Tuesday, June 7, 2011

How The Third Rail Will Kill Us All.

But, but, Medicare and social Security are safe!

After all, they are backed by those wonderfully worthy Treasury Bonds, right?

22 comments:

  1. Those SocSec and Medicare numbers are scary, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household.

    I had no idea it was THAT bad. Good heavens, I think James Carville is right, there is going to be civil unrest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

    "The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.


    Please, someone tell me how anyone can say these programs are successful and cost-effective. I don't care what party is represented, this person needs to be horsewhipped and put in public stocks.

    I think I'm a pretty average citizen and I seriously can't take this bull shit anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They pile bullshit on top of bullshit, and then top it with a sprinkle of bullshit. I think that most Americans are seriously fed up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you lady red, I'm frustrated beyond belief.

    Thank goodness we have TCKT in which to vent and commiserate with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fiscal condition of the US is bad, but there is a commonly made comparison here which I just don't buy.

    Specifically, the comparison between business finances and government finances.

    Businesses have to maintain a balance sheet: assets and liabilities. Bankruptcies have different definitions in different legal systems but are pretty defined - some are very strict. In Britain, "trading while insolvent" is unlawful.

    Governments are more like people. Their financial condition is not indicated solely by the balance sheet.

    People have jobs, careers, talents. Many kids just out of college or medical school are technically "bankrupt" according to business accounting rules. They have hundreds of thousands in debt on one side; some ratty clothes, an aging Volvo and an iPhone on the other. Assets << Liabilities. Some won't dig their way out, but many do.

    I would claim countries are more like people. In principle, we can grow and tax our way out of a fiscal hole.

    There's a case to be made that we're approaching the point of no return - or past it. And I generally agree. But I don't sign on to the rhetoric about the government being treated like a business, accounting wise - I don't think it's particularly defensible.

    If we were a business, we could put Alaska on the balance sheet in the asset category, because we could always sell it back to the Russians. I'm sure our aircraft carriers are worth something, too. We could lease the farmlands we pay farmers not to grow food on to the Chinese. We could hire out our awesome military as a mercenary force and make $$$.

    You don't want to apply creative accounting and "biz dev" thinking to fiscal policy because if you go a little bit down that road it is very "through the looking glass".

    Lawrence Kotlikoff has some analysis which is plenty alarming, using notions of "fiscal gap" (NPV of tax revenue - NPV of future obligations", IIRC).

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Florrie & all ... BOTH sides of this Social Security debate: broke vs okay; are full of shit. Period. They're either lying or ignorant or both.

    Social Security is neither broke nor in immediate danger of it (unless the USA goes bankrupt and defaults ... which is a related but different issue) ... but it may be if not reformed down the road.

    Matter of fact, the Obamabots CUT the payroll tax for SSA by net 16% (6.2% down to 4.2% for the employee portion, not employer) for 2011 only and that just happens to be equal to the shortfall for 2011 vis a vis SSA. If payrolls/employment were up, there likely would be not shortfall even with the idiotic one year cut.

    Uber conservatives are at risk if they buy the literal doom tomorrow scenario, just as liberals are if they buy the it's good for ever idea.

    Paul Ryan is the closest to right, and that is why, IMO, he's being denigrated by the usual suspects these days.

    Re: Medicare ... I have similar suspicions but not the knowledge at the moment to define them all ... other than to say my coverage is supplemented by an HMO, which does not lose money, and the Medicare portion of my coverage is accepted by a major teaching hospital, and the supplement picks up the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I feel a little better after reading your comments, lewy & Aridog (although you lost me on that last paragraph, lewy.)

    I'm most alarmed that so many politicians are still spinning it (both sides). I like Paul Ryan too, Aridog, he seems sincere and made a lot of sense this weekend when he was on the Bret Baier Medicare special. One thing I didn't like was he seemed to be touting CBO stats when they suited his budget proposal and denigrating them when their stats looked favorable regarding the impact of Obamacare.

    Let's just leave it at the stats are unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not intimately familiar with all the details of Ryan's plan, but from what I do know, it does NOT do what his critics say it does. No old ladies will be pushed of a cliff, etc.

    The key thing is that he put forth a congressional plan ... something the Democrats have failed to do for nearly 2 full years.

    The White house put out its plan in February, and amended it recently, but Congressional Democrats have not responded. Last year, a term when the budget making period saw a Democratic majority in the House, they did not respond either, not even to accept the White House plan....there was NO bona fide budget of all of 2010. This is outrageous ... a dereliction of duty, their primary duty.

    One reason it happens more and more these days (both parties - it's been going on for a decade plus and is accelerating beyond short term CR's) is simply because it allows Congress (and the White House) to appropriate and expend tax dollars bit by bit, without any real transparency unless you read the federal register daily, literally. And ... by that time you're reading history, not debate.

    I do not recall it ever being as routinely bad as it is now (however,one year under Clinton IIRC was wholly under CR's) where the "budget" is considered unnecessary. Literally. By those responsible for it.

    Yet they (both sides) have time to tweet nekid bare chest photos, conducting "sexting" on line, and the occasional pecker shot in their on going "social network" relationships ... the time for which seems to be beyond the call of duty, so to speak, let alone quite likely at least partially conducted through government means and media. In some cases they even use direct telephone and let me ask you, how often do you think you can get through directly to any Congressman by telephone, otherwise? Please.

    There is another adverse effect of this budget denial, so to speak ... morale (and efficiency) within Civil Service ranks. You prepare a "plan", particularly with spending reductions (which every one of mine did, net) and then essentially are told to go pee up a rope. As a "Fed" I resented the demands placed upon me to prepare a budget and submit it on time only to have it disappear into a CR sinkhole. Do you think I got a bad attitude over time? Do you think I soon enough didn't give a shit and submitted bullshit? Do you think I had company (a lot of it) in doing this, if I did it?

    Not that I did it, of course. :-L

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another thing ... vis a vis Ryan's plan: Trump has said he put it forth at the wrong time...that it was politically foolish etc. He may have a point, if we consider the public all morons who cannot fathom anything not ordained by wailing liberal progressives.

    I am hoping, betting, that the public is smarter than that. You do not have to like Ryan's plan, any of it, to at least acknowledge he made an honest and concerted effort ... while the others did nothing. Nothing at all. Harry Reid even outright said he sees no need for a budget.

    If Trump is right (it is possible), that it's all about politics and timing, then we are screwed IMO. Time has run out. Period. If Trump is wrong (it is also possible) then we still have a prayer in hell.

    2012 will tell the tale, in the Congress and in the White House.

    If the Republicans want to win, they'd better get a whole lot better at public relations vis a vis their plan, such as Ryan's plan, among other things, explain it well, and outright correct the obscene (granny of the cliff) critics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, 2012 will truly tell the tale. I just want the repubs to run decent, conservative candidates. No RINO's, no nutjobs. Is that too much to ask? Perhaps. We'll see.

    Thanks for your analysis aridog. I always enjoy reading (and thinking about) your posts. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lewy, I'm still digesting your excellent comment. I need some processing time. ;)

    ...off to google "Lawrence Kotlikoff" and see what I can find.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lewy, are you referring to the book "Jimmy Stewart Is Dead", or is there an article I can read?

    ReplyDelete
  15. One reason it happens more and more these days (both parties - it's been going on for a decade plus and is accelerating beyond short term CR's) is simply because it allows Congress (and the White House) to appropriate and expend tax dollars bit by bit, without any real transparency unless you read the federal register daily, literally. And ... by that time you're reading history, not debate.

    I had no idea. That's so discouraging, @#$%^&!

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is another adverse effect of this budget denial, so to speak ... morale (and efficiency) within Civil Service ranks. You prepare a "plan", particularly with spending reductions (which every one of mine did, net) and then essentially are told to go pee up a rope. As a "Fed" I resented the demands placed upon me to prepare a budget and submit it on time only to have it disappear into a CR sinkhole.

    It's all just for show. Why were the debt solutions of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson ignored? WTH was that all about???

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, I thought he meant the Kotlikoff that heads a small but deeply distured group of anime devotees.



    tee hee J/K

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sweet Jesus ... Trump is still suffering diarrhea mouth. Indecisive is hardly enough to describe his actions. Do they not have stage hooks any more?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @florrie -

    Oh, I thought he meant the Kotlikoff that heads a small but deeply distured group of anime devotees.

    I resemble that remark!

    ReplyDelete
  20. @lady red: try this article if you haven't already.

    There's a whole genre of "OMG the US is teh br0x0rd" articles out there. Many of them have questionable premise and assumptions.

    Sadly I don't see anything wrong with Kotlokoff's analysis here.

    See also here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do they not have stage hooks any more?

    Wouldn't you just LOVE to see that! Exit, stage left, lol.

    I can't take anyone with a combover seriously. Good gawd, man, get hair plugs!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Lewy, thank you for the links! Very interesting reading. I can't really argue with the stark reality presented by Kotlikoff.

    I found his Purple Health Plan to be especially intriguing. It's so refreshing to see someone working for an acceptable solution to our health care (and budget) woes, instead of all the screaming and hyperbole. His plan is an interesting hybrid between socialized medicine and the free market; I'd like to read more.

    ReplyDelete