OBOF SS & MORE PART 16

`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
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 16

IN THIS ISSUE

1.  Opening Note.

2.  Opening Tid Bit.

3.  Have you ever seen anything like the 112 Congress.

4.  The debit ceiling fiasco.

5.  Well we caved in. 

6.  The raised debt ceiling bill.

7.  The great recession part II.

8.  What about the 14th amendment.

7.  Senator Tom Coburn's $9 trillion deficit reduction package.

OPENING  NOTE

You no doubt have noticed that  my postings of late have been rather long.  Keep in mind, that I am now only posting every two weeks, instead of once a week, as before.  Therefore, the length really isn't much longer, if any, than two weekly postings. 

OPENING  TID BIT

This is from the Oklahoma Progressive Coalition

The original of this item was impressive with color pictures of five Presidents, Reagan, Geo. Bush #1, Clinton, Geo. Bush #2, and Obama.  I can't print pictures on this blog, so I will simply set it up in writing.

The Next Time Someone Says Democrats Spend Too Much, Show Them This:

Debt Increase By President

                             Reagan                        186%

                             Bush #1                         54%

                             Clinton                           41%

                             Bush #2                         72%

                             Obama                           23%

Kind of interesting to start with.         

                                                                                                                                                                                                      HAVE YOU EVER SEE ANYTHING LIKE THE 112TH CONGRESS?

I have never, in my 87 years, seen anything that is so disgusting, so irresponsible, so blatantly ignorant and so narrow minded as this Congress has been, as they have tried to tie everything, including the kitchen sink, to the raising of the debt ceiling. 

There is no doubt that we have to reduce spending.  There is no doubt there has to be some additional revenue to come from somewhere, because reduced spending alone just won't do it.  But, this is not the time or place to try to solve all of these detailed problems.  Detailed studies have to be made and reviewed thoroughly, before Legislation should be considered.  They have been trying to do to much at one time. 

WHY?  Ideology and stupidity are the two main reasons for this charade.  The new Republican House of Representatives are so eager to spread their wings that they simply are trying to fly to high to quick.  One man is the reason for all this nonsense, Grover Norquist.  He has to be feeling great, because he now has enough followers in place to try to implement some of his policies.  Thank goodness for our Democratic Senate.

 I understand the thought about voting in new people to Congress, but this is a perfect example of what happens when you have so many new ones that really have no idea as to how to govern and they try to change things without understanding what the results will be. 

New blood is fine, but when you have so many that they control action without knowledge of the ramifications, it is dangerous, particularly when they come from a radical movement that knows nothing, but how to put together words that sound good to the electorate.  

This is a perfect reason to VOTE AN EDUCATED VOTE. 

THE DEBT CEILING FIASCO  

I have spent countless hours, the last three weeks, watching and reading everything I could, trying to keep track of the steps that have occurred as they tried to raise the debt ceiling.  There is no value in trying to list all the many meetings, television commentary, internet, and newspaper articles on the subject.   However, there are a couple of points that I want to mention. 

One of the statements that many Republicans make, that I simply don't understand, is that the President has never put forth a plan.  He definitely has and has modified it, at least twice, if not more.  His plan has been referred to as the "Big Deal." 

It included major overhauls to the tax code and entitlement benefits.  It would have shaved $4 trillion off the projected national debt.  Because it included overhaul of the tax code, the Republicans would not accept it.  So, he revamped it, at least twice, but to no avail.  There is a lot more to it, but the point is that he did put forth a plan and when the Republicans say he didn't they either hadn't paid attention to what was going on or they simply lied about it on television. 

Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times and the process for each of those 39 has involved a one page piece of legislation that contained one sentence that raised the debt ceiling.  In each case, it was voted on, passed, and signed by the President in a matter of one day.  This time is so different because the Republicans and Grover Norquist wanted to use the debt ceiling as hostage to getting other parts of Norquist's agenda passed.

If you have forgotten or never happened to read as to who Grover Norquist is, I have gone into depth about him in posting SS & MORE PART 13, dated June 20, 2011. 

WELL! ~ WE  CAVED  IN

Well, it's over finally.  But the Republicans got everything they wanted, except the Balanced Budget Amendment.  You have to give it to those Republicans, they know how to get their way and we don't.  All spending cuts and no revenue.

It had to get done and we simply could not have all this going on next year during an election year and we couldn't let default happen.  However, I say again, they knew how and we didn't.  Even when we had a majority in both Houses, with the exception of the health care bill, we couldn't get anything done.  They were able to filibuster & block almost everything we tried to get done.  Looking back, that is part of the reason our growth is as slow as it is.

There are two good things about all this.  First, the debt ceiling issue will not come up again until 2013 and second, the entitlements were not touched until 2013.  BUT, mark my words, entitlements and social security (SS is not an entitlement) will come up again strong, UNLESS, we re-elect President Obama and take back the House and make the Senate stronger, in Nov. 2012.

THE  RAISED  DEBT  CEILING  BILL

Congress has passed the largest deficit reduction package in the history of this country and the most ill-conceived and unfair deficit package in history, without having a single hearing on what is actually in the bill or what the spending cuts in the bill will actually effect the American people or how, what is in the bill, will effect the American economy

Lawrence O'Donnell, of "The Last Word" MSNBC show, called it a "Know nothing Republican House of Representatives that held hostage, something that no other Congress has ever dared tamper with, raising the statutory debt ceiling."

No one got all of what they wanted.  It was a compromise, but in the words of Lawrence O'Donnell "I have never seen a messier piece of legislation brought to a vote." 

Here are the key elements of the debt deal. 

          1.  The debt ceiling is raised through 2012.

          2.  $900 billion spending cuts over 10 years.

          3.  Only $22 billion to be enacted before 2013.

          4.  $350 billion is cuts to defense spending.

          5.  No cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The bill, also, establishes a bi-partisan Congressional Super Committee, made up of 3 from both parties in the House and Senate for a total of 12.  This Committee is to recommend, by Thanksgiving, more savings, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.  They will have complete authority to look at everything, including revenues and the big three, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Now here is where is gets a little complicated.  When the Committee has made their recommendations, Congress is then to vote the recommendations up or down, no amendments, by  Christmas 2011. 

If the Committee becomes dead locked and can not bring the needed recommendations to the Congress, then a Trigger provision is to go into effect.  Also, if the Committee makes the recommendations to the Congress and the Congress votes them down, the Trigger provision will go into effect.

The Trigger provision would make it mandatory for the $1.2 trillion to be comprised of 50% from Domestic spending and 50% from Defense spending. 

If the Trigger is activated, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will be protected from the Trigger cuts.

WINNERS & LOSERS

Everyone can find plenty in this bill that they don't like.  Is there anything in it that anyone can find that they do like? Were there any winners and losers?

Obama got a couple of things he wanted, in that, the debt ceiling was raised until 2013 and the entitlements were not touched.

Boehner got two thing he wanted, in that, there was no increased revenue and a lot of spending reduction.

As far as, losers are concerned, it is my opinion that the President and the Democratic Party are the biggest losers.  The Republican Party are, also, losers, but at a much lesser degree than the Democratic Party. 

The winner is the Tea Party Freshman.  They came to Washington to change the way things are done and they sure did.  Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our country.  They are the ones that caused all this to happen and they also are the ones that, in the process, brought the Balanced Budget Amendment to the front like never before.  It may very well get done in 2013. 

I am not familiar with the possible ramifications of a Balanced Budget Amendment, but I think maybe it would be a pretty good thing.  Congress is the only one that can initiate and approve spending, that could lead to deficits. A Balanced Budget Amendment might keep them from over spending. 

MAYBE NOW, CONGRESS CAN GET TO WORK ON OTHER THINGS THAT WE REALLY NEED BADLY, LIKE A STIMULUS PACKAGE TO CREATE JOBS, THAT WOULD HELP THE ECONOMY TO GROW, INCREASE REVENUE FROM THE ADDED JOBS AND HELP GET OUR COUNTRY OUT OF THE HOLE WE'RE IN, AND I DO MEAN POT HOLES AND SUCH IN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES.

THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE HAVE NOW TAKEN A FIVE (5) WEEK RECESS.  POOR PEOPLE, THEY HAVE WORKED SO HARD!!  I BET THE MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN  AND IRAQ WOULD  SURE  LIKE  TO  TAKE  A  FIVE  WEEK  RECESS. 

The Great Recession, Part II

I have never studied the pluses and minuses of Free Trade, but I have always felt that it put us at a disadvantage in trade, because we were not competing on a level playing field.  The following is extremely interesting relating to what may happen, if we continue down this road.  I believe it would be worth your time to read it.

The world could be headed for another economic disaster, if we continue to listen to free-market ideologues.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz Posted Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Deregulated capitalism brought us a recession. Why are we still listening to its champions?  Just a few years ago, a powerful ideology—the belief in free and

unfettered markets—brought the world to the brink of ruin. Even in its heyday, from the early 1980s until 2007, American-style deregulated capitalism brought greater material well-being only to the very richest of the richest country of the world. Indeed, over the course of this ideology's 30-year ascendance, most Americans saw their incomes decline or stagnate. 

MNNNNNNNNNN      Moreover, output growth in the United States was not economically sustainable. With so much of U.S. national income going to so few, growth could continue only through consumption financed by a mounting pile of debt.

I was among those who hoped that, somehow, the financial crisis would teach Americans (and others) a lesson about the need for greater equality, stronger regulation, and a better balance between the market and government. Alas, that has not been the case. On the contrary, a resurgence of right-wing economics, driven by ideology and special interests, once again threatens the global economy—or at least the economies of Europe and North America, where these ideas continue to flourish.

In the United States, this right-wing resurgence, whose adherents evidently seek to repeal the basic laws of math and economics, is threatening to force a default on the national debt. If Congress mandates expenditures that exceed revenues, there will be a deficit, and that deficit has to be financed. Rather than balancing the benefits of each government expenditure program with the costs of raising taxes to finance those benefits, the right seeks to use a sledgehammer—not allowing the national debt to increase forces expenditures to be limited to taxes.

This leaves open the question of which expenditures get priority. If expenditures to pay interest on the national debt are not prioritized, a default is inevitable. Moreover, to cut back expenditures now, in the midst of a crisis brought on by free-market ideology, would inevitably prolong the downturn.

A decade ago, in the midst of an economic boom, the United States faced a surplus so large that it threatened to eliminate the national debt.

(MY COMMENT - Floyd) The "surplus so large" referred to above, is misleading.  There was a small true budget surplus that President Clinton left, but the "large" is only backed up when you include the Social Security Trust Fund, at that time.  That has been one, of many, big mistakes by the George W. Bush Administration.  The SS Trust Fund was never suppose to be touched for anything, other than Social Security.  The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it officially illegal to use it as though it were general revenue.   Using it was the only way that Bush could convince the public that they had been paying too much in taxes, when actually they had not.  It was the only way he could get his big tax cuts through.

Unaffordable tax cuts and wars, a major recession, and soaring health care costs—fueled in part by the commitment of George W. Bush's administration to giving drug companies free rein in setting prices, even with government money at stake—quickly transformed a huge surplus into record peacetime deficits.

The remedies to the U.S. deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: Put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich. But the right will have none of this, and instead is pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in investments and social protection that put the future of the U.S. economy in peril and that shred what remains of the social contract. Meanwhile, the U.S. financial sector has been lobbying hard to free itself of regulations, so that it can return to its previous, disastrously carefree, ways.

But matters are little better in Europe. As Greece and other countries face crises, the medicine du jour is simply timeworn austerity packages and privatization, which will merely leave the countries that embrace them poorer and more vulnerable. This medicine failed in East Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, and it will fail in Europe, too. Indeed, it has already failed in Ireland, Latvia, and Greece.

There is an alternative: an economic-growth strategy supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Growth would restore confidence that Greece could repay its debts, causing interest rates to fall and leaving more fiscal room for further growth-enhancing investments. Growth itself increases tax revenues and reduces the need for social expenditures, such as unemployment benefits. And the confidence that this engenders leads to still further growth.

Regrettably, the financial markets and right-wing economists have gotten the problem exactly backward: They believe that austerity produces confidence, and that confidence will produce growth. But austerity undermines growth, worsening the government's fiscal position, or at least yielding less improvement than austerity's advocates promise. On both counts, confidence is undermined, and a downward spiral is set in motion.

Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn't, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.

This article comes from Project Syndicate.

WHAT  ABOUT  THE  14TH

AMENDMENT?

This is a little mute now, but I think it is very interesting and really important.  Many have felt that the President should have used the 14th Amendment some time ago.  This provides good reasoning as to why he did not.

In Tulsa Oklahoma there is a very active, large group, called the "OKLAHOMA PROGRESSIVE COALITION."  Ann Kent is the backbone of the Coalition and gathers information and publishes the Oklahoma Progressive Coalition Newsletter.  She does a fabulous job and the following is from one of her Newsletters.  Our sincere thanks to Ann for this information. 

OKLAHOMA PROGRESSIVE COALITION  NEWSLETTER

annk2@cox.net

 1.  Kathy Moheb sends us the debt information below about the 14th Amendment concerning ceiling crisis:

 Exclusive Bill Clinton Interview: I Would Use Constitutional Option To Raise Debt Ceiling And "Force The Courts To Stop Me"

 2.  See the answer as to why the President is not preceding at this time to invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation's debt ceiling:

TRUTHOUT'S  BUZZFLASH  DAILY                                         HEADLINES
There's a simple reason that President Obama will not invoke the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt ceiling crisis: the Supreme Court.

Yes, there is speculation that Obama is too risk averse to assert that the Constitution gives him the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and that may be true.

But Obama and his advisers know that if he bypasses Congress by using the 14th Amendment, it will immediately be challenged in the federal courts which are loaded with partisan Republican judges and fast tracked to the Supreme Court.

With Scalia having led a partisan majority time and time again including his stopping of the State Supreme Court-ordered presidential recount in
Florida in 2004 so as not to harm the reputation of the presumed winner, George W. Bush, (Scalia wrote in justification of his infamous opinion) it is a given that five members of the Supreme Court have no  compunction about leaving the Constitution in the dust.

As BuzzFlash has argued before, despite calling themselves "strict constructionists," the five majority votes on the Supreme Court are anything but. In fact, they often interpret the Constitution to justify their
political outlook as they did in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, and a host of other rulings that have dramatically affected the direction of this nation.

Thom Hartmann views the 5-4 majority record as being so significant that they have become a de facto arm of the Republicans in Congress.  Hartmann
calls the GOP majority on the court the "Five Kings."

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear when it comes to the debt ceiling:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
That's about as strict constructionist as you can get in prohibiting Congress from limiting the debt ceiling, even though it has been their tradition to vote on increasing it as they frequently have done under
Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

But the "Supreme Court Five" aren't going to really enforce the Constitution as it is written, should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment. They will rule
against presidential authority and side with the Republicans in Congress.  Because their motivation in high-stakes partisan issues like this is not the law as it is written; it is scoring a victory for their political beliefs and sponsors.

That is why President Obama will ultimately not assert the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt  ceiling crisis. The "Five Kings" won't allow him, in the
end, to do so. Mark Karlin Editor, BuzzFlash at Truthout

SENATOR TOM COBURN'S $9 TRILLION DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE

In my last posting I said I would study Senator Coburn's plan for deficit reduction and report about it in this posting.  With so much happening regarding the debt ceiling, I simply have not had the time needed to do that. 

This plan is 620 pages long and has a great deal to digest about it.  I'm not going to tell you that I will have it in the next posting, but I will tell you I will try to.  It is important and I think we should all know what he is suggesting.  I would imagine there is a great deal about closing loopholes and budget ear marks, such as the tax cuts to General Electric, the oil companies, and others. 

ENOUGH

Well, I think this is about enough for this time.  If God is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on August 15, 2011.

Floyd