WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU
MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR THREE
|
|
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14
|
Dec 18, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15
|
Jan. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
|
Jan. 08, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
EXTRA
|
Jan. 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17
|
Jan. 15, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18
|
Jan. 22, 2013
|
|
Gbtre OBOF & TYMHM PART 19
|
Jan. 29, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20
|
Feb. 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21
|
Feb. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22
|
Feb. 20, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23
|
Feb. 27, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 SPECIAL
|
Mar.
06, 2013
|
|
saOBOF & TYMHM PART 24
|
`
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25
|
Mar. 12, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA
|
Mar. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26
|
Mar. 19, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 27
|
Mar. 26, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 28
|
Apr. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 29
|
Apr. 08, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 30
|
Apr. 17, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 31
|
Apr. 23, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 32
|
Apr. 30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 33
|
May 07, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 34
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 35
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 36
|
May 30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 37
|
June 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 38
|
June 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 39
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 40
|
June 25, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 41
|
July
02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 42
|
July
09, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 43
|
July
16, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 44
|
July
23, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 45
|
July
30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 46
|
Aug.
06, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 47
|
Aug.
14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 48
|
Aug. 20, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 49
|
Aug. 27, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 50
|
Sept. 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 51
|
Sept. 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 52
|
Sept. 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 53
|
Sept. 26, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 54
|
Oct. 02, 2013
|
IN THIS ISSUE
1. Here we are.
Where do we go next?
2. Pricey proposition of a government shutdown.
3. Stoking fears of Obamacare costs.
4. The great Social Security heist.
HERE WE ARE
NOW.
WHERE DO WE
GO NEXT?
By Floyd Bowman.
Publisher - "Opinions Based On
Facts."
October 2, 2013
Well, here we are in the Government Shutdown, or rather a
partial shutdown. Don't ask what partial
means as I haven't yet found anyone that seems to know for sure, at this
point. What this fiasco has really
turned into is not a matter of Obamacare, or who gets paid and who doesn't, and
where do we go from here. It has turned
into a BLAME game.
All the Republicans can talk about is to blame Sen. Reid,
Majority Leader in the Senate, because he won't pass their latest offer. That offer, as you may know, was to delay
implementation of a portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a year to give
individuals more time to prepare for the parts of the ACA that are to go into
effect the first of the year, 2014.
Don't ask me what those parts of the ACA are, as I am not
at all familiar with the details of ACA.
However, this I do know, this part of the ACA was scheduled to take
effect in 2014 instead of the time ACA became law for the purpose of giving
time for those who would be affected to prepare for it. Granting another year will only give the
Republicans more time to try to kill ACA completely, which, of course, is what
they want. Incidentally, why do they
want to kill it? Because it is a social
program for the middle class, working class and poor and the Republicans do not
want to give these people any kind of assistance.
According to many who profess to know, the implementation
of this part of ACA is going to put the icing on the cake and the Republicans
don't want the people to really like what the program does for them.
It is my understanding that the President has said that
there are parts of ACA that may need some adjustment (my words, not his) and
that it might be possible in the future for some changes, but not with a gun at
his head.
Because of all this uproar about ACA, no one is
paying attention as to what this is all about.
It is a budget matter. It is
about passing a Continuing Resolution to fund the operation of the
Government. This entire operation is
nothing more than EXTORTION by the Republicans, or more directly by the Tea
Party Republicans. ACA is
the law of the land and upheld by the Supreme Court. There is no justification for trying to stop implementation of ACA.
~~~
Why a government shutdown could be a pricey
proposition.
By Carrie
Dann,
Political Reporter, NBC News
If
past is prologue, a looming government shutdown could actually cost U.S.
According
to the Office of Management and Budget, the two shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 cost
taxpayers $1.4 billion combined. Adjust
for inflation and you've got $2 billion in today’s dollars.
Those
two shutdowns lasted a total of 27 days, but there’s no telling how long the
government could be shuttered this time around if Congress fails to act by
Monday at midnight. Even shorter
shutdowns have proven successful at draining government funds.
Speaking
at the White House, President Obama says his message to Congress is: "Do not shut down the government, do not
shut down the economy."
In
the immediate aftermath of the first government shutdown in 1981, the most
conservative estimate – conducted by the General Accounting Office (now
called the Government Accountability Office) -- put the cost of shutting the
government down for a single day at $8.2 million, or almost $21 million in
today’s dollars. A House panel later concluded that the day-long furlough
cost taxpayers 10 times more than that.
“Past shutdowns have disrupted the economy, and this shutdown would as
well,” President Barack Obama said at an address at the White House on Friday. “It would throw a wrench into the gears of our
economy at a time when those gears have gained some traction."
It
may seem counter-intuitive that pressing the pause button on the federal
government’s operations could come with such a hefty price tag … so why does it
take so much cash to keep the government’s lights off? And why do estimates vary so widely?
First,
there’s the actual mechanics of preparing for a shutdown, like alerting staff
of procedures and preparing to secure files and facilities. For example,
during the first five day shutdown in 1995, the Labor Department alone spent
almost $12,000 on postage, printing and paper for furlough notices. The Treasury Department calculated the cost of
developing contingency shutdown plans at just over $400,000.
That
process – and some of the costs associated with it – is already underway days
or even weeks before a shutdown deadline, whether the crisis is averted or not.
“Those
costs begin to be incurred now, when the debate is still going on,” said Bruce
Yandle, a professor of economics at Clemson University who served as the
executive director of the Federal Trade Commission during the Reagan
Administration. “It’s what employees are already discussing around the water
cooler. It’s already affecting decisions
being made by management.”
The
Senate passed a bill to fund the government though November 15, 54-44. NBC's
Kelly O'Donnell reports.
The
impact of a brief shutdown – or even just the threat of one – for government
contractors can also mean higher costs for federal agencies in the future, although
it’s almost impossible to assign a dollar amount, says Roy Meyers, a political
science professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore County and a former
CBO analyst.
“It
can reduce the profits of the contractors,” says Meyers. “And the next time
they consider working with the federal government, they count that as a risk,
and they charge more.”
That
impact could be felt acutely in the Washington ,
D.C. District of Columbia
There’s also the issue of back-pay for furloughed workers. While only
those workers deemed “non-essential” would stay home during a shutdown – about
40 percent of the federal workforce during the mid-1990s – there’s
a precedent for lawmakers granting those individuals their pay once the
government is back up and running, even though they weren’t producing any work.
Cost
estimates must also factor in delays in the collection of fines and fees
typically gathered by federal agencies.
OMB
said after the twin shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 that $2.2 billion worth of
licenses for U.S.
Sen.
Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., talks about the Senate vote to avert next week's
government shutdown, calling the debate a "Tea Party tantrum."
Most
of those fees eventually get collected, says Yandle, but the delays and the
inconvenience to businesses and consumers can end up having resonance that
won’t show up in cost estimates at all.
“Those
costs that cannot be estimated are often much more important than those that
can,” he said.
Meyers
argues that a shutdown’s cost to the budget or the effects on the overall
economy estimates – flawed as they may be – pale in comparison the
societal cost of a government that seems bent on playing political chicken
rather than focusing on solving problems.
“The
real costs are really not in terms of consumer confidence or any of the
standard measures in macroeconomics or even the federal budget,” he said. “The real costs are in trust in government and
belief that government officials are paying attention to the real issues of the
country.”
~~~
On Fox
Baselessly Stokes Fears Costs Of Obamacare For Young Adults
JUSTIN BERRIER
September 25, 2013
Both the Journal and Fox's segment
ignored that the potential premium increase is for a very small subset of the
insurance market. The Center for American Progress estimated that "only about 3 percent" of young
adults have the potential to see premium increases, which makes up about half
of one percent of all Americans:
A September 25 article in The
Wall Street Journal claimed
that "for some buyers, prices will rise from today's less-comprehensive
policies," and went on to say that "For consumers used to skimpier
plans--or young, healthy people who previously enjoyed attractive rates--that
could mean significantly higher premiums." Fox News host Neil Cavuto hyped the article
during an appearance on America's Newsroom,
claiming, "premiums are going up, they're going up markedly...for young
people in particular, the means by which we pay for all of this, their premiums
are going up smartly":
Both the Journal and Fox's segment
ignored that the potential premium increase is for a very small subset of the
insurance market. The Center for
American Progress estimated that "only about 3 percent" of young
adults have the potential to see premium increases, which makes up about half
of one percent of all Americans:
Critics
of the law ignore these facts and instead argue that the Affordable Care Act
will increase health insurance premiums for young adults, especially in the
nongroup, or individual, market. But our conservative estimates show that among
all young adults, only about 3 percent of them might actually see a premium
increase in the nongroup market--that is just 0.5 percent of all Americans.
This
group consists of healthy young adults who have nongroup health coverage and
whose incomes are too high to qualify for federal assistance that will offset
any increase in premiums. But even these
individuals will benefit from the law because with increased premiums come far
greater benefits and security. Under the Affordable Care Act, health care plans
will include benefits such as prescription drugs, maternity care, and
mental-health care, which most nongroup plans exclude today. And this improved coverage will remain in
place even as people age or become sick or injured.
In
addition, a recent survey of 36 states by the Department of Health and Human
Services found that about 60% of consumers purchasing insurance through
state exchanges could pay less than $100 per month in premiums:
Most
Americans buying insurance from new state health exchanges will have at least
two insurers to choose from, and six out of 10 people could pay less than $100
a month in premiums, a report to be released Wednesday by the Department of
Health and Human Services shows.
The
report analyzed insurance plans and premiums in 36 states where the federal
government will either run or help run the exchanges, which are websites where
state residents can shop for and buy health insurance starting Oct. 1.
In those
36 states, 95% of people will have two or more plans to choose from, while the
average premium for all states and all ages will be $328, according to HHS. However, anyone who makes less than 400% of
the federal poverty level, or about $94,000 for a family of four will be
eligible for a federal tax subsidy that will immediately be deducted from the
cost of the insurance policy.
~~~
RONALD
REAGAN
and the
GREAT SOCIAL SECURITY HEIST
by Allen W. Smith
September 24th, 2013
Hi Floyd,
One
person said they were unable to access by article from yesterday's mailing. In
case you couldn't access it, here is another copy.
Ronald
Reagan was one of the most popular presidents in modern history. As a former Hollywood
actor, he had an uncommon degree of charisma. The conservatives
absolutely loved Reagan for his efforts to reduce the size of government, but
most liberals hated him with a passion. Reagan is still revered by a lot
of Americans. This reverence for Ronald Reagan helps to explain how he
was able to fool most of the American people to a degree unparalleled by
any other modern president. With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan
pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American
people.
It is so
ironic that many people, today, still believe that Ronald Reagan came galloping
up on a great white horse to sound the alarm that Social Security was in deep
financial trouble. He then allegedly figured out a solution to the
problem and rammed his legislative proposal through Congress in a three-month
period. On April 20, 1983, the signing ceremony for the new legislation took
place with great fanfare. Below are some of Reagan’s remarks at the
signing ceremony.
This bill
demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to social security.
It assures the elderly that America
Today,
all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, “We kept our
promises.” We promised that we would
protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect
beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of
those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young
people just entering the labor force. And
we’ve done that, too…
Instead
of being a proud day for America U.S.
The 1983
legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for
Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large
Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the
increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
Let’s
have a look at the events leading up to this proposal. Reagan and the
government had big financial problems. Supply-side economics was not
working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates
generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a
dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set
for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the
additional revenue he needed from another source.
The
mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the
Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the
brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan
Greenspan. Greenspan played a key role in convincing Congress and the
public to support a hike in the payroll tax. A few years later, Reagan
appointed Greenspan to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
Since Greenspan’s new job was one of the most coveted positions in Washington,
many observers have wondered whether or not this appointment represented, at
least in part, payback for the role Greenspan had played in making vast sums of
new revenue available to the government.
President
Reagan and his advisors knew, from the very beginning, that the government
would soon face a severe cash shortage. Budget Director, David Stockman,
had deliberately rigged the computer at the Office of Management and Budget to
generate bogus revenue forecasts in an effort to convince Congress to enact
Reagan’s unaffordable proposed tax cuts. When Stockman first fed the data
from Reagan’s economic proposals into the computer, he was shocked. The
computer forecast that, if Reagan’s proposals were enacted into law, massive
budget deficits would loom ahead for as far as the eye could see.
Reagan
needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his
unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax
cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and
then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be
spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be
easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income
tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy
was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21,
1981 included the following:
As you
know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the
decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a
sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
Reagan
wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which
included:
The
highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social
Security System. Those 35 million
Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt
bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
Social
Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as
Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission
on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and
recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major
problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about
2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road.
In
addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a
possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook
improved and became favorable for the 1900s and early 2000s. The possible
minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic
assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that
Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the actual condition
of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next two decades.
Furthermore,
Social Security was certainly not Reagan’s “highest priority.” Reagan had never been a friend of Social
Security. He was a hardliner when it came to all government social
programs. He called unemployment insurance “a prepaid vacation plan for
freeloaders.” He said the progressive
income tax was “a brainchild of Karl Marx.” And he called welfare
recipients “a faceless mass waiting for handouts.” Reagan referred to
Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican
Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which
would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone
who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his
highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least
privatized.
Reagan’s
scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983,
which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase
was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30
years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be
saved and invested in marketable U.S.
The $2.7
trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax
cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid
at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no
arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting
that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money
will definitely have been stolen.
This
would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual
surpluses. But Social Security ran it's last annual surplus in 2009, and
began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full
Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue
by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits
in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China U.S.
That’s
why President Obama warned during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 that Social
Security checks could not go out on time unless the dispute was settled,
because “their might not be enough money in the coffers.” The grandiose
lie that the Social Security Administration, the AARP, and the NCPSSM,
repeatedly tells the public is outrageous. They continue to say that
Social Security has enough money to pay full benefits for another 20 years
without any government action, when Social Security cannot pay full
benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust
fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are
worthless!
We can
easily understand why the SSA continues to repeat the big lie. That is
what they are told to do by top government officials, who are trying to keep
the Social Security theft a secret from the public. But why do the senior
organizations continue to repeat the lie? They are supposed to be
representing the best interests of their members, but, in my opinion, they are
betraying their members.
So the
great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still
alive and well 32 years after it began. Republican and Democrat
presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the
blame. There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the
government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security, or, if the
government would make arrangements to repay the stolen money, Social Security
would be able to pay full benefits for at least 20 more years without any other
action. But crooked politicians, who do not want to repay the money, are
trying to convince the public that Social Security is a flawed system, which
needs to be replaced with private accounts.
Social
Security is a sound program that has worked well for more than 75 years.
It ain’t broke, so why try to fix it? The government—not Social
Security—is what is broken and needs to be fixed. It is time for the
American people to stand their ground and fire the crooked politicians.
President Obama, and every member of Congress know that everything in this
article is true. But they have succeeded in fooling the people for three
decades and seem to think they can continue to do so. Don’t let them get by
with it!
Dr. Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics,
Emeritus, at Eastern
Illinois University
This article was posted on Tuesday, September
24th, 2013 at 8:00am and is filed under GWB, Obama, Social
Security.
~~~
If the good Lord is
willing and the creek don't rise, I talk with you again next week, hopefully on
Tuesday October 8, 2013.
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
&
&
GOD BLESS the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment