports reveal some interesting information, which is reported by Michael Isikoff, National Investigative correspondent for MSNBC.

When you're raising political cash these days, it helps to have a few billionaires in your corner.

The outside role a small number of extremely wealthy donors is playing in the run up to the 2012 elections is highlighted by the first early finance reports of the new campaign cycle filed late last week by two so-called "super PACs " — political groups that can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions.

American Crossroads, the super PAC spearheaded by Karl Rove, is vowing a massive attack ad campaign aimed at defeating President Barack Obama next year. The group reported it had raised $3.8 million during the first six months of 2011.

The group proclaims on its website that its mission is to empower "America's citizens" to "take back control of their government." But the new report suggests American Crossroads is anything but a grassroots funded organization.

More than 90 percent of its money this year came from just three billionaire donors: Jerry Perenchio, the former Hollywood talent agent and ex-chairman of the Spanish language television network Univision, whose trust contributed $2 million; Dallas area hotel magnate Robert Rowling, who gave $1 million; and Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who donated $500,000.

All three have given generously to Republican and conservative causes in the past. Perry, who bankrolled tort reform efforts to limit lawsuits, was American Crossroads' biggest single donor last year, giving the group $7 million.

ENOUGH  FOR  THIS  TIME

There is plenty more that I could add, but I think this is quite enough for this time.  I will mention that sometimes there is a lot happening and if that is the case and I feel like I can get it together I may post on the off week.  It won't be all the time.  My regular schedule will be every two weeks.  So I will, at least, talk with you again on July 18th, if not sooner.

God Bless you all.

Floyd

LAST  MINUTE  ADDITION

One reason I am late posting today, is that, just this evening I have found an article that really makes sense and I just think it is worthwhile for you to be able to see it, particularly, if you are a Progressive Democrat.

The Mother of All No-Brainers

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: July 4, 2011   The New York Times

Op-Ed Columnist

Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.  If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.

The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right