Friday, September 16, 2011

Saving Social Security Part I: Background

We are not going to save Social Security by continuing the same games and expenditures as have been and are currently going on. 
Cutting Payroll Taxes which Obama intends to extend through his so called Jobs Bill is not the way to keep the ship from sinking.
It is currently sinking fast and by 2012 will be broke but it will continue through borrowing and the percentage of GDP will increase to 6% or more by 2050.

Social Security was suppose to be a simply old age pension fund when first proposed but it has morphed into a monster that if truth were told , is one of the greatest contributors to the deficit. However this is denied and games are played with numbers to hide this fact.

Social Security was suppose to have a Trust Fund which would pay for old age retirement benefits however that Trust Fund doesn't exist except on paper. Why?  Because in 1969, in an agreement between Lyndon Johnson , Richard Nixon and the Congress the Social Security surplus was brought "on budget".  The so called 2,5 trillion dollar Trust Fund has been spend in it's entirety on other government programs.  I would draw you attention to the malise of Title programs instigated under LBJ and each one of them are entitled Title (what ever) of the Social Security Act. Each of them have become a nightmare of bureaucratic red tape , regulations, and wasteful spending.  Title IVA of the SSA is but one example. The same type of "stealing" continues today. (Source SS website, see Agency History)
The problem is because these monies have been spent via the Treasury, they can only be repaid or redeemed by future taxes or future borrowing.

In other words WE THE PEOPLE will pay $5 Trillion in taxes to provide $2.5 trillion in SS benefits that have been "stolen".

WE THE PEOPLE paid once as FICA taxes, to create that $2,5 Trillion surplus and will pay, AGAIN,  a second time, to redeem the funds.

If those funds had not been "stolen" the additional and unnecessary  $2.5 Trillion in taxes could have resulted in $100 Billion a year in tax cuts for 25 years and gone into the hands of WE THE PEOPLE to be spent in our households, college savings, debt reduction, retirement savings, business expansion, capital projects, new jobs etc.  But, that is only a pipe dream as of now.  The current administration and Congress insist on "borrowing" and have no clue as to how these funds will be repaid except by raising taxes over and over again.

The administration adds to the woes by cutting payroll taxes which contributes to SS funds and insists that it helps the economy.  Just more legal stealing.  The payroll taxes collected are to pay for future benefits and so they are handed over to the federal government which spends it. Every time the program runs a cash flow deficit, it redeems some of the trust fund IOU's and then the government has to borrow money which adds to the deficit.  "It is not the fault of SS but in reality the program contributes to the deficit." (Alan Viard) Of course many deny this but the proof is there.

Alan Viard offered this  in his article appearing On the Margin:
In 2009 -2010 Congress enacted four provisions authorizing implicit or explicit transfers of general revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund which only continued the pattern set by earlier provisions.
So it appears that things work both ways when it is convenient for the government  find a way to spend more money.   Social Security taxes collected from '84 to 2014 have been 'stolen'(my words, he uses borrowed) from the program. Current law provides that the surplus taxes will be paid back to SS fourfold enabling the program to pay out $7.3 trillion in benefits in excess of taxes from  2015 to 2037.  Unfortunately as with all things that look too good to be true, there is a catch.
By using general revenue financing it averts SS tax increases and benefit cuts BUT it forces larger tax increases and spending cuts(which we know do not happen) in the remainder of the federal budget. Using the general treasury as a piggy bank for SS distorts the budgetary process by giving the program the best of both worlds. Social Security receives political protection from tax increases and benefit cuts on the grounds that it is a self supporting program financed by earmarked taxes, however it is not required to live within its earmarked revenue.

The provisions mentioned above  by Viard are those from the stimulus bill, e.g. the one time $250 check for SS recipients and the Making Work Pay credits in 09 and 10 which refunded up to $400(single) and $800 (married couples) of employee's payroll taxes. ( a similar deal was put forth in the Jobs Bill  last week) Perhaps the $250 dollar SS check was a benefit for seniors but the other fiasco was nothing more than social engineering through the tax code and not an example of SS "stealing" from the general funds.

The only way, short of privatizing (which I favor and will show why at a later date) to save SS is to make the program a truly self supporting program which would collect taxes and earmark them for benefits only. In other words SS would not turn over it's cash to the Treasury to be spent on boondoogle programs as it has in the past and SS would not be allowed to receive money from the general revenue.  Don't look for liberals to favor either of these suggestions .  Spending money on useless programs (e.g.see war on poverty) is their insurance for future votes as it has always been. 

Next:  How to Save SS part II- Going Private?

Friday, September 9, 2011

And the Beat(ing) Goes On Part 31. How Obama Can Create Jobs and Spur the Economy

If Obama and the Democrats are serious about creating an environment for jobs and reviving the economy they would move in the direction of eliminating regulations as fast as Obama demanded that the Congress do in passing his fiasco of a Jobs Acts when he said, Pass it now! about 18 times.  Of course that would mean losing power in some ways and narcissist never relinquish power voluntarily.  The Republican need to be all over this after all Obama did bring up regulatory reform but anyone knows that the offer was disingenuous.

In a recent report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute they pointed out that the cost of regulatory compliance  stands at $175 Trillion and that doesn't include all the new regulations that will be piled on as Obamacare comes into play unless it is repealed or found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Take a look at some of the  findings:

 The Federal Register stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.

While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.(I strongly urge you to read this)

Alarmingly, proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent

Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.

Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.

Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.

Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.

Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.

Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.

Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

Ponder, for a moment that final percentage.  35.5% of what our economy produces now is related to government spending or compliance to a government regulatory regime.


Here’s a thought – if the government wants to spur economic growth, create jobs and, most likely, increase revenue for government, perhaps a serious – and I mean very serious- look ought to be taken (along with action, please) at the mountain of costly regulations now imposed by said government and a majority of them rolled back.  Over 81,000 pages of regulations, and I’m sure some bureaucrat out there believes everyone of them is necessary. Clear thinking people find this to be insane.

The insane EPA regulations are enforced as if they were laws but for those not familiar with the Constitution of the US, only Congress can make laws. However that matters little to Climate Czar Carol Browner or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who feel they are above the law and can decide what is good or bad for We The People.


Then there is the De facto moratorium on American oil and gas production.
Political decisions by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his appointees have led to a steep decline in domestic oil and gas production on federal lands and offshore areas. All done by regulatory fiat.

So if Obama and the Democrats are serious they will take immediate action and in his next speech and outline of how he will create jobs in his new-retread stimulus plan he will shout "Pass it now" on doing away with the burdensome, job killing, economy killing regulatory nonsense.

In the meantime I would suggest that you not hold your breath.

And The Beat(ing) Goes On Part30-- Obama's Job Speech, a Re-Run, Nothing More


Remember this? Sounds a lot like last night's "campaign stump speech" doesn't it.  I have included some of the comments and the doubts are still the same. 




Thursday, February 11, 2010

JOBS : Who Are You Kidding?


Does Obama ever read what he says or listen to what he is being told?  The answer is NO. If you have doubts this should clear them for you. 


The Council of Economic Advisers also trumpeted the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which it said has saved or created about 2 million jobs. 


But we know that was a lie and now comes this: 

                                
                                 PROMISES PROMISES:  Jobs bill short on making jobs

 

WASHINGTON - There's a problem with the bipartisan jobs bill emerging in the Senate: It won't create many jobs.
WASHINGTON - The Senate's bipartisan jobs bill includes a tax break for companies that hire unemployed workers, money for highway construction, relief for private pensions and a one-year extension of the Patriot Act used to combat terrorism.


But Obummer says: 

The United States is likely to average 95,000 more jobs each month this year, while personal savings will remain high as credit remains tight, according to a White House report released Thursday but that the unemployment rate will remain high.


  BUT

The report also said that the unemployment rate may not come down much from the current level of 9.7 percent, and may even rise because of labor market growth and the return of more discouraged workers to the labor force.
 Guess that is because the jobs are going: 
 Green Stimulus Jobs Going to China? Jon Karl finds the stimulus is creating green jobs .... overseas 


What you want to bet Obummer counts these as part of his so called 95,000 per month.

Guess his TOTUS didn’t get the messages. Ya reckon?

10 comments:


GM Roper said...
Ticker, it is quite obvious that none of the yoyo's in the White House or at Blair House have ever had to make a payroll. How on earth can a company in the doldrums because of "low sales" (and it doesn't matter if it's goods or services) add staff? A tax break for hiring? OK... spend say 10,000 thousand to employ someone, 2 grand in benefits for an outlay of 12 grand when sales are down. Now, spending that kind of money earns you a tax break? Oh please... to make it do you hire 3 but let the 3 you have working for you go? Net new jobs would be ZERO... and there is absolutely no other way to make it work with a slow economy. Empty suits on them all!
Ticker said...
GM you nailed it! There is no way business can do new hires even with tax breaks. Not many jobs pay as little as $10K a year. Working at K mart or WalMart pays more than that plus benefits. I found all these headlines on Yahoo news today and put them together just to show that evidently the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing which of course comes as no surprise.
Anonymous said...
I'm glad I came by here to read this, because both of you just don't get it. Now, in keeping with his promises to the American people, Barack Obama hired 95,000 people each month for the first year of his administration. Of course, those 95,000 people per month were cronies he hired in the executive branch, all of them were felons are felons-in-waiting, but he did deliver on his promises. So anyway, what did you expect a communist to do? Serve America and the American people? Mustang out
Ticker said...
And of course Mustang those folks were not just new hires . They replaced someone who already was in the job. Net gain: ZERO
Chuck said...
There really is a simple explanation for all of this...he's lying. The complicated part is we don't what he's lying about.
Ticker said...
Of course we do Chuck it's JOBS in this instance but anything else that comes to his mind. But then he does all he can to discourage jobs by insisting on raising taxes on those who make a bit over $250K, the very folks who start and maintain small business which hires most of the people.
amit said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Always On Watch said...
The "man on the street" is not buying BHO's lies about job recovery.
Ticker said...
amit, if you have difficulty with this site then I suggest you leave and take your advertisement with you. I only allow ad's from those I know and trust. That is why I am deleting your post.
Debbie said...
I heard that extending the unemployment actually, according to economists, prolongs the jobless numbers, with people putting off getting a new job, moving for a new job, etc. until their benefits run out. Debbie Right Truth http://www.righttruth.typepad.com