Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs
The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.
It's time to start cashing them in.
For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.
Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.
Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money
Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.
"This is not just a wake-up call, this is it. We're here," said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst with The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. "We are not going to be able to put it off any more."
For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.
In the short term, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will continue to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes for the next three years. It is projected to post small surpluses of $6 billion each in 2014 and 2015, before returning to indefinite deficits in 2016.
Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt, said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who is now president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
"Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America," Kennelly said.
"They're as solid as what we owe China and Japan."
HAHAHAHAHA Wow I feel soooooooooo much better now!
Note to self: die before 2037.
I first heard about this from PJ O'Rourke (sp?) with whom I generally disagree. IIRC, the soc sec money, by law, had to be deposited in some kind of bond. That bond could only be loaned to the treasury. The only legal thing the treasury could do was spend it. Which they did.
This one has been building for decades.
See what is happening in Greece RFN? Largely, they cannot afford the level of social security they have promised themselves. Their govt is bankrupt, yet the people still refuse to accept the austerity cuts. Riots ensue.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but it isn't going to be pretty. Stock up on long-life food, folks. Good luck.
Note to self: die before 2037.
Don't worry.
If the Mayans were right, the world will end in December, 2012.
God, I hope so.
That means only 2 more Christmases I have to buy presents.
After that we'll be buying Tecapuchahulpamas presents.
Don't worry.
If the Mayans were right, the world will end in December, 2012.
God, I hope so.
That means only 2 more Christmases I have to buy presents.
I like the cut of your gib. Think positive!
Is there much difference between this model of social security and a pyramid (ponzi) scheme? As long as the base keeps growing, no problem - growth slows, problem.
Is there much difference between this model of social security and a pyramid (ponzi) scheme?
NO.I like the cut of your gib. Think positive!
I like the cut of your outboard.
It's raised especially for you. ;)
I like the sound of your boom! ;)
(See how the mainsail sets? Call for the captain ashore, let me go home.)
It's a Bada Boom.
Biiiiiig bada boom
Is there much difference between this model of social security and a pyramid (ponzi) scheme? As long as the base keeps growing, no problem - growth slows, problem.
A big difference: there are only two levels, and you are guaranteed (provided you survive) a place at the "top".
There will always be people paying, so there will always be money for the people receiving. Different proportions of old to young may affect how much, but they will never run out.
there will always be money for the people receiving.
I see no practical difference between receiving a nominal sum that is a fraction of anybody's idea of living expenses, and not receiving anything. The part that makes it a ponzi scheme is the idea that everyone will receive something
of value, which the government continues to insist upon.
Myself, I already made peace long ago with the idea that the program will implode before I'm old and I will receive (effectively) nothing. I choose to think of it as "welfare for old people," rather than a "system" I'm "paying in to," and that's fine.
Do you think that the ratio of old to young will rise indefinitely? The boomers will die eventually (If not, immortality would be a valid excuse to eliminate Social Secuity for the elderly).
And if the ratio of old to young, does rise indefinately, that means people are living longer, and the retirement age should be raised. Which brings the Social Security ratio back in balance.
I'm not sure what the difference between "welfare for old people" and a "system" I'm "paying in to" really is. It's welfare for old people who paid into the system.
I think it's neither. It's a piggy bank that our government has plundered for whatever purpose they want. It's more like a tax. Soon we'll be paying an "earnings surcharge" in addition to our taxes and other forms of government extortion.
Do you think that the ratio of old to young will rise indefinitely? The boomers will die eventually (If not, immortality would be a valid excuse to eliminate Social Secuity for the elderly).
...
If the boomers don't die on their own, they'll likely become hobos. Then they're just Shawnee fodder, and their numbers will quickly diminish. As an unexpected side effect, the price of dead hobos, and dead hobo meat will plunge. It's win/win/win.
I think it's neither. It's a piggy bank that our government has plundered for whatever purpose they want. It's more like a tax. Soon we'll be paying an "earnings surcharge" in addition to our taxes and other forms of government extortion.
Or we could all just support our own old folks. Let me tell you - that's really costly. Wouldn't you like your mother-in-law living with you? :eek:
I claimed 7 hobos on my tax return this year. They're all gone now, except for The Hobo Who Wouldn't Die. Don't look at me, I have no idea what happened to them. :unsure:
Or we could all just support our own old folks. Let me tell you - that's really costly. Wouldn't you like your mother-in-law living with you? :eek:
I've tried my mom living with me before. She really needs to go into an assisted living community.I really have been [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]not[/COLOR][/SIZE] enjoying keeping her issues organized and my own which, if I do not want to be one of those hobos,should be top priority.
:juggle:
When your kids get grown and you think everyone is going to be ok then your parents regress into childhood.I thought I was done with this. I am trying to keep the love but devising reasons to keep me on the line and my less than loving feelings is something I feel guilty about. Mostly when I am tired and don't want the phone to ring ONE MORE TIME.
I claimed 7 hobos on my tax return this year. They're all gone now, except for The Hobo Who Wouldn't Die. Don't look at me, I have no idea what happened to them. :unsure:
They probably went to hobo camp. I wouldn't worry.
"One time, at hobo camp..."
Well, I have no kids, no one who might give a shit about me when I hit 80... I guess I'll have to hope for some sort of Logan's Run dystopia to put me out of my misery.
Shaw, if I claim to be a hobo, will you do the honors?
I would, but I'll be long gone before that, probably.
Unless of course the aliens let me stay and grant me eternal life.
Well, I have no kids, no one who might give a shit about me when I hit 80... I guess I'll have to hope for some sort of Logan's Run dystopia to put me out of my misery.
Shaw, if I claim to be a hobo, will you do the honors?
Soilent Green Pie!
I'm not sure what the difference between "welfare for old people" and a "system" I'm "paying in to" really is. It's welfare for old people who paid into the system.
The difference is, I don't receive welfare now, and I'm planning ahead and saving for retirement so that I hopefully won't need to rely on welfare when I'm old either. The implication of the "system you paid into" was that you would be well taken care of, moreso than just barely keeping you above the poverty line. It doesn't currently do that, and will do so even less in the coming decades.
The difference is, I don't receive welfare now, and I'm planning ahead and saving for retirement so that I hopefully won't need to rely on welfare when I'm old either.
Hopefully.
Yeah, hopefully. I'm not saying we should get rid of Social Security, I'm saying I'm personally too cynical to count on it.
Yeah, hopefully. I'm not saying we should get rid of Social Security, I'm saying I'm personally too cynical to count on it.
I'm counting on working until I'm about 75. That'll be 3 years after I die.
Yeah, hopefully. I'm not saying we should get rid of Social Security, I'm saying I'm personally too cynical to count on it.
Save now and hope there will be something there, but like you I am not counting on it.
You two are the least of the systems worries. At this point I think you are expected to take the attitude that nothing will be there, otherwise there won't be.
The problem with that thinking is that I pay a lot of money into it every year, I should get a piece.
You will get a piece, unless you die too soon.
just not what you put in - relatively speaking.
If everyone got back what they put in, it would be useless.
Save now and hope there will be something there, but like you I am not counting on it.
Where are you going to save? The stock market, that crashed? The bank, 30 of which have closed in 2010? My mattress, where its value won't increase? If retirement age were increased, and if there were a net worth maximum to recieve SS, there'd be money there when we retire.
I'm not counting on jack from SS. Started an IRA 5 years ago and fingers crossed that and a fire department pension will see me through the golden years.
The bank, 30 of which have closed in 2010?
You understand that when a bank closes, your deposits are insured up to $250,000, right? If you've got more than that to save, put it in multiple banks.
If everyone got back what they put in, it would be useless.
You're right we should all get back more, MUCH more than we put in.
I'm not counting on jack from SS.
Same here. We got to worry about paying off interest charges as well...
I'm not counting on it, but I'm hopeful.
When I was younger, I didn't think it would ever exist for me, and I would have welcomed its termination. But now that I've paid a metric ass ton into the system, I'm more and more interested in keeping the pyramid scheme going.
They send out those little annual reports about what your payments will be at age 72 if you continue earning your current salary. That amount would be very nice to get. I wonder if those are in today's dollars or in the future's dollars? I think they say I'm gonna get like $1500 a month. That might not be enough to buy a can of cat food in 30 years when I retire. Hopefully they will adjust for inflation, and I'll get $28,000 a month so I can afford 60 cans of cat food each month.
They send out those little annual reports about what your payments will be at age 72 if you continue earning your current salary.
Propafuckingganda...
There is no way that money will be there like they say it will.
Propafuckingganda...
There is no way that money will be there like they say it will.
There are plenty of ways that money will be there like they say it will.
There are plenty of ways that money will be there like they say it will.
Could you please elaborate?
I think Spexx was just countering merc's doomistic "NO WAY" by saying, certainly, there ARE ways. Think of it as making fun of hyper hyperbolics, rather than a specific defense of the Social Security system.
On the other hand, merc, please elaborate on the many NO WAYS there won't be any money there. In this deliberation, please counter ALL ways that the money could possibly actually be there.
Otherwise, it's just more crying. Seems to work for ya, though.
Could you please elaborate?
Here's three:
Increase contributions
Increase the age at which you can get benefits
Deny benefits to those whose income/net worth is over $X
I think Spexx was just countering merc's doomistic "NO WAY" by saying, certainly, there ARE ways.
Cause we're Team America (FUCK, YEAH!) and we can do anything!
Think of it as making fun of hyper hyperbolics, rather than a specific defense of the Social Security system.
Who, me?
Ah, thank you for the explanation. I am probably too tired to be trying to read/understand this stuff, but I have 4.5hrs more of work to stay awake for...
Some of the ways:
Raise the retirement age
Raise or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes
Baby Boomers die.
Ahh, the Eskimo solution.
I don't think we'll need the Eskimo solution for the Boomers to die. I suspect it will happen eventually, no matter what.
...Baby Boomers die.
There's a plan: Kill baby boomers. Except me.
Sooner rather than later, too, because they're only going to get more expensive.
Bump...
(AP) WASHINGTON — The Social Security Administration made $6.5 billion in overpayments to people not entitled to receive them in 2009, including $4 billion under a supplemental income program for the very poor, a government investigator said Tuesday.
In all, about 10 percent of the payments made under the agency's Supplemental Security Income program were improper, said Patrick P. O'Carroll Jr., the Social Security inspector general.
Error rates were much smaller for retirement, survivor and disability benefits, which make up the overwhelming majority of Social Security payments, O'Carroll told a congressional panel.
"By any standard, the scope of these problems is considerable," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee. "Regardless of whether a payment occurs because of simple error or outright fraud, improper payments harm Social Security programs in the long term, jeopardizing benefits for those who may need them in the future. They also cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year."
With lawmakers working to reduce soaring budget deficits, President Barack Obama has directed agencies to reduce improper payments. Boustany's panel held a hearing on Social Security's improper payments Tuesday. O'Carroll said the agency is working to improve accuracy, but more must be done.
Throughout the federal government, improper payments totaled $125 billion last year, up from $110 billion in 2009, O'Carroll said. In 2009, only two other agencies — the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Labor — had more improper payments than Social Security, he said.
Read more:
Isn't that nice - In comparison, however, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wars we are fighting.
Amusingly, that is almost identical to the value of the bales of cash we lost track of in Iraq, according to a show I heard on NPR on my way home tonight.
lol - One of the comments below this article eluded to the same thing.
Just for clarity: According to the radio show, it was $6.6 billion total unaccounted for, which matches the $6.5 billion mentioned in the article, not the $8 billion in the article headline, or the $6 billion on one pallet or $26 billion total mentioned in the comments.
I noticed all the different numbers also. Why would they do that?
CBS is usually more accurate than that.
Amusingly, that is almost identical to the value of the bales of cash we lost track of in Iraq, according to a show I heard on NPR on my way home tonight.
For the record, that was six billion of Iraq's dollars--not "our" money we were giving to them. It was their money from the start, deposited directly in the Fed Bank in NY as a function of the rules of the Oil for Food program from years earlier. It worked so well that they continued it for years.
Bump...
Read more:
Isn't that nice - In comparison, however, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wars we are fighting.
Its also more than offset by the $7+ billion/year paid into Social Security by illegal immigrants who will never see a penny of the funds they contributed.
And yet it is still extremely wasteful and in times like these unaffordable. All of it.
I, for one, would like to see what we could do to increase the efficiency of the systems before we cut services to the needy.
Bump...
Isn't that nice - In comparison, however, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wars we are fighting.
How much were the overpayments yearly, since the beginning of the program? Was 2009 typical or atypical?
And yet it is still extremely wasteful and in times like these unaffordable. All of it.
I, for one, would like to see what we could do to increase the efficiency of the systems before we cut services to the needy.
Part of the problem is that the Social Security Administration has been understaffed for years and, again, the Republican budget proposal would cut staffing even more.
DeLauro said the Social Security Administration is already understaffed. If the cuts the Republican majority in the House is proposing are approved, there will be at least 2,500 fewer of the agency’s workers serving the public and about 1,000 fewer of the its employees at the state level processing disability benefits, she said.
http://www.ctpostchronicle.com/articles/2011/03/29/news/doc4d92008cb5c1d394149897.txt
Cuts like these can be counter-productive. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money.
For the record, that was six billion of Iraq's dollars--not "our" money we were giving to them.
But ... we are apparently responsible for it. If the money is not accounted for,
we apparently will have to pay them with "our money."
under a 2004 legal agreement, Washington is responsible for the missing funds.
Iraq's chief auditor and president of the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit has warned Washington that Baghdad will sue if necessary to recoup the money.
Bowen said the U.S. needs Iraq's assistance to obtain the bank data regarding the disbursal of the funds so that his office can close the books on jurisdiction over DFI by the end of the summer since it's been years since the U.S. has had control over it.
"We're going to account for it as best we can," he said.
Read more:Part of the problem is that the Social Security Administration has been understaffed for years and, again, the Republican budget proposal would cut staffing even more...
Cuts like these can be counter-productive. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money.
In my experience, it's all but impossible to get in touch with social security. It's all machines. When you do actually reach a human being, they don't know what they're talking about. I have been trying without success for more than 2 years to get my address updated with SS. If they can't even deal with a change of address, they sure as hell can't deal with anything more complicated like figuring out correct payments.
The program where they are having the most problems is SSI - supplemental insurance to low income elderly and disabled. This program has so many rules, it's next to impossible to figure them out. Also, some rules are so petty that people just ignore them. For example, if a person on SSI receives a gift of $25 or more, they are supposed to report it and their next check will be docked accordingly. Since, SSI payments are only around $670.00/month, most people are going to ignore the rule and not report the $50.00 Mom sent at Christmas time. Even those who want to report it can't reach anyone to report to. The system is a mess.
Understaffed. Underpaid. Yelled at and complained to all day. Admonished and stalked by the 'department' over those little rules the public doesn't like any more than the employees do. Typically, people think it's okee-dokee to be mean to public servants, their job is so cushy and all. Like the BMV. So the staff that IS there is likely so burnt out they can't see straight.
The 'machines' have it made.
I must talk to my uncle, he worked for the SS office until he retired. Now he is loving working at the Garden Center. I can see his point.
I have no direct experience with the Social Security Administration; I dont doubt the frustrations that many have with the bureaucracy.
I dont think it will be improved, either in terms of customer relations or eliminating waste or fraud, by cutting staff or cutting training or cutting technology investments.
But ... we are apparently responsible for it. If the money is not accounted for,
we apparently will have to pay them with "our money."
Iraq claims the agreement holds the US responsible but Iraq wont be the one to make that determination.
The program where they are having the most problems is SSI - supplemental insurance to low income elderly and disabled. This program has so many rules, it's next to impossible to figure them out. Also, some rules are so petty that people just ignore them. For example, if a person on SSI receives a gift of $25 or more, they are supposed to report it and their next check will be docked accordingly. Since, SSI payments are only around $670.00/month, most people are going to ignore the rule and not report the $50.00 Mom sent at Christmas time. Even those who want to report it can't reach anyone to report to. The system is a mess.
I tried for over a month by phone - every day 6+ times a day. Forget it.
:rant:
You must go to the office at least 1 hour prior to the opening and sit there, hopefully armed. When the doors open, you get in and wait... and wait... and wait...
When your turn comes up, you better have all your documentation ready in triplicate. Offer no more info than the bare minimum. They cannot handle anything more than the antiquated program they are using. You must resist trying to "tell the whole story" or adding information, no matter how pertinent. They simply have a box to check off. Once you get them off that track, their head will spin off. The level of comprehension couldn't be any lower.
Iraq claims the agreement holds the US responsible but Iraq wont be the one to make that determination.
I was looking for more info on that ... The reporting got interrupted by some
dick. :rolleyes:
How exactly would that determination be made? Is there some world court or what?
I was looking for more info on that ... The reporting got interrupted by some dick. :rolleyes:
How exactly would that determination be made? Is there some world court or what?
That I dont know.
I do know the SIGIR is investigating the involvement of Americans in any theft, fraud, bribery, etc. and potentially recovery $hundreds of millions.
http://www.sigir.mil/directorates/investigations/index.html
The US cant prosecute Iraqis but we could certainly demand that the Iraq government do the same with due diligence before any discussion of any repayment.
:rant:
You must go to the office at least 1 hour prior the opening and sit there, hopefully armed. When the doors open, you get in
I assume you are talking about competing with the other determined customers for that first slot in line, and not talking about needing to be armed to deal with the overworked staff. Right?
Actually I was referring to the area I sat OUTSIDE waiting for the doors to open.
I do not think they will let you into the building armed, and honestly the temptation for some to put a few of those idiots out of their misery would probably be too great.
I caught on quick and did things their way. I had the luck of listening to a few people try in vain to explain the reality of their situation while waiting. :headshake
Smart. Working within the system is always more productive that trying to get it to change for you.
Threatening employees, no matter how roundabout, is not, however, very fucking smart.
WTF are YOU babbling on about infi? I threatened NO ONE.
Please keep your paranoia to yourself.
[SIZE="1"]
This message has not been deleted by classicman. Reason: wishing you ill does help my blood pressure, fuckface[/SIZE]
The social security offices I have visited actually keep their employees behind bullet proof glass. The office in Colorado Springs comes complete with an armed guard, as well. When I had the occasion to visit the offices of the regional district for disability determination hearings, everyone was behind the bullet proof glass, complete with guard there, as well.
I doubt if they're worried about Classic, though. There are quite a few folks who have to apply for SSI/DI due to mental conditions like paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis, etc. If they're not on their meds - and often they're not because they don't have access to health care - they can be very spooky.
I have watched people who I sat beside, waiting for hours to be called - and you don't dare leave for a break because if they call your number when you're gone, you have to take a new number and start all over again. Then you get up to the window and you don't have form GVT666 which no one had ever mentioned the existence of until now - back to the old drawing board. The employees at those windows take a lot of abuse which actually the local Congressman should be getting since Congress is responsible for this mess.
Another lovely rule social security has about disability hearings is that yours can be expedited if you threaten to harm anyone who works for social security. So, go to the window, scream at the clerk and make violent threats, and you are rewarded for this behavior by having your case jumped to the head of the line, saving you a wait of a year or more. Brilliant rule, that. :eek:
Saving Social Security
from the WSJ ...
Social Security actuaries estimate that the current payroll tax of 12.4% (divided evenly between employers and employees) plus income taxes paid by beneficiaries will not raise enough money to fully cover all of the benefits that have been promised over the next 75 years. Specifically, they put the gap at 2.22% of taxable earnings. Put another way, the payroll tax could be boosted by about 2.22 percentage points, or benefits could be cut by an equivalent amount, to close the gap.
A selection of options evaluated by the actuaries, nonpartisan government officials, are listed below, along with an estimate of each option's impact. When the slider reaches zero, Social Security would be considered solvent for another 75 years.
Interactive tool...
Click here to try For the record, that was six billion of Iraq's dollars--not "our" money we were giving to them. It was their money from the start, deposited directly in the Fed Bank in NY as a function of the rules of the Oil for Food program from years earlier. It worked so well that they continued it for years.
But ... we are apparently responsible for it. If the money is not accounted for,
we apparently will have to pay them with "our money."
Read more:
Iraq claims the agreement holds the US responsible but Iraq wont be the one to make that determination.
I was looking for more info on that ... The reporting got interrupted by some dick. :rolleyes:
How exactly would that determination be made? Is there some world court or what?
That I dont know.
I do know the SIGIR is investigating the involvement of Americans in any theft, fraud, bribery, etc. and potentially recovery $hundreds of millions.
http://www.sigir.mil/directorates/investigations/index.html
The US cant prosecute Iraqis but we could certainly demand that the Iraq government do the same with due diligence before any discussion of any repayment.
ok, kind of a long series here and not really about SSI. Anyhow.
Shit, man. If I'm delivering a shrink wrapped pallet of hundred dollar bills, you can be assured I'm gonna get a signature or two on my delivery receipt. I'm no auditor, I am pathologically ill suited for such work. So, I trust auditors instead. There has got to be a way to find out where the money was LAST SEEN.
I used to borrow my Dad's tools. This was a big deal, he kept his tools locked up. I loved working with his tools on my bike, my skateboard, whatever. Once, my friends and I were all working on our bikes and I let my friend use one of the tools. It went missing. Long story short, my Dad was uninterested in my story. He entrusted *ME* with the tool, therefore *I* was responsible for it. For returning it or replacing it. If that meant getting it from my friend, fine. Getting a new one from the store, fine. He gave it to me, he gets it back from me. Preeeetty simple. I don't see how this doesn't apply here too.
In order for SS to know they overpaid money, wouldn't they have to know who it was paid to? Take it back... duh.
yebbut ...with their inefficiency - it'd probably cost 3x that to even try to get it back.
Mildly related - I had to fight really hard to get my tax refund. All scratchy and bitey and pulling hair and all that.
Well, okay - no.
But it took more phone calls than I can list and telling the same story over and over and over again. And assuring the people on the Benefits Helpline that NO I had not received it automatically, but NO that did not mean I was not entitled to it.
In fact I've had to argue for most of the money I've received from the Government. At my first interview at the Job Centre I was advised I might not be eligible for Unemployment Benefit, because I had not worked long enough. 20 years?! She took that comment back and had a proper look at my details then.
Infi Mo, I have every sympathy for your position. I have always been courteous to staff and have tried to accept that they do not make the rules. I took chocs into the Job Centre when I signed off, because although they had nothing to do with me finding work, they were all decent people and they were doing their best.
Some don't though. Woolwich Council losing the copies of my paperwork and sending me threatening letters for example. So I had to wait for 2 hours to get them authorised again. And yet a letter dated TWO WEEKS after I got the second copy authorised was still sent out telling me all my benefits would be cancelled as I had failed to respond.
My DSA being cancelled with 3 days notice because of a decision made months ago. So I had to scrabble around to meet my bills and stop my Direct Debits so that I did not incur fines, and talk to the companies I was paying so they did not take me to court (they were Court agreed payments).
But then I've been at the mercy of my bank too. And public transport. And the NHS. Public servants are people. And people can be good or bad depending on the environment they work in.
It takes a lot for me to blame the staff. If they are polite and apologetic (when I've obviously been put out by something not my fault) then I am the epitome of understanding. Just watch out lazy barstaff or rude waiting staff. I WILL put a rocket up your arses, because I know exactly what you should be doing, and that good service is actually easier than bad service.
On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office released its updated long-term budget forecast, which looked surprisingly like the previous version of its long-term budget forecast.
It showed, as one might expect, that if the Bush tax-cuts remain in effect and Medicare and Medicaid spending isn't constrained in some way, the country will topple into a genuine fiscal crisis -- not the fake one the Congress is pretending the country's in right now.
Republicans, of course, seized on that particular projection, and claimed (a bit ridiculously) that it proved the government must adopt their precise policy views: major spending cuts, particularly to entitlement programs.
While all this -- from the findings to the politicization of them -- is perfectly expected, the forecast also presents another opportunity to remind people that the medium-term budget outlook is perfectly fine if Congress adheres to the law as it's currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more "doc fixes."
Helpfully, CBO juxtaposed these two alternative futures in a pair of graphs and, just as last time, it projects that deficits will disappear entirely by the end of President Obama's second term (if he gets a second term) if Congress were to just sit on its hands and do nothing.
link
Hmmm - so whats all the hub bub about?
Interesting. But you know each side has their bevy of economic experts, all who disagree with each other.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are threatening to withhold voting on the new debt ceiling unless the tax cuts are extended. Otherwise, I think both sides would be happy to let things run ahead.
Hmmm - so whats all the hub bub about?
Because there will always be something the Republicans can hold hostage to keep the Bush tax cuts from expiring.
What is there to hold hostage if there is no problem as the D's are saying?
increasing the debt limit.
The Dems aren't exactly correct that things are OK now. The debt limit needs to go up, or apparently the shit really hits the fan.
What is there to hold hostage if there is no problem as the D's are saying?
increasing the debt limit.
Or anything else that needs to pass. The budget, military appropriations, whatever.
The Dems aren't exactly correct that things are OK now. The debt limit needs to go up, or apparently the shit really hits the fan.
It isn't the Democrats saying everything's OK. This is the CBO saying that if the Bush tax cuts expire, and we allow the Medicare payments to doctors to drop to their statutory level, rather than the annual delay of that drop, then the deficit is fine.
The reason The Dems aren't saying everything is fine is because the chances of Congress doing nothing on those issues is low. Republicans won't let the Bush tax cuts expire, and Democrats won't let the docter fixes expire.
So, the one time you want congress to do nothing ... :right: