Tweet
President-elect Obama apparently believes that the crisis brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble will require defaulting on the national debt. The New York Times reported today that Obama believes that "changes in Social Security and Medicare will be central to efforts to bring federal spending in line."
While Medicare is projected to face shortfalls because of the incredible inefficiency of the U.S. health care system, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will be fully funded until 2049 from its own stream of tax revenues and the U.S. bonds it holds.
If Mr. Obama plans to cut Social Security in the near future, then this effectively amounts to a default on the bonds held by the trust fund which were purchased with workers’ Social Security taxes. If the budget situation is so dire that it is necessary to default on the government debt, then surely we should be considering defaulting on the bonds held by Robert Rubin, Peter Peterson, and other wealthy bankers, not just the bonds that were bought to pay Social Security benefits for the country’s workers.
117 Comments
The purpose of the increase in social security taxes under Reagan was to hide the effect of the tax cuts to the rich. At Alan Greenspan’s suggestion, we raised taxes on the poor and lowered them on the rich. Even with this tax hike, revenues fell, and deficits soared under the second-worst president of all times.
The increase in social security tax is now fully revealed as a massive fraud.
Thanks, I did not know this.
Can we please include Greenspan in the trials? He is old maybe he will flip on the real maestro’s out of guilt… ummm well maybe not.
i see. bush 43 couldn’t get it done, so a democrat is going to give it a shot?
that’s how we got nafta.
If anyone cares to look, I threw this out about eight or nine months ago. Not only is it a Democrat going after a New Deal program, it’s a Black Democrat!!!
Fucking brilliant! This is why all the Wall Street money was behind him.
Look at what Bubba did for the conservatives/Wall Street interests while he was in office: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, extended the death penalty, chipped away at the Fourth Amendment, eviscerated welfare (in preparation for Bush’s demolition of bankruptcy protection for working families), allowed unprecedented consolidation in media channels, launched attacks against countries who had not attacked us, and the list goes on.
Obama came out of nowhere with big money behind him. I’ve been saying almost forever that if a Democrat got into the White House in 2008 it would be to do away with Social Security.
The aim is to reduce the American working and middle classes to the level of Third World workers. The drive to keep illegal immigrant workers out of the country is to make sure there will be plenty of menial, meaningless jobs available at rock bottom prices with no benefits and no chance of retirement and no other group to take them. They hope that at least having jobs will keep these groups from rebelling and they’re probably right.
The American people have laid down and rolled over time and time again starting in 1973 when the initial shots in this campaign of the war against labor and the middle class were fired. The Democrats went along to get campaign contributions and here we are left with noting but whores in congress, each and every one of them is a whore to someone.
Thanks very much Dean.
digg
American Medical Association should be a powerful ally in this fight.
It is a great fraud. If an individual pulled something like this, he’d be in the slammer. The question remains, though, is the only avenue open to us sitting and taking it? FDL needs a permanent comment section on how we might adapt the internet to further political goals.
Obama keeps talking about getting input from “the people.” Organizing with other blogs to pressure him in the right directions seems like something we can do, just as we’ve done on the Change.gov already. The overwhelming #1 question on there is this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…..rom-obama/
Kos readers were involved in this, and it seems to me we can find a couple of issues to rally around and “lobby” the WH and Congress about. It’ll have much more impact if it’s many blogs together. The key will be picking battles wisely though, but I do think their are some universals in Liberal circles that most will agree on.
Yes! The Progressive Netroots believes Democrats must be supported, no matter what they do! After all, Republicans are Bad, and there is no other choice!
So therefore, sit tight and take what your candidate delivers, and be ready to rationalize further support for Obama and the Democrats in even numbered years, forever!
Clearly, its a winning strategy, just a little disappointing Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare while increasing military expenditures and adventures, but hey, what can you do? Withold support, organize a viable opposition party? Never!
The Government certainly wouldn’t consider defaulting on the bonds held by the wealthy because that would be, well, just wrong. As for the “Little People” their money is for the upper class any way (See TARP). They had better know their place and even if they do dare to get upset, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, which was stationed in Colorado Springs when Posse Comitatus was discarded, is available for just such a contingency.
Dean, while agreeing with the logic in your post, I feel you are going too far in your choice of headline. Obama did not “suggest defaulting on the national debt.” If he did this would be the story of the day.
You are proposing that his program logically leads to a default, which others may or may not agree with. The headline is sensationalist and unhelpful in having the broader discussion of these issues.
What Obama proposes IS the same as a default. He is just not using those words. If the bonds held by the trust are no good (that is what Obama is saying, not in so many words) then NONE of the bonds issued by the US treasury are any good.
He can’t pick and choose his defaults. He defaults on one (by essentially tossing them in the crapper and saying “do overs!”) then that means that NO ONE can trust their bonds to be honored. Including those held by China, Japan, Australia, Russia, etc.
I believe that if Obama follows through with this stab in the back of the worker at the behest of the “gentry”, then all our international bond holders should call in their due immediately (or threaten to do so). Treasury bonds are treasury bonds. Default on one, default on them all.
cspan says they will be covering obama’s economic speech live as soon as it begins (hasn’t started yet on my cspan-radio stream). here are the direct real player links to CSPAN and CSPAN Radio.
Thanks.
It’s on cnbc.
How do we know that PEBO plans to reduce payouts on Soc Sec rather than increasing the ceiling income on which SocSec taxes are paid?
the report is that he was talking about controlling spending – not increasing revenue… but i wasn’t able to find a free transcript (but only did a very brief look).
obama up now.
Um, maybe a little less money spent on killing people in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq would help to ease the budget shortfall?
I’ll use this opportunity to repeat my recommendation that the Pentagon be decommissioned, stat. That would knock down the legendary National Debt considerably. The agency is a self-perpetuating waste of space.
Actually they need the bond money to be used on bridges to no where(even though the bridge was never built but the money was used) and 250k bathrooms!
Funny thing is, I thought I heard Obama claim he was a Democrat.
Defaulting on government obligations used to pay for benefits to America’s middle class seems like a Rovian way to gut Social Security without going to Congress or those pesky voters, who once claimed to be citizens. Now they’re reality show viewers without realizing the show is about them. This trial balloon by Obama is especially ironic in that Bush’s singular failure after lying us into wars was his attempt to lie us into “fixing” Social Security. Medicare does need a funding fix, but competent universal health care reform would encompass that.
Obama, it seems, is running away from his own agenda before his inauguration. That will make the Republican beach bullies stop kicking sand in his skinny face, won’t it?
Medicare does need a funding fix, but competent universal health care reform would encompass that.
That’s why Obama put Sanjay Gupta on the job!
/bitter snark
He is going to appoint specific people/team on Health Care. The sugeon general may help to sell it, but he won’t lead it.
He will just tell people its OK to spank/stroke themselves.
Anyone hear anything interesting yet? It seems like the same old cliches.
Eliminating earmarks sound awfully good
Everyone always sez that. Then that’s the last you ever hear about it.
What if he means it? ;)
Doesn’t matter. He’ll have to cave when the horse trading starts to actually pass the bill.
Besides earmarks are just a pimple on an ugly head. They consume about $10 or $100 billion (can’t remember the actual number) on a federal budget of $3 trillion, so how cares? It’s a red herring.
18 Billion (bit less than the car companies got).
Or about something like 0.0000000018 of the trillion dollar bank bailout.
Thanks.
as we know earmarks are a drop in the bucket. Eliminating them is OK since its stupid, but it won’t stop the localized 3rd world slides that are going on.
i’m ODing on the “we’re americans and we’re great, we’re the best” rhetoric.
i haven’t heard any specifics. cheap manipulative cliches. blech.
yes, i’m in a bad mood today. got up on the wrong side of the bed or something. sorry
Even the delivery was deadpan, like he was just going thru the paces.
Wow. What an empty speech. Worthy of W.
Waiting to hear the instant analysis on cnbc. Will report.
Where did he say cut or default on SS?
All he would need to do is remove the cap (and not touch the funds) and the problem would be solved.
Even better rather than paying the FED to print money for the US why not use the SS fund on un-riskly loans at 4% and then it could even turn a profit.
Pisani picks up some discontent because of “lack of specifics”.
The real fear is that he really does/must do fiat major and the dollar goes to zero.
cnbc folks getting tied up on how much infrastructure spending is “shovel ready.” That’s a valid point. “Journalists” are trying to created the impression that these projects will be rolled out PDQ. but my guess is that there will be much longer lags than conventional wisdom now believes.
There is so much shovel ready shit that we are drowning in it.
We are the greatest… so a bridge collapses in a major city plunging people to their deaths in the river.
We are the best… so an ice storm takes down dead tree’s hanging over power lines and knocks out power for 10 days in MA and NH.
Here is an idea cut down the dead tree’s hanging over powerline waiting to kill people via freezing when a big storm hits because the private company does not maintain them nor does the city.
Rank each tree and re-plant for the ones cut down.
Even if you are the best shit still goes wrong. Damn.
Very true. But nobody is the “best”.
We are the best in certain things, OK in others, and worse in others.
For example we are not best in internet, infant mortality, income disparity, quality of life, happiness index, etc.
We do kick ass at spending other peoples money, selling weapons to the globe, and jumping into wars.
Every state, county, and municipality has a long list of projects they know they need to undertake to renovate, repair, or build with respect to infrastructure, but that they haven’t started due to lack of budget.
You can contact your local government and get access to a lot of this information.
The rejoinder to that is those projects haven’t been bid out yet because there hasn’t been money to do them. Bidding process takes months.
Me thinks no-bid contracts are the “only solution”. God forbid.
Kudlow loves the tax cuts for business.
i wouldn’t mind a means test on soc sec. let’s say ya have an income of 500,00 per year. why should you receive soc sec?
Like the very rich who take it and laugh about it..
Other chime in. The reason why financial mkts stabilized is that PEBO included tax cuts.
Here is another option: Put a tiny fee on stock trades or dividends or somthing like that to fund it!
EPU’ed from Christy’s thread:
Well, it is clear that the centerpiece of Obama’s recovery plan is a big stimulus plan. But mostly this speech is pablum.
He doesn’t say how big the stimulus will be.
He doesn’t say how he wants it divided up. (So far it looks like about 40% will go to fairly non-productive tax cuts.)
He says that 3 million jobs will be saved or created. (His use of the word “saved” makes this bullshit. He can just randomly say that any job not lost was saved. So this looks like a very weak commitment to job makng. If jobs are created he will take credit for it. If this doesn’t happen he will still take credit for jobs “saved”.)
And the fact that he lumps credit, distressed homeowners, banks, and regulation into a single paragraph says that these aren’t his top priority and that he doesn’t have a real plan with regard to them. And the assertion that maximum measures will be taken with regard to the bailout f financial companies looks like pure BS. You have to remember that Obama was the primary force behind getting the goofy and wasteful $700 billion Paulson bailout passed.
Shorter version: This is going to be a scatter shot, not comprehensive plan. It still hasn’t been thought through. The stimulus is its centerpiece, and it hasn’t been completely thought through here. It has a chance of keeping us out of depression but it is unlikely to get us out of recession and its inefficiency will considerably worsen the country’s debt and postpone any eventual (and sustainable) recovery.
During the election, it was 2.5 million jobs created. As soon as he won, it turned to saved or created.
As of Nov, there were 144 million employed. If, at the end of 4 years, there are 100 million, Obama can claim to have saved 100 million jobs.
“Obama was the primary force behind getting the goofy and wasteful $700 billion Paulson bailout passed”
Good post, but on this point I do not agree. Sure he is part of the government that said the sky is falling and we need to pass it yesterday – but he was just a campaign trail guy, just as McCain was.
Bush is the one that made this plan happen hands down. It just so happens that 80% of the visible people in power wanted it to happen. Not to mention 100% of billionairs.
the house of representatives voted the bailout bill down on, iirc, monday. obama came and twisted some arms and the house passed it on friday (not sure about the days, that’s just from memory)
He an McCain went in – but it was a done deal. It was getting passed.
I am not saying he did not help, but it was not his plan and he did not lead the marketing. He just jumped on for the ride so he was “doing something”.
The question is what was getting passed. As it was, the Democrats with Obama leading punted on putting in the bill any requirements on how the money was spent either by Paulson or the banks. This could have and should have been part of the bill.
oh, that reminds me of an amazing piece the folks at npr’s planet money did on how part of the tarp bill got written. i’ll look for it now while i’m thinking of it…
from NPR – Planet Money: Bailout Mystery Revealed!
planet money started out a few months ago as a great podcast and sadly has now gotten quite lame. but this one from mid december is very interesting, and i’ve been intending to post the link for a couple of weeks. about 15 minutes.
Thanks for the links.
Good point, it may have had an impact on the final body of the bill.
But what I am saying is Obama was coming into the scene. The reality is that it was getting passed, maybe 300b maybe 700b – but it was not a D versus R thing – that robbery was planned just like Iraq. They admitted to having the plans in the desk to at least 6 months.
Look at it this way, I knew we were going to crash about 2 years ago (I was hoping it would not exceed my tolerance of – 30% but I was wrong there) – there is NO WAY Congress and the Executive and many in Wall Street did not know this a LONG time ago.
Then BOOOM – we need a Trillion dollars.
correct!
But certain constituencies can be relied upon to vote Democratic, no matter what, so their urgings can be safely ignored.
So, $700 billion plus to the plutocratic elite on Wall Street is no problem for Obama, it is “necessary”, but for the old grannies on fixed incomes, well, no more luxurious vacations in Aspen in the winter for you!
yep. just checked hugh’s list item 87 for the details:
sept 29 house vote: “15 minute vote that was held open for 38 minutes, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats defeated the bill 205-228 in the House. 140 Democrats voted for the Bush-backed “compromise”. 133 Republicans opposed it and their President.”
oct 3 house vote: “263-171 with a majority 172-63 of Democrats voting for and a majority of Republicans 91-108 voting against.”
We have absolutely no idea what PEBO means by that statement. He could be considering an increase in SS payments for all we know, and because the statement mixes medicare and SS, there are so many degrees of freedom out there it can mean anything. I think this is another head-fake, the purpose of which is to get the Thugs to recommit to undoing SS before Obama rolls out the programme,so they will be out there naked. In any event, unless old people stop voting reducing SS is off the table. The recent stock market meltdown should have cooled young people’s ardor for privatized accounts.
It’s fair to say everything is on the table, because everything is. If the US goes bankrupt (which it will unless it raises taxes at some point in the not too distant future), obviously SS is in the tank, along with everything else.
I see by the papers this morning that China is pulling back from US Treasuries. Another thing the so-called Econ pundits got wrong. If China exports less to the US, China will buy less Treasury paper from the US. It’s simple arithmetic. Oh, I forgot. You don’t need to do arithmetic to write for the WSJ op-ed page!
i don’t think i agree, but for sake of argument let’s go with your assessment. don’t you think it’s telling that obama continues to say things and we don’t know what he means? could it be intentional? that for all his talk about transparency, he’s not actually being transparent about his intentions and what he means by what he says?
I do not think the president is going to perhaps ever be transparent in many things.
During the largest global financial war of all time – not very likely. The world is listening and they don’t want us or the greater world to know much.
Now its not that is a zero sum game per se – but I think they look at most things like this via a war lens.
My suspision of finacial/trade war was OCT/NOV 2007 when they came out with the items on lead paint toys from China right before Christmas.
He has about 300 more hours to figure it out??
i didn’t take notes, as i should have, but a couple of things stood out for me:
1. why the focus on computerizing all of our medical records as the big health care overall? is this really expected to save a lot of lives or is it a misdirection from what really needs to be done – single payer and get the insurance overhead out of the system?
2. why the focus on getting computers in every class room? aren’t most computers manufactured somewhere other than here? i’m not against computers (hell no) but i don’t see this as part of a economic stimulus package. instead, i’d like to hear that more schools are going to get built (constuction jobs during the building crash) so that class size can be decreased (improve education) and more teachers hired (jobs!).
I started to type a comment at the point when he mentioned those: micro solutions to macro problems. But I stopped myself just in case he would be mentioned some macro solutions. He didn’t. Those were the only specifics and they are completely irrelevant in magnitude to anything that ails the U.S. economy.
exactly… except they don’t look like solutions, even micro ones. maybe someone can explain what i’m missing.
I think the electronic medical records will cut down on fraud. My mother has every (expensive) test done at our expense. Since she sees more than one doctor, I’m sure some of these are replicated.
Computers in every classroom are a good thing, but the software liscenses are the killer. We sold a bond to our community based on computers, but we have shit for programs. They just cost too much.
thanks. the fraud thing makes sense… and it’s consistent with what i think obama has been saying about regulation in the financial industry – it’s all about fraud (and not about regulation to manage systemic risk).
What constitutes a medical record? Physicians often scribble notes as they interview a patient. Depending, the physician also will dictate a report based on these. Do these notes stay as part of the record?
This overlooks HIPAA requirements. Even if you have this stuff on a computer somewhere, there has to be a patient release to access it. So far as I know there is no way to transmit an electronic release. It has to be done through a written release.
Computerization of medical records also raises questions about privacy. Do you seriously think that the NSA won’t be vacuuming up all this material? Or others
Fromy scandals list:
You see the sharing of this kind of information is already going on. This would just make it easier.
There’s nothing to prevent docs & hopsitals from computerizing medical records & forming a working group to develop a system that transfers medical records easily and responsibly. I don’t see why the govt needs to be involved.
So given Obama’s strong emphasis on it, usually at the top of any speech on medical care reform or the economy, I must don my tinfoil hat and assume it has something to do with govt spying. I rarely mention this because it is so fare OTT, but can’t think of any other legitimate reason.
Well the problem is that the government has HIPAA and any new system has to accord with it. While physicians may behave in a responsible fashion, they are like other people and often don’t.
“computerizing all of our medical records “
This is what I always though he was talking about for a large part of what he is “doing”. Why?
Because there is huge waste there, and in addition its already happending (in gov and in private corps).
There are huge problems though in healh care, for example my bro-in-law is in a 3 doctor practice – they have less medical staff and more people in their practice to deal with paperwork and tracking down healh reimbursment that the providers refuse to pay or delay. Those are jobs for people, but its really a waste of productivity.
There is a good dose of stupid in everything.
How do you cut/untie the Gordian Knot. Might not be possible there are so many interests and $ and power at stake.
2. Schools
Schools cost money. We can afford to build them – but how can the local govs afford to staff them, and pay pensions.
That being said it is a bit odd that town could get by on on 2000 tax income, then property tax went up about 100% plus with NO ADDITIONAL SERVICES and suddenly they can’t function. hmmmm.
We could afford to build schools, hire teachers, pay their medical benefits and pensions in the 1960s and 1970s when the economy was a lot less prosperous. We also build a lot of infrastructure in those decades.
It’s strictly a matter of priorities.
selise found a great post somewhere that pointed out that if Paulson could get $700 billion at the drop of a hat, if Bernanke could pull trillions out of his ass, then all those programs like single payer universal healthcare that have been stymied for decades because of their “cost” were always doable and that all the excuses for not doing them were BS.
Yep. Krugman, in Conscience of a Liberal, argues that the reason why the U.S. backed off on universal medical care during Nixon was that southern hospital didn’t want to integrate. And, given his southern strategy, he wasn’t going to upset them.
Actually I think they have him on tape hearing about the HMO plan and saying something to the effect of:
this is great, its a total gravey train.
Its about the Money (and power to get more)
it was from chris floyd. one of my favorites: The God That Failed: The 30-Year Lie of the Market Cult
Sadly no the money was not there. Its fake money just like it is today.
They just printed the money…it does not exist – but wait let me show you how its done like magic:
Command Prompt> Enter the amount of money to print:
> $1,000,000,000,000
>Processing please wait 4 seconds
> Complete.
> Sending bill to tax payers grandkids….
Command Prompt> Would you like to default on all debt today or wait another year?
> No
>….very well, have a nice day.
I strongly urge everyone to take a look at the very engaging, interesting, and well done short videos explaining the way our “economy” works, how the Fed works, how the government lies about inflation and GDP in order to paint a MUCH rosier picture, even when it is not remotely rosey, and the true nature and size of the currently collapsing housing bubble at: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse. Even if you only look at the parts on the Fed, the bubble, inflation, and fuzzy numbers, you will see that the entire shooting match is truly on the verge of utter collapse.
True, and national priorities. We have a system setup where you can turn a blind eye and make a killing in finance or many other stupid jobs – but you get gimpy pay for being a teacher.
Does anyone know if students in other countries are taught typing skills with their computers? Do we teach typing in our schools still, or is that just a wasted skill b/c thumbs work just as well? And there is no need to read and type at the same time?
We have a typing program, but it’s a waste of class time.
I think it’s called keyboarding, no?
Type to Learn.
My son is learning typing skills in first grade — seems like the main focus of their computer lab time.
Maybe PEBO is getting too many conflicting opinions from his group of advisers, the ones he hired to give him conflicting opinions.
I have no idea why Obama is bringing up Social Security at all. It is projected to be running a surplus for the next 8 years. After that the government is committed to funding any shortfalls to 2040 out of the surpluses it already has received and spent.
There is a problem with Medicare but this could be addressed to moving to single payer universal healthcare.
I don’t think Obama is suggesting a default. It’s more likely he is suggesting cutting back benefits. It is stupid that he couldn’t be clearer about what he meant. In any case, the two ways to address the funding of these systems is either by changing the tax or benefit systems or some mix of these two.
teddy’s up: Boxer: Panetta a “Wonderful Leader”
cnbc reports Madoff transferred $100 million to London in 2007.
An issue may arise as to how many culpable separate but interdependent orbits there are around Madoff and who and what entities are in each orbit and what is the nature of their participation. New York law has a strong loss causation standard in criminal and civil fraud cases as does the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. That is if Madoff actually invested any of the lost money in public markets and the loss of those investments was caused by the recent crash, then it may be difficult to prove fraud with respect to those monies. This possibility may prove quite complicated in prosecuting and suing Madoff and those in the various orbits around him; separating those investments which were lost due to market conditions from those investments which were lost due to ponzi style fraud.
Obama:
He’s been taking lessons from the Oracle at Delphi. People on the left will blame the bankers etc., while people on the right will blame the irresponsible poor people, the riff-raff of our society.
For decades WashingtonDC has been using smoke and mirror tricks as SS pay-ins were used to create fantasy budget outcomes and simply fraudulent federal budget accounting show and tell outcomes.
For decades WashingtonDC has been using SS taxes(derived from only portion of American payroll incomes not all as it should be)to play “the money tree” with over and over.
Perhaps the Pentagon should take a 50% cut in yearly funding. Then instead of spending what next ten nations spend on “defense” as WashingtonDC now does it would only be outspending next five nations combined. Still quite remarkable amount going to American militarism and M-I complex all things considered.
Perhaps WashingtonDC should be put on “balanced budget” footing which would surely bring real world measures and accounting into play.
It is damn certain this recent treasury plunder and pillage grab to tune of $700 billion or more is very much not what “free market capitalism” is about. Let the investors take the hit and put the crooks who brought this debacle on in prison.
There seems to have been plenty of money for this cookie jar raid.
Why not for national healthcare plan and solid SS footing going into next century?
Why not?
Pentagon tax cut? That was a good one.
Well, perhaps they could cut the number of military bases around the globe back to 200 or 300 and save some cash.
Things should work out fine with Obama because he told God to bless everyone and the country at the end of his address about $ although there is only one president at a time when it comes to dead Palestinian babies. George W. must be very proud of his incoming successor.
Recall that Defense spending does not include:
Nukes (Dept of Energy)
Defense (Dept of Homeland Security)
blackops, etc, etc
Maybe, just maybe, this is what the Rs WANT us to think Obama is going to do. And look at the effect it has on everyone. Maybe there’s a reason Obama doesn’t say some things and maybe it’s a good reason. Or maybe he’s making a mistake. Maybe the mistake is honest. Likely much will change. AS IT ALWAYS DOES.
This is just silly. Are Republicans writing Obama’s speeches? He can’t say what he means to say or issue a clarification? As selise upthread noted, Obama talks about transparency but in fact he is being vague to the point of concealment. Minimum we should be getting some real target numbers on these programs. We should be hearing what kinds of things he intends to do for homeowners or what kinds of regulation he wants to see in place. We don’t need things down to the last dollar and cent but we need more than the BS he is dishing out.
We have been pre-paying the Baby Boomer retirement for the last 26 years, due to an increase in Social Security taxes enacted in 1983. The money has been used to fund tax cuts on investors and high income individuals. It should be repaid – not by higher payroll taxes on the workers who have been paying extra for 26 years, but via a tax surcharge on high income individuals and investors. To do otherwise would be like forcing the lender, not the borrower, to repay a loan.
This is a bit of a red herring. Social Security will be fine with minor tweaks- Medicare, on the other hand, is a disaster.
The argument about defaulting on debt is at least misleading.
On IT and medicine:
The Mayo clinic has been working for years on computer models that comprise expert systems for medical treatment- plug in some medical history and lab results and out come minumum treatment standards.
Docs hate it- especially Mayo Docs, but it could provide an asnwer to all sorts of problems- including over testing to cover the doc’s ass and an antidote to too little continuing education by docs.
Best not to have docs relying on information from pharm reps.
Would you happen to have the relevant link handy? Thanks.
Obama seems to be taking pre-emptive strikes at gooper obections to his plans by raising them himself. I’ve seen this used effectively to cover radical change- but it remains to be seen why Obama’s doing it.
As a supporter and contributor to Obama during the campaign I’m beginning feel “punked!” Anybody else feel the same?
Since the Greenspan reforms, the structure of Social Security is just a legal fiction. The official claim, which Mr. Baker evidently subscribes to, is that Social Security is a separate fund, fully financed through 2040-something. In reality, Greenspan’s purpose for boosting the FICA tax, causing a large surplus to accumulate, was to help make Reagan’s massive tax cuts for the rich possible; we were told that the purpose was to accumulate a fund to pay for the baby boomers’ retirement, but the money was spent immediately. So the good-through-204x trust fund is a legal fiction, and to make it real would require either massive tax increases, massive spending cuts, or massive deficits. We might as well do what the Europeans do and assume that there’s one budget that includes pensions as well as other spending. But had Reagan and Greenspan done that they’d never have managed to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor (decreasing the income tax, increasing the FICA tax).
If the adjustment Obama makes is to raise or eliminate the ceiling on the FICA tax, this isn’t “defaulting on the national debt”. It’s progressive taxation: since we know that the trust fund isn’t really being accumulated, this kind of adjustment will help with the total deficit and increase tax justice, so that the bosses no longer pay a lower tax rate than the subordinates.
If Obama reduces payments promised to retirees, that would be a breach of faith, but he’s never proposed such a thing in the past.
I’d say the most likely changes to social security will be an increase in the payroll tax limit and a minor adjustment to computing the amount of annual befenefit increases. Neither need be draconian.
Kent Conrad’s already saying that the $3000 business tax credit is a no-go, among other things:
The change that needs to be made to Social Security is to do away with the cap on income. That one change would fund Social Security into the next century and beyond. But the rethugs will scream tax increase, tax increase while they continue their own plunder and secrete their ill-gotten gains away in the Caymans.
Since Reagan actually DID do a tax increase for social security, this is not a valid argument on their part…but it is easly deflated: cut social security taxes a little bit BUT eliminate the cap on ss taxed income. A tax cut on top of protecting social security’s solvency indefinitely.
Cut military spending 20% show the army that there are consequences when you lose a war. As long as America can destroy any enemy do we really need to spend to destroy all of them at the same time?
I knew that Obama would screw over the elderly.