tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89095819918335958632024-03-19T00:46:50.322-07:00Project 1969There is a lot of information and mis-information related to the our Federal Budget and National Debt cirulating on the internet. Much of it is either untrue or biased to the point it's misleading. This blog is devoted to sharing information that I've developed that's important for an informed voter to understand.
I hope you find it helpful. Alan R. DavisAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-87391108511076941392019-01-23T11:38:00.002-08:002019-01-23T11:38:27.772-08:00"Medicare For All?"<br />
<br />
The new cry is for the United States to adopt a "Medicare For All" healthcare program. The latest polls say a majority of Americans support just such a program. It sounds good, doesn't it? But do they really understand what that would mean?<br />
<br />
I'm now old enough to be covered by Medicare so why wouldn't I be in favor of "Medicare For All"?<br />
<br />
I started my first job in Healthcare Finance at Doctors Hospital in Conroe, Texas back in August, 1976. It was a small hospital attached to the Sadler Clinic and part of the Hospital Affiliates International chain. I was about to get my Masters in Accounting from the University of Houston. In a short 10 months I was promoted to be the hospital's Controller. (The controller was the highest level of finance professional at a HAI hospital as there were regional and corporate staff to handle investment and borrowing responsibilities.)<br />
<br />
One of my duties was to develop the information necessary to complete our Medicare and Medicaid cost report. Both programs were in their initial forms and were designed to reimburse the cost of caring for their patients. The cost reports were complicated reports designed to determine the "correct" costs associated with each program. Payments were actually made in bi-weekly amounts and a final settlement was made once the cost report had been completed and audited. As you can imagine, the process of completing, filing and going through a cost report audit was complicated and added to a hospital's administrative expense. <br />
<br />
It wasn't long before Congress became alarmed at the rate of increase in outlays for the Medicare program. To help control it they began defining some of hospitals' actual costs as "non-reimbursable". Non-reimbursable costs were eliminated on the cost report. That didn't change the fact that they were actual costs for the hospital, but just the fact that Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't pay for them. The most famous, or was it infamous, of those was the cost of telephones and televisions in patient rooms. Because hospitals weren't reimbursed for those costs they instituted per diem charges if patients chose to have a telephone and tv in their room. When other actual costs were disallowed, it meant hospitals had to increase their charges to other patients to make up for the lost revenue.<br />
<br />
Soon Congress found there weren't enough expenses they could disallow and in the 80's they came up with a new scheme to bring control to the cost of the Medicare & Medicaid programs. They devised a system that would reimburse hospitals a blended rate that included a hospital specific component, a regional component and a national component. Over time it was designed to reimburse all hospitals a similar rate eliminating the huge difference that was paid for Medicare patients throughout the country. It took Congress one year to back off the transitioning to the national rate, despite many hospitals already incorporating that new scheme into their strategic planning. The percentage of actual cost of caring for Medicare & Medicaid patients reimbursed by the programs continued to decrease resulting in more shifting of costs to other patients.<br />
<br />
In the early 90's Congress came up with a brand new scheme for prospective payment rates based on Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs). This scheme was designed to reimburse all hospitals the same amount for similar care given. At the same time there were new administrative burdens placed on hospitals and doctors, increasing their costs. Hospitals that wanted to participate in the Medicare program were also forbidden from transferring patients without insurance to county facilities. That was the despite the fact that most county facilities were established to care for uninsured and had tax support to help cover their operating costs. These changes not only increased the operating costs of the hospitals, but saw the percentage of actual costs of care reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid decrease. Obviously that resulted in even more cost shifting to other patients. There have been many other changes made in an attempt to slow down the overall growth of the cost of those programs to the Federal Government and each time it has resulted in more cost shifting. Its gotten to the point where the Medicare and Medicaid reimburse far less than full cost to providers.<br />
<br />
To step back and summarize, the history of the Medicare and Medicaid programs has been one of reducing the percentage of actual costs of caring for those programs' patients, while increasing the administrative burdens borne by the providers, to the point that reimbursement levels are well below average cost. And despite all that, the Federal outlays for those programs has gone up dramatically. In fact, nearly 50% (48.8%) of all the outlays for those programs (1966 to 2017) was spent in just the last ten years.<br />
<br />
So what would happen if we went to a "Medicare for All" system of healthcare for the United States. One of two things would occur.<br />
<br />
1. The Federal Government would have to dramatically increase the level of reimbursement it made to providers since their current level is well below the cost of caring for patients. This would dramatically increase Federal outlays at a time we're running huge deficits.<br />
<br />
2. The level and amount of healthcare provided to patients/the public would have to be decreased dramatically.<br />
<br />
In all likelihood, the real result would be a combination of the two. <br />
<br />
Is the public really expecting a dramatic decrease in the quantity and quality of the healthcare they receive when they support a "Medicare for All" healthcare program? And are they willing to support the level of taxes necessary to fund the increased Federal Outlays. In just the last ten years the increased outlays for the current Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 70% of the $10.2 trillion added to the Federal Gross Debt!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-66085284798129169552014-10-09T05:44:00.001-07:002014-10-09T05:44:42.180-07:00Equal Pay for Equal Work? We hear a lot of talk about the fact that women on average make less than men. That brings out calls by Democrats for new legislation. And it's used to portray Republicans as anti-woman when they oppose the legislation. To really understand the topic, you have to look past national averages.<br />
<br />
<span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Equal</strong> <strong>Work:</strong></span> By the very nature of national averages you don't get results that reflect equal work. Look to most any school and you'll find more female teachers than male teachers. Look to a construction site and you're likely to see more men than women. Look to any hospital and you're likely to find more male doctors than female and more female nurses than male. Look to the NFL and MLB and you find more males than females (especially since they're exclusively male.)<br />
So to get an accurate reflection on pay statistics based on equal work you need to look to a particular profession, say physicians. But even that doesn't give you "equal work" results. The last time I worked in a hospital female physicians were more likely to be primary care doctors while specialties like surgery were more likely to be filled by males. Should a pediatrician and a surgeon be paid the same?<br />
<br />
Should there be any allowances made for why someone doing equal work might be paid less? Let's take the case of basketball players. We have professional women's and men's basketball leagues. They both play basketball, a competitive game for a season. Should the women be paid the same as the men? If the case for Equal Pay for Equal Work demands it in any case, it would seem to be most applicable in the case of professional basketball. However other factors create an environment where the pay differential between the two leagues is HUGE!<br />
<br />
So how do you measure "equal work" with national level statistics? You can't.<br />
<br />
<span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Equal Pay:</strong></span> It's currently against the law to pay men and women unequally for the same job. We no longer have different pay scales for women and men. So the question really isn't related to that issue, there are already laws that apply. The real issue is how do you set a value for differing types of jobs since there is a natural tendency for females and males to gravitate towards different work.<br />
<br />
I came from a family with six children, five females and one male. I gravitated towards a degree in accounting, became a CPA and served most of my career in senior management positions. Four of my sisters became teachers. Each got a masters degree in education and were good teachers. How do you value their "work" verses the "work" I did. Since none of us were paid by the hour, did we work the same number of hours a year? Should we have gotten equal pay per hour or equal pay per year? To ensure "Equal Pay for Equal Work" on a national average you have to ignore hours worked in salaried jobs and assign all work, regardless of what is involved, equal pay. Until that happens there will be an "Equal Pay for Equal Work" issue.<br />
<br />
It's just one more way Democrats attempt to maintain an advantage in the women's vote.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-21706091262140650122014-10-09T03:35:00.000-07:002014-10-09T03:35:40.316-07:00NC Senate Debate (10/7/14): Questions Sen. Hagan Should Have Been AskedSen. Kay Hagan and Speaker Thom Tillis debated on a variety of subjects, many of which they would have little control over as a Senator. But some of the most important topics never came up. Topics like Budget Deficits, National Debt and Social Security. For a Republican to leave them on the table is like leaving your best players on the sidelines in your state championship football game.<br />
<br />
- Sen. Hagan took office in 2009 and has watched Majority Leader Harry Reid violate law by refusing to pass a budget in the Senate. What is Sen. Hagan's position on her party leader's refusing to pass budgets?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/with-elections-looming-and-debt-rising-senate-democrats-wont-put-out-fiscal-2015-budget/article/2544889">http://washingtonexaminer.com/with-elections-looming-and-debt-rising-senate-democrats-wont-put-out-fiscal-2015-budget/article/2544889</a><br />
<br />
- Sen. Hagan took office in 2009 when the National Debt had just exceeded $10 trillion. By the end of December it will exceed $18 trillion. Yet according to the 2014 National Journal Almanac of American Politics (page 1239) Sen. Hagan voted "No" in the 112th Session on a Balanced Budget Amendment bill. (As did every other Democrat.) $8 trillion in additional debt adds between $400 billion and $480 billion per year in additional Interest Outlays at normal interest rates. What is Sen. Hagan's position on rapidly increasing debt, interest outlays and a Balanced Budget Amendment?<br />
<br />
- Each year since Sen. Hagan took office the Social Security Trustees have urged Congress to act in a timely manner in passing reforms to the program. They've included that urging in the conclusion section of their annual Trustee Trust Fund report every year beginning in at least 2005. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is on record saying he won't allow the Senate to consider reforms until 2031 (2011 + 20 years). With the WH OMB's projections for the next 10 years showing that Social Security Outlays will exceed Social Security Payroll Tax Receipts by $2.1 trillion, what is Sen. Hagan's position on Social Security reforms and how would she keep it solvent for future years?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/28/Hands-Off-Social-Security-Harry-Reid">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/28/Hands-Off-Social-Security-Harry-Reid</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2014/index.html">http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2014/index.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2005/index.html">http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2005/index.html</a><br />
<br />
Aren't these the questions that Sen. Hagan should be asked to answer in their third debate? But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-57095946958834996912014-10-07T12:48:00.001-07:002014-10-07T12:48:38.121-07:00"If it's not broken, don't fix it."I was listening to my local radio station which carries news by Fox News. They had a piece on the LA Senate race with comments from two voters. One of them said he had made up his mind and his decision was based on the saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it." That seems to mean he thinks two things:<br />
<br />
1. That he has a Senator who is voting on his behalf.<br />
2. He will be supporting Sen. Landrieu.<br />
<br />
After hearing that, I couldn't help but wonder what it would take for him to think things were broken? I also wondered what kind of race the Republicans are running. After all, just a few of the things that someone might think are broken include:<br />
<br />
- The national debt is approaching $18 trillion and there is no sign of a balanced budget coming soon.<br />
- Senate Democrats refused to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment in the 112th session.<br />
- The Social Security Disability Trust Fund is scheduled to run out of money in 2016.<br />
- Democrats are waging a "war" on fossil fuels.<br />
- Obamacare has driven up the cost of healthcare for millions of families.<br />
- Millions of more families were kicked off their health insurance plans after Obamacare took effect.<br />
<br />
While this is just a small list of the things that are "broken", it seems like there is enough there to make anyone wonder. Senate Democrats haven't been helping solve these problems. <br />
<br />
So voting for a Democrat for the Senate won't help, no matter how nice they are or how conservative they act.<br />
<br />
I wish I could have a few minutes of that voter's time to share some thoughts on this with him!<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-10034644283682892972014-09-30T04:51:00.000-07:002014-10-11T04:18:19.864-07:00Three Important Facts for the 2014 Elections<br />
The 2014 elections are nearly on us and three of the most important topics have hardly been covered. At least not in a way that voters can tell who to vote for.<br />
<br />
Using the WH OMB Historical Table 1.1 we find we've only had five budget surpluses since 1965. Matching those results with who controlled the House when the budget was passed we find the last time Congressional Democrats were responsible for a surplus was 1969. Our National Debt was only $367 billion at the end of 1969! They've been responsible for 30 of the last 45 budgets, all finishing with deficits. And they continue to fight attempts to bring deficits under control while calling for more spending! <br />
<br />
With our National Debt well on the way to $18 trillion, how do voters decide who to vote for? Looking at the how Senators have voted on a Balanced Budget Amendment would help. Senators had the opportunity to vote for one in the 112th session of Congress. Using the NJ Almanac of American Politics as my source, I found that every Democrat Senator voted against it and every Republican Senator voted for it. There just weren't enough Republicans or it would have already gone to the states for ratification. <br />
<br />
Since at least 2005 the Social Security Trust Fund trustees have been warning us that Congress needs to act in a timely manner in passing reforms. Democrats stopped reforms from being enacted back in 2005 and again in 2011. Sen. Harry Reid is on record saying that he won't allow reforms to be considered until 2031, just two years before the trust funds run out of money. So as long as Democrats control the Senate and Sen. Reid is their leader, Social Security reforms won’t be passed. <br />
<br />
So Democrats have a terrible record in regards to deficit spending, they rejected a Balanced Budget Amendment and they aren't willing to consider reforms to Social Security despite the fact they are desperately needed. <br />
Knowing that makes your decision pretty easy to make, doesn't it?<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><img src="goog_1413289036" /></span><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><img src="goog_1413289036" /><img src="goog_1413289036" /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="background-color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">
</span></span><br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-6686153256843070472014-09-10T18:42:00.001-07:002014-09-10T18:42:12.406-07:00No Eyes on the Real Crisis?<div>
Have you noticed how no one in Washington or the media has paid any attention to the real crisis lately. That's the fiscal crisis that our Nation faces. All the attention is on ISIS, Immigration and Ferguson. All those are important, but they are meaningless unless we very quickly fix our budget crisis and the crisis in Social Security.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Budget Crisis:</strong></div>
<div>
We've seen the WH OMB MS, the CBO update and the Social Security Trustee Trust Fund Report all came and went with little attention. Was there anything worth noting in them?</div>
<div>
<strong><u></u></strong> </div>
<div>
<strong><u>WH OMB Mid Session Review:</u></strong></div>
<div>
When comparing the MSR to the original 2015 Budget we see an increase in the 10 year deficit projections of $594 billion. That's a pretty sizable increase in just 6 months. A close look at the summary categories shows Outlays down by $167 billion and Receipts down $761 billion. So the economy is slowing causing tax receipts to drop sharply, accounting for all but $3 billion of the total. The drop in Outlays is accounted for by a $180 billion reduction in the projection for Net Interest Outlays and a decrease Defense Outlays offsetting a $39 billion in Appropriated - Non Defense. What accounts for the drop in Net Interest Outlays? They're now using 4.8% for the maximum 10 Year Treasuries instead of $5.1 in the 2015 Budget. Have we really seen the 10 year environment change that much or did they change the assumption for purely political reasons so they wouldn't show such a huge increase in the projected 10 deficit. I think you know which I would vote for. Both the Public and Gross debt are projected at over $500 billion more in the 2015 MSR.</div>
<div>
<strong><u></u></strong> </div>
<div>
<strong><u>CBO Review:</u></strong></div>
<div>
The Baseline analysis update shows an even more gloomy picture with a 10 year projected deficit of $7.2 trillion, $1.7 higher than the WH OMB MSR. The big differences are $1.1 less in Outlays, but also a huge $2.8 billion less in Receipts. Since the CBO is based on current law, the difference in large part reflects proposed tax receipt increases of $1.9 trillion!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what is scariest about their update is they put out an Alternative Scenario. Since they call it that, no one pays attention to it. But they should since I call it the realistic since its based on the assumption that Congress will continue its practices. The biggest one involves the "doctor fix". Since law requires a reduction in payments to physicians if the total physician reimbursement under Medicare goes up more than inflation. There is just one problem. Each year Congress passes the doctor fix FOR THE COMING YEAR! That means they don't have to make the required cuts in that year, but the projections assume they will in the following year and each year after. But they never have allowed the cut to take place and now the required cut is ~30%. So the last 9 years have the cut in it though they have never allowed it to go into affect? The CBO Alternative Scenario shows a projection `10 deficit of over $9 trillion and that is using lower than can really be expected interest rate assumption values! If they used realistic one's and Congress' actual practices the projected deficits would be closer to $12 trillion or an average of more than $1 trillion per year.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
As is their practice, the CBO does not show Gross (or Total Debt) but rather only Public Debt!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So while Democrats talk about the low deficit (~$500 billion) and the media loses interest in covering the topic, the projections are taking a serious turn for the worse!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Of course the real problem with fixing our Nation's deficits is clearly shown on Schedules 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Historical Tables. They show that "Payments for Individuals" reached 69% of our Nation's Outlays in 2013 up from the previous high of only 66%. Not that long ago (2005) it was 60% and back in 1970 it was only 33%. Pretty easier to see that we are bankrupting ourselves by letting Congress buy votes with benefits!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>Social Security:</u></strong></div>
<div>
The WH OMB MSR updated the projected shortfall of SS Payroll Taxes shortage compared to the SS Outlays. Just to remind you in the 2010 Budget the shortfall was $200 billion. By the 2015 Budget it had grown to $2 trillion. And the 2015 MSR is now projecting it at $2.1 trillion. It's been a steady growth in the shortfall and one the Department of Treasury told me I should expect to see continue until Congress tackles and passes reforms. The problem will come to a head in 2015 as the Disability Trust Fund is projected to run out of funds in 2016, just two short years from now! some fix will be needed or benefits will be cut. But Sen. Reid is on record that he won't act on legislation to reform SS until at least 2031, just 2 years before the combined funds are due to run out of funds.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Wake up America!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-18674247884189007082014-09-06T06:06:00.001-07:002014-09-06T06:06:52.242-07:00The Nation's Real Crisis<div>
The summer updates to the Federal Budget are out and once again it looks like the WH OMB is playing games to keep from admitting the real status of our Federal budget.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong><u>2015 MSR vs 2015 Budget:</u></strong></div>
<div>
The WH OMB's MSR showed an increase in the 10 year projected deficits of $594 billion ($$5,524 vs $4,930). That's not good news, but the news gets worse when you look at the details.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, the increased deficit comes from a combination of lower Receipts ($761 billion) and lower Outlays ($167 billion). The lower Receipts is spread among the three tax categories reflecting slower economic growth and personal incomes. This follows recent news. The decrease in Outlays is more than accounted for by a decrease in Net Interest Outlays ($180 billion) offset by an increase in Non-Defense Appropriated ($39 billion). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately it appears the WH OMB is back to playing games with the economic assumptions to achieve the savings. They have decreased the maximum interest rate assumptions for both the 10 Year and 91 Day Treasuries. The 10 Year rate was decreased from 5.1% in the 2015 Budget to 4.8% in the 2015 MSR. Since 1961 (last 52 years) there have only been 17 years in which the 10 Yr Treasury averaged under 5% for the year. 5 of those years occurred in the early 1960's and the remaining 12 occurred since 2001. Not one year in between (34 years) averaged 4.8% or lower. In fact the average for those years was 7.9%. Taking out the extremely low and high years the average since 1961 would be between 6.5% and 7.0%. So how do those in Washington think 10 year Treasuries won't exceed 4.8% in the next 10 years when it was never that low from 1967 - 2001? (The same problem exists with the inflation assumption values!) When you use higher interest rate assumption values, the Interest Outlay projections increase significantly because of our high levels of debt.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>2015 MSR vs CBO August Update:</u></strong></div>
<div>
The CBO put out an update to their Baseline estimates that is quite different from the 2015 MSR projections. The 10 year deficits for the two are $7.196 billion (CBO) and $5,524 (WH OMB MSR). The CBO projections have $1.1 less in Outlays, but $2.8 trillion less in Receipts. So the WH is counting on significantly higher tax revenues to offset somewhat higher spending?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>CBO Alternative Scenario:</u></strong></div>
<div>
The CBO put out an "alternative scenario" in which they projected what the 10 deficits would be if Congress followed their past actions, rather than what current law requires. (I would call that scenario the REALISTIC SCENARIO.) That scenario shows projected deficits for the next 10 years of over $9 trillion!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>"Debt to GDP" and Others:</u></strong></div>
<div>
Washington continues to attempt to fool the world regarding its fiscal crisis. The WH OMB, CBO and CRFB all quote that our debt to GDP level is currently ~73%. That's the level of Public Debt to GDP and totally ignores the debt owed to the trust funds. They also talk about the debt being at post WWII levels. However following WWII, 90% of our total debt was Public Debt while at the end of 2013 only 71.6% of our debt was "Public" debt. The Federal Government has used the trust funds to finance a much greater portion of its spending that it had at the end of WWII.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Finally, the WH OMB continues to include meaningless ratios in their presentation. Just how meaningless? If I told you that they show a deficit of only $128 billion over the next ten years you'd be confused AND MISLED! But that's what they did when they included the ratio labeled "Primary Deficit". They've began including that ratio in their summary presentations in the 2012 Budget projections. It had become clear they had no intention of eliminating the deficit, so they began using a ratio that would do it for them. The "primary deficit" eliminates the Net Interest Outlays from the calculation. This is important as Net Interest Outlays are ready to increase dramatically in future years exploding the size of our deficits. Coming up with a ratio that takes Net Interest Outlays out of the picture takes the focus off of the real crisis, the size of our debt!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately the Illegal Immigrant, ISIS and Ferguson, MO crisis have taken the Nation's focus off of our pending financial crisis. That makes it easy for all politicians, both Democrat and Republican!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-47715664957481792014-06-29T09:47:00.001-07:002014-06-29T09:49:47.619-07:00Mystery of the Missing Social Security Trustee Report<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Laws
governing the Social Security program and Trust Funds require the trustees to
release a report on the status of the Trust Funds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s supposed to be released by March 31<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">st</span></sup>
of the year following the period being reported on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the 2014 Trustee Report was due to be
released March 31<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">st</span></sup>, 2014 covering 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it wasn’t released on time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it wasn’t released in April or May.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as of June 29<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup>, it still
hadn’t been released.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Why
is it important for the report to be released in a timely manner?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any changes that might be indicated could be
considered during the current year’s budget cycle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Beginning
with at least the 2005 report, the Trustees have been urging <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>“The
projected trust fund (future) deficits should be addressed in a timely manner
to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide
advance notice to workers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sooner
adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be.”</u></i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Source: 2005 Trustee Report<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">But
one party has been standing in the way of those meaningful reforms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That party won’t even recognize that there is
a problem, let alone work towards a solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>With Democrat Sen. Harry Reid acting as the Majority Leader in the
Senate, he issued the following claims while holding a “Hands Off Social
Security” rally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">‘“Social
Security has not contributed one penny to the debt or the deficit.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“It’s
in great shape for the next many decades.”</span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“
Let’s worry about Social Security when it’s a problem – today it’s not a
problem.”’<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">"Reid’s
remarks on MSNBC last week that he would only be open to changing Social
Security in 20 years.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt;">Source: March 28, 2011; The Fiscal
Times; article by Michelle Hirsch<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
2014 Trustee Report included some concerning information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Social Security Disability Trust Fund was
expected to run out of funds in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>All the Social Security Trust Funds were projected to run out of funds
by 2033.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By themselves those are alarming,
but a look back to the 2005 report showed the projection was for the trust
funds to last till 2041.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So in just
eight years of time, the timeframe for the trust funds to run out of money has
gotten sixteen years closer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will that
trend continue in the 2014 report?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Another
source for alarming news about Social Security is the WH OMB budget
projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In President Obama’s 2010
Budget Social Security Outlays were projected to exceed Social Security Payroll
Tax Receipts by $200 billion over the ten year projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the 2015 Budget the shortfall was
projected to be $2 trillion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So as the
Senate Democrats hold up any meaningful reforms and as President Obama’s
administration fails to put forth any recommendations, the day that Social
Security will run out of funds gets much closer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Possibly
this helps explain why the Social Security Trustees haven’t issued their
mandated Trustee report on the Trust Funds in what looks like an already tough
election year for Congressional Democrats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s reasonable to project the timeframe for the trust funds to run out
of money will be even sooner than in the last report.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">It’s
time for us to demand the trust fund report be released.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-75268009234216960922014-04-22T18:36:00.001-07:002014-04-22T18:36:09.555-07:00The Disappearance of Proposition 2
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here in Ohio the
Democrats and media are “hammering” Gov. Kasich and the Republicans for the
cuts in the Local Government Funds that they passed in 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s becoming a major campaign issue as even many
local Republican mayors and council members are asking for the cuts to be
restored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it have an impact on the
2014 elections?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s beginning to look
like it will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And all the while,
Republicans hardly offer a defense.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
let’s look back at 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ohio was facing
an $8 billion dollar deficit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ohio towns
and cities were finding themselves saddled with huge employee benefit
expenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And cities and towns were on
their own until the hole they were in would qualify under the “Emergency”
definition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was only at that point
that the State Auditor’s office could step in to help.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
the legislation took action at the behest of Gov. Kasich.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They addressed the issues in three ways:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">They
cut the Local Government Fund payments to towns and cities (helped reduce the
states deficit)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">They
passed legislation (Senate Bill 5) giving cities and towns more control over
their employee’s benefits costs (designed to help them deal with the cuts in
funding)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">They
added monitoring for “fiscal caution” status to the State Auditor’s office (giving
it greater ability to help towns and cities who were having issues)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
looked like a good set of solutions to the issues that both were facing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not where things stopped.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
2012 Ohio’s public unions worked with Democrats in an attempt to repeal Senate
Bill 5. They got a proposition on the ballot and conducted a campaign to
convince voters to vote in favor of repealing Senate Bill 5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their main message was that Police and Fire
staffing levels would be cut if Senate Bill 5 wasn’t repealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Voters took the bait and Proposition 2 was
passed by a large majority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
that left Ohio’s towns and cities with cuts to the Local Government Funds, but
without the added flexibility to deal with the lost revenue that came with
Senate Bill 5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, cities and
towns have had to cut services, including in some cases Police and Fire
protection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
now the very same individuals who pushed for repeal of Senate Bill 5 are
blaming the Republicans for the impact that their proposition caused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And cities and towns are left with growing
employee benefit costs that are well out of line with what the private sector
would pay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Unfortunately
Republicans are so scared of the term “Senate Bill 5” that they refuse to tell
citizens the truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It looks like November
elections in Ohio will be much more interesting than they need to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
may just be a case of Ohio Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-62220201838025562922014-04-22T17:56:00.000-07:002014-04-22T17:56:30.692-07:00The World’s Biggest Ponzi Scheme
<u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Ponzi
Scheme:</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">A <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Ponzi scheme</span> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud" title="Fraud"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">fraudulent</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment" title="Investment"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">investment</span></a>
operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to
its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather
than from profit earned by the operator.”</span></i></b><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Source:
Wikipedia<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Liberals are upset if you call Social Security a “ponzi
scheme”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what do you call a program
where individuals are “encouraged” to contribute and the returns aren’t based
on investment principles and market returns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If you want to see an extreme historic example of that in action check
out Ida May Fuller.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She was the first
official recipient of Social Security (Old Age) benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller"><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">According to the article, Ida contributed $24.75 into
Social Security over 3 years prior to retiring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>She received benefits from 1939 until her death in 1975 (age 100).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Over that period of time she received
$22,888.92 in benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">The Social Security Act was passed into law in 1935 at a
time when there were 322 Democrats and 103 Republicans in the House of Representatives
and 69 Democrats and 25 Republicans in the Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From 1935 until 1982 Democrats controlled the
House of Representatives in all but one term (average majority of 83 seats) and
the Senate in all but two terms (average majority of 21 seats).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the fate and future of the Social Security
program was firmly in the hands of the Democrats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Democrats have proudly proclaimed that Social Security was
a “Pay As You Go” program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That meant
that current workers contributions were used to pay current retirees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This seemed to work fine until 1982.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That year the Social Security Trust Fund
balance dropped to only $12.5 billion or $112 for each individual contributing
to the program that year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of those
workers had been contributing for their entire careers, but the funds weren’t
there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They had been paid out to
retirees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trust fund had paid out
99% of what had been contributed since its inception, leaving nothing to pay
the worker’s future benefits with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">At that point Congress did two things to “save” Social
Security.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They raised the percentage of earnings
being “contributed” into the trust fund and the maximum income level that
withholdings came out of.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What started
out in 1935 as a very minor “contribution” to help senior citizens became a
major drain on the middle class’s income to support the Social Security and
Medicare programs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Individuals not only
had to pay for the benefits of retirees, but contribute what was to be for
their own benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Democrats have consistently rejected any attempts to
actually reform the program and put it on sound footing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In recent years they’ve resorted to lying
about the program’s impact on the Federal Budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they claim that Social Security isn’t
in the Budget, it appears in each of the WH OMB’s budget projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And while they tell people that it doesn’t
add to the deficit, the 2015 WH OMB Budget projections show that Social Security
Outlays ($11.7 trillion) will exceed Social Security Payroll Tax Receipts ($9.7
trillion) by $2 trillion over the next ten years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">There is one big difference between Social Security and a
normal “ponzi schemes”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Social
Security was established by Congress, it’s “legal”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And since the Social Security rules were set
up by Congress, Congress can change them at any point in time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And based on the current discussions on how
to “fix” the Social Security program, for many Americans their contributions to
a retirement plan is about to be turned into nothing more than a different name
for a Federal Income Tax.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">But Democrats still insist Social Security is the most
successful program Congress has ever established.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rest of us know it’s been nothing but a
huge “ponzi scheme”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-3452523793372555352014-04-11T06:29:00.001-07:002014-04-11T06:29:34.758-07:00Patriot's Day<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I sent the following email to "Washington". I think its self explanatory:</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dear members of the House and Senate and staff members,</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Patriot's Day.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">In Massachusetts it's still a major holiday. It doesn't celebrate the Boston Marathon, though the marathon is run on Patriot's Day each year.</span></div>
</div>
</span><div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Does Patriot's Day mean anything to you?</span></div>
<div class="im">
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">"On the 18th of April in seventy-five,</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Hardly a man is now alive,</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Who remembers that famous day of the year,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">The midnight ride of ..."</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Patriot's Day celebrates the events that truly started the American Revolution. It started with the British decision to march to Concord to confiscate the colonist's powder and arms. Two lights were seen from a church steeple. Seeing them, Paul Revere and others road that night to spread</span> the alarm. Patriots gathered on the common in Lexington, MA ready to risk their lives confronting the British regulars. The fight broke out. Then the British marched to Concord and were confronted at an old bridge. They failed to go further and had a long bloody march back to Boston.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
That's what Patriot's Day is in remembrance of.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Many of us in the "tea party" are just common folk who honor the memory of those first patriots by attempting to bring some sense of sanity back to our Federal Government and Nation.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">$18 billion in debt (projected for the end of calendar year 2014) and trillion dollar deficits (when you factor in the known increase in interest expense that will occur when interest rates return to normal) are surely signs that some sanity is needed. So as they answered the call on the original patriot's day, some of us are attempting to answer the call today.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Yet we are despised, ridiculed and targeted? For what? Asking our leaders to use common sense and to do what is right.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
We're attempting to answer the call, will you?</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">They Answered the Call:<span> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlvMO7qNBuY" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr></wbr>v=VlvMO7qNBuY</span></a></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Here’s to you Mr. Jefferson:<span> </span></span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAg8a0vCZQ&feature=related" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr></wbr>v=CLAg8a0vCZQ&feature=related</span></span></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Alan Davis</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-49251337788669476562014-03-24T12:29:00.000-07:002014-03-24T12:29:24.536-07:00The Chicken or the Egg
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">President
Obama and the Democrats are proposing a 39% increase in the minimum wage from
$7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
don’t explain how they came up with that number, but they think it is only
fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They justify the increase by
claiming it’s required to keep up with inflation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">So it
brings up the interesting question “Which comes first?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The chicken or the egg?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in this case it’s slightly
different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Which comes first?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inflation or an increase in the minimum wage?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
United States Department of Labor website has information on both topics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They keep track of changes in the “Consumer
Price Index’ (inflation) and on the minimum wage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><a href="http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm"><span style="color: red;"><strong>http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm</strong></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: red;"><strong>
</strong></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><a href="http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm"><span style="color: red;"><strong>http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm</strong></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
Federal minimum wage was instituted in 1938 at $0.25.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress has acted multiple times since then to
increase it to its current level of $7.25 (Jul, 2009).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using the government’s inflation calculator
we see that $0.25 in 1938 would be the equivalent of $4.15 stated in 2014
dollars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So by that measure the increase
in the minimum wage has outpaced the rate of inflation over the past 75
years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1991 the minimum wage was
$4.25 which would be the equivalent of $7.30 per hour in current dollars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So we find that even on a shorter time
horizon the minimum wage has kept up with inflation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">But
as the minimum wage has increased, what else has increased?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A trip back in time will help demonstrate it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can remember back to 1956 when a first
class stamp was a pink Abraham Lincoln and cost $0.04.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>January 2014 the first class postage rate
increased to $0.49.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During that same
period the minimum wage has increased from $1.00 to $7.25.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another example is the price of a gallon of
gas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1972 I could buy a gallon of gas
for $0.49 at my neighborhood gas station.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now a gallon of gas costs approximately $3.55.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During that same period of time the minimum
wage has gone from $1.60 per hour to $7.25 per hour.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Since
salaries and benefits are often the largest component of a business’s cost, it’s
easy to see that the increase in the minimum wage has been a major contributor
to the increase in prices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The increase in
the cost of benefits (mainly driven by government policies) has also driven up
employers’ costs resulting in even more of an rise in prices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">President
Obama and the Democrats are proposing that the minimum wage be increased by 39%
over a three year period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So if wages
make up a significant portion of the cost of products, doesn’t that mean that
we will see much higher prices as a result of the increased minimum wage?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems quite logical that we would.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
late 1970’s to early 1980’s was a period of some of the highest inflation our
country has faced in recent years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During
that time the minimum wage increased from $1.40 per hour in 1967 to $3.35 per
hour in 1981.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was an increase of
$1.95 per hour or nearly 140% in just 14 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is it any wonder why prices (inflation) increased dramatically too?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So we find that a rising minimum wage drives
up costs which in turn drives up prices (inflation) requiring an increase in the
minimum wage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can be a never ending
cycle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">But we
also find is the price of some of the most important parts of our lives (i.e.
housing and taxes among many others) can vary dramatically in different
states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We find the highest prices for those
items on the east and west coasts and in large cities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A minimum wage of $7.25 buys much less in
those parts of our country than in rural and Midwestern/Southern states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So does it make sense to have the same minimum
wage in those less costly areas of our country as in the high cost cities and
coast states?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If not, that would call
for regional or area specific minimum wages rather than a national minimum
wage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
problem with regional minimum wages is, as high cost areas of the country raise
their minimum wages, they become even more costly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And at some point they become unattractive to
businesses and individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just look at
cities like Detroit and states like California if you want good examples.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">So in
the meantime President Obama and the Democrats want to raise the minimum wage
39% in just three years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We already have
experience as to what that will cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s a rapid rise in prices or inflation!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet the WH OMB is projecting that inflation
won’t increase more than 2.3% a year between now and 2024?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That hardly reflects the reality of the policy
they propose.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-74689483403936462212014-02-15T21:38:00.000-08:002014-02-15T21:38:01.849-08:00Social Security: The Latest from Senate Democrats<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(246, 243, 236); line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #242424; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(246, 243, 236); line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #242424; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/14/1277624/-Bernie-Sanders-Leads-15-Other-Senators-in-Letter-Urging-Obama-Not-to-Cut-SS-Medicare-or-Medicaid">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/14/1277624/-Bernie-Sanders-Leads-15-Other-Senators-in-Letter-Urging-Obama-Not-to-Cut-SS-Medicare-or-Medicaid</a></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(246, 243, 236); line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p>The Daily KOS carried a story about the letter 15 Senate Democrats delivered to President Obama. In it they ask the President not to include cost cutting to the Social Security program as part of his budget proposal. They claimed:</o:p></span></div>
<span lang="EN" style="color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><strong><em>"<span style="background-color: #444444;">Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit. Social Security has a surplus of more than $2.7 trillion and can pay every single benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 19 years."</span></em></strong></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><strong><em></em></strong></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But they failed to mention that the Social Security Trustees have been warning Congress since at least 2005 that they need to make timely reforms to the program. What reforms do these Senators propose in their letter? None.</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So while it may be true that Social Security hasn't contributed to the deficit, it's not true that it won't be. The WH OMB 2014 Budget showed Social Security Outlays exceeding Social Security Payroll Tax Receipts by $1.8 trillion dollars over the next ten years. And while the trustee report showed that Social Security benefits could be paid at current value until 2033, it also said that after that there would need to be a substantial reduction in benefits. Substantial as in 23%.</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Each year Congress delays in making necessary reforms to Social Security the consequences are that the required reforms are larger than if made before.</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: #444444;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So why do the 15 Senators want us to wait? I don't think they will be changing their minds any time soon. So i</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">t appears that the best way to make sure that Social Security is saved is to make sure as many as possible of the 15 Senators are defeated in this year's elections. </span></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="background-color: #444444; color: white; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The 15 Democrats who co-signed the letter are the following:<br />
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)<br /> Mark Begich (D-AK)<br /> Barbara Boxer (D-CA)<br /> Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)<br /> Al Franken (D-MN)<br /> Kirsten Gillibrand<br /> Mazie Hirono (D-HI)<br /> Tom Harkin (D-IA)<br /> Patrick Leahy (D-VT)<br /> Edward Markey (D-MA)<br /> Jeff Merkley (D-OR)<br /> Jack Reed (D-RI)<br /> Brian Schaz (D-HI)<br /> Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)<br /> Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-614321241934388262014-02-13T05:49:00.000-08:002014-02-13T05:49:22.311-08:00Gross Negligence<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Case Against Washington’s Handling of the
Federal Budget<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
by Alan R. Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Written in 01/31/2012, still valid today.)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Those
in Washington aren’t dealing with the budget seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, some in DC are doing their best to
convince the country the problem isn’t nearly as bad as it really is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My concerns fall into five main areas:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Washington
has invented terms to help ignore the extent of the crisis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
budget includes unrealistic assumptions<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">There
is an oncoming tidal wave of Interest Outlays<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
budget is built on legislation that won’t stand<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
extent to which individuals depend on the Federal Government<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“Invented” Terms:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">One
of the most frustrating things for me is the fact that rather than face the
crisis, Washington has come up with new terms to make the budget crisis look
less severe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those terms are:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Primary Deficit</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">: The deficit excluding Net
Interest Outlays. It allows Washington to claim that they have balanced the
budget when they have made little progress in doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Publicly Held
Debt</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this isn’t a new term, using it as the
bench mark as opposed to Total Debt is new.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This allows Washington to ignore the fact that it has used intra-government
debt (borrowing from the trust funds) as a major source of funds for the
general fund.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’ve seen Non-Public debt
grow from ~10% to~ 35% of total debt since WWII.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comparisons to Post WWII are erroneous for
two reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, we started WWII with
relatively low levels of debt compared to the size of our economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, our current debt was largely built up
during times of relative peace, rather than during a major worldwide conflict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You won’t even find Total Debt in last year’s
budget analyses put out by the CBO!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Unrealistic Assumptions</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">I
first looked at the WH OMB (summary tables) in 2009 after the 2010 budget
proposal was released. I was interested in seeing how they calculated Interest
outlays.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Tracking interest rate trends
is a hobby of mine.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I started with the
Economic assumptions and was surprised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The values for each of the five key assumptions appeared to be overly
optimistic making the projections meaningless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’ve been following the budget ever since.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This year I concentrated on the inflation
assumption values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I found that both the
WH OMB and CBO are using assumptions that can’t be supported by historic
trending or basic economic principles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the original budget projections the WH OMB projected 2.0% and 2.1% as
the average and maximum inflation assumption values.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Understating
the values for the inflation assumptions has two significant impacts:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Compounding</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Low values compound much slower over ten years than higher values
do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That results in lower “out year” outlays
and deficits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Interest Rates</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Understating inflation allows them to use lower values for interest
rates as there is a correlation between the two over the long run.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each 1% understatement of the “effective
rate” (Net Interest Outlays divided by average debt) understates Net Interest
Outlays by $200 billion in a year when the National Debt (Total) is $20
trillion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The original budget included 7
years where debt exceeded $20 trillion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Interest Rate “Tidal Wave”</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">In
the early 1990’s we became concerned over the size of the debt as we saw Net
Interest Outlays increase dramatically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This occurred as interest rates decreased to “normal” levels. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">90's Average:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>$216 billion Net Interest on $4.6 trillion
debt (Fed Fund Rate of 5.2%)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">In 2010 we incurred less Net
Interest Outlays on nearly three times the level of debt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2010:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>$197 billion Net Interest on
$13.4 trillion debt (Fed Fund Rate of 0.18%)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">The Treasury Dept. has been
utilizing a substantial amount of short term maturity instruments to finance
our debt. Even long term maturity instruments have been issued at unsustainably
low rates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once the FRB increases rates
(they have indicated that will occur in 2014) it will dramatically increase the
interest we’ll be paying on our Debt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
means we have a built in “tripling” of Net Interest Outlays at current debt
levels that is not being properly considered by Washington.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Legislative Assumptions</span></u></b><span style="font-size: 11pt;">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Budget
projections are built on current legislation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The best example of how this distorts the projections is the Medicare
“Doctor Fix”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is addressed for one
year each year so as to allow the cost cutting impact of the law to be used in
projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the intention is to not
allow the dramatic cut to physician payments to ever take effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are several other items like this that
allow the projections to reflect much smaller deficits than would otherwise be
shown.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“Individuals” & the Federal
Budget</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">I ran
across a historic schedule on the WH OMB website that broke out Outlays in much
different categories than I had previously seen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That schedule showed the following for 2010
Outlays:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">National
Defense:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>20.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Net
Interest:<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>5.7%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Payments
for Individuals:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>66.5%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Subtotal<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>92.2%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Other
Grants:<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>5.8%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> All
Other:<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2.0%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Total<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>100.0%<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">With
so much of the Federal Budget going to individuals (directly or indirectly
through state and local governments) any serious cuts to the Federal Budget
will have serious consequences for towns like Chillicothe. Add in the fact that
soon we will see a dramatic increase in Net Interest Outlays and the size of
required cuts to balance the budget are staggering!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet this isn’t being properly discussed in
Washington.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Unless
the real extent of our Nation’s financial crisis is brought forward for public
debate, we won’t see it properly addressed and financial collapse becomes more
likely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Addressing it appropriately will
result in real hardship for many.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
unfortunately hardship comes either way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“There are two ways to conquer
and enslave a nation.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">One is by sword.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other is by debt.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">John
Adams 1826<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
</span><div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“The battle, sir, is not to the strong
alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-62603044262483267292014-02-11T18:59:00.000-08:002014-02-11T18:59:16.950-08:00“Eventually Increasing the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis”<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">“Such large and
growing federal debt could have serious negative consequences, including
restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less
flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the
risk of a fiscal crisis.” </span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>CBO Director Douglas
Elmendorf to Senate Budget Committee 2/11/2014<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 6pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">See more at: <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/cbo-director-large-and-growing-federal-debt-could-produce-fiscal-crisis#sthash.JVxpfDmA.dpuf"><span style="color: blue;">http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/cbo-director-large-and-growing-federal-debt-could-produce-fiscal-crisis#sthash.JVxpfDmA.dpuf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">On
Tuesday February 11, 2014 Director Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office
warned the Senate that the Nation’s increasing federal debt <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“could
have serious negative consequences”</i></b> including <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“…increasing the risk of a fiscal
crisis”.</i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His choice of words was
intriguing. It’s a lot like watching someone’s house on fire and saying that it
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“could
have the serious negative consequence of increasing the risk of having to find
alternative housing”</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone’s
house catches fire they <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>WILL</u></b>
have to find alterative housing, at least for awhile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And having already run deficits for all but
four years since 1969 we already have a fiscal crisis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Washington
is full of tricks to keep from recognizing the size and immediacy of the
crisis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just a few of them are:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Using
unrealistically low values for the inflation and interest rate assumptions in
their projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both the CBO and WH
OMB have made a habit of using artificially low assumption values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The CBO is projecting inflation won’t exceed
2.4% and the WH OMB used 2.2% in their 2014 Budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’ve
only had nine years of inflation that low or lower since 1965.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> E</span>ach of those were years of
recession or extremely low economic growth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Using low inflation values allows them to use low interest rate values
since they are in large part based on inflation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Using
current law even when Congress makes a habit of ensuring that some of current
laws’ provisions don’t get implemented.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There's no better example than the required reduction in physician
Medicare payments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each year Congress
passes the “doctor fix” which applies to only one year leaving the required reduction
in the remaining nine years of projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I believe that’s gone on for 15<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>years and the current value for the reduction is 24%.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Using
newly defined ratios.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Look back prior to
the WH OMB’s 2012 Budget and see if you can find any reference to “Primary
Deficit”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I didn’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But now they calculate the deficit without
Net Interest Outlays because Net Interest Outlays are about to explode.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They also use Public Debt to compare to GDP
rather than using Gross Debt because we've already exceeded 100% of GDP when Gross
Debt is used. 100% is the "point of no return."</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We
all know how Washington also used the Government Trust Funds as a “free” source
of funds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There's no better example
than the Social Security Trust Funds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Individuals were required to contribute into the trust funds so there
would adequate funds to pay future benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the money has already been borrowed to offset General Fund Deficits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
CBO’s baseline projection report starts by showing a graph of budget results
from 1974 through the 2023 projections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are only four out of those forty one years in which we've had surpluses.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a Nation that had more than twice as
many surpluses than deficits in its first 140 years of existence that’s a
terrible record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We once believed we
should run surpluses in times of peace and prosperity so we could run deficits
in times of war and economic difficulty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now we accept deficits just because we've happened to run them in the past.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s a sure sign of a significant fiscal
crisis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-62273435358539954642014-02-11T14:11:00.000-08:002014-02-11T14:11:43.501-08:00When is Waiting the Wrong Answer
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Sometimes
some caution is a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I’m
usually not the first to rush in and do something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But other times you have too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the neighbors log pile was on fire I
couldn’t wait to see if it got bigger or possibly went out on its own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I acted quickly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that kept the action necessary to resolve
the problem from getting larger, like bringing in multiple fire trucks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Well,
I can’t help but wonder why Congress is waiting to pass necessary changes to
Social Security?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do they think that the
Trustees are just calling “Fire” for the fun of it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ever since at least the 2005 trust fund
report they have included some reference to making changes soon!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2005 they added the following:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“The sooner the adjustments are
made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">That
year the projection showed the trust funds running out of funds in 2041.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eight years later they showed the trust funds
running out of funds in 2033.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So as
eight years passed with no Congressional action, the exhaust year got sixteen
years closer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If things continue at that
rate the real exhaust year will be 2023, not 2033.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">In
the same period of time the trustee report’s estimate of the increase in
withholding rate that would be required to maintain the trust funds’ viability
has gone from 1.92% to 2.72%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
quite a jump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it will only get
bigger the longer Congress delays.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Under
President Bush changes were proposed, but Democrats in the Senate and House
said “NO!”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in 201,1when it looked
like President Obama and House Republicans might be willing to work a deal, Democrats
in the Senate held their “Hands Off Social Security” rally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They helped stop changes from being
implemented with statements like Sen. Reid’s when he said <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“Let’s worry about Social
Security when it’s a problem – today it’s not a problem.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Reports
on his appearance on MSNBC just a week before quoted him as saying <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“he would only be open to
changing the program in 20 years.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">What
will it take to change the mind of Senate and House Democrats?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s hard to tell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s not hard to determine the consequences
of any further delays in implementing changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is one time this type of extreme caution before acting is a real
problem!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-79324957930187145472014-02-09T12:35:00.000-08:002014-02-09T12:35:07.649-08:00The Federal Budget's "Hidden" Surprise
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
Federal Budget is hiding quite a surprise and it’s not going to be one that any
of us will like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The best way to see the
surprise is to look up historic spending.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Look up the Net Interest Outlays for 2000 and you’ll find the number
$232 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That year we had an ending
debt of $5.6 trillion dollars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now jump
forward to the year 2012.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’ll find we
had Net Interest Outlays of $232 billion with an ending debt of $15.4
trillion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nearly three times the debt
with the same level of interest?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
Federal Reserve Board has lowered interest rates in hopes of spurring on
economic growth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The 10 Year Treasury
rate averaged 6% in 2000 and only 1.8% in 2012.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But you don’t have a healthy economy maintaining artificially low
interest rates over the long run.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At
some point in time they will be raised to more normal levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What the more normal level might be is still
being debated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">So if
we know rates are lower than can be expected then we also know that Interest
Outlays are lower than they will be, even if the National Debt would remain at its
current level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Historic trending would
indicate that both short term and longer term rates will increase by 3% to 4%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s if they adjust to “normal” rates
rather than increasing more than that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then the math is pretty easy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3%
times $18 trillion equals $540 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">$540
billion per year is the “hidden surprise” already built into the budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So when members of the DC establishment talk
about a $700 billion deficit, they aren’t factoring in this hidden
surprise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real size of the deficit problem
is the current deficit plus $540 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So it’s more like $1.2 to $1.3 trillion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">So
much for President Obama’s statement that he’s brought down the deficit by
50%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once rates increase we’ll be back to
trillion dollar deficits like before.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-24706826898675736922014-02-08T18:03:00.000-08:002014-02-08T18:20:41.887-08:00What the CBO Actually Said<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: white;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: white;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: white;">“Did you see the
latest report on Obamacare from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They're projecting 2.3 million
people will leave the workforce by 2017 as a direct result of Obamacare.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
above comes directly from an email I received from a prominent Republican Senator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What makes it worse is this particular Senator
had a career in business before being elected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I hate to correct them, but that’s not what CBO told us or the point
they were making.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">What
they said was they estimated that workers will voluntarily reduce hours by
approximately 92 million per week because of the disincentives built into the
Obamacare program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(92 million divided
by 40 hours per week = 2.3 million F(ull) T(ime) E(quivalent)s.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of those hours may be from individuals
dropping out of the workforce, but in many cases it would be from them reducing
their hours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in each case it would
be voluntary and a result of <u>the adverse incentives Obamacare has built into it.</u><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
the statements regarding 2.3 million lost jobs or 2.3 million people leaving the
workforce just aren’t accurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the
statement that for some people this might be a good thing is most likely be
true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some people may be able to access
insurance while working fewer hours now that Obamacare is law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Since
in a rationale economy hours are offered because there is an actual need for
the hours to be worked, a voluntary reduction in hours by some should mean hours
available for others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as an example,
if an individual working the counter at a McDonalds voluntarily works fewer
hours the employer has two choices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t
fill those hours or find someone else to work them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most likely they will look for someone else
work those hours or else the person wouldn't have been working them in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> That person</span> will either be a
current employee who would like more hours or a new employee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So this may actually be a good thing for those
looking for work.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
point that the CBO was making is that Obamacare gives negative incentives to people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And those negative incentives come with a
cost to our Federal Budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><u>It’s called “subsidies”.</u><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">With
over 65% of all Federal Outlays going to <u>“Payments for Individuals”</u> <sup>(1)</sup>
and with the Federal Government already facing huge deficits, how many more
subsidies can we afford?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer is
none!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the reality is the Federal
Government needs to have a substantial reduction in its deficits in order to
bring some sanity to our Nation’s finances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>More subsidies isn’t the way to do that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(1)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Source:
Historic Table 11.1, 11.2 & 11.3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-28612030644817562022014-02-08T09:17:00.000-08:002014-02-08T09:17:27.064-08:00Clinics for the Uninsured<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Last
night (2/7/14) on “The Factor” Bill made the suggestion that the Federal
Government should open up clinics for the uninsured.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That leads me to believe that he's one of the many people
wrongly equate “Lack of Insurance” with “Lack of Access to Healthcare”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However the two aren’t equal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s a long history of improving access to
healthcare for the “poor” in our country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having
recently taught a course in Healthcare Finance I covered that topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few of the highlights follow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">At
the founding of our country healthcare was provided by physicians in
individuals’ homes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A good reminder of
that is the scene from the HBO series “John Adams” in which his daughter underwent
breast surgery (for cancer) in an upstairs bedroom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By
the mid 1700’s there was a growing sick homeless population in Philadelphia so Ben Franklin and
Dr. Thomas Bond worked to establish the first hospital in the colonies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">"
Faced with increasing numbers of the poor who were suffering from physical
illness and the increasing numbers of people from all classes suffering from
mental illness, civic-minded leaders sought a partial solution to the problem
by founding a hospital.”</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
use of hospitals for caring for the sick spread in Europe before it did in the
new country formed from the colonies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
during the second half of the 1800’s groups from religious sects in Europe came
to the United States for the purpose religious freedom and caring for the
poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This resulted in a significant
increase in the number of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>hospitals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The most common were Catholic based and run, staffed by nuns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>SSM Healthcare (St.
Louis, MO) is just one of many Catholic Healthcare Systems that were established.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other religious groups followed suit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.ssmhc.com/internet/home/ssmcorp.nsf/documents/our+heritage+of+healing"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ssmhc.com/internet/home/ssmcorp.nsf/documents/our+heritage+of+healing</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Cities,
counties and states set up hospitals to care for the poor. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They became known as “charity hospitals”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Two</span> of the more famous are Cook County Hospital
in Chicago and Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston, but they were prevalent in many cities. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County_Hospital"><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County_Hospital</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Taub_General_Hospital"><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Taub_General_Hospital</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
order to improve access to healthcare and allow hospitals access to funds for
construction Congress passed the Hill-Burton act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those organizations using Hill-Burton funding
were required to give a “reasonable amount” of charity care.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Burton_Act"><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Burton_Act</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As
charity care facilities became overwhelmed, Congress enacted “anti-dumping”
laws making it illegal to transfer emergency patients to county facilities
based on the patients lack of financial resources.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Failure to comply with those restrictions was
grounds for exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Community
Health Centers have existed for some time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Their primary purpose is to allow healthcare access to those who lack
insurance or have Medicaid coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Federal <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government has acted multiple
times in the recent past to strengthen this system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health_centers_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health_centers_in_the_United_States</a></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Qualified_Health_Center"><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Qualified_Health_Center</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In recent years there has been a move to
establish “free clinics” offered by volunteers that are shielded from malpractice
suits by “Good Samaritan” laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That trend
continues as individuals of faith and good will see this as a way to practice
their faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An example of such a clinic
exists in Chillicothe, OH.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.hopeclinicfree.org/services.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.hopeclinicfree.org/services.html</span></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Under the previsions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs hospitals who accept patients from those programs must offer charity care and post their charity care guidelines. Failure to comply can result in organizations' exclusion from those programs.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
access to healthcare for the poor has been a consideration since before our nation was founded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And access has been improved over the centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question has always been the type of
access and the ability of the Nation to support it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">While the rallying cry of those supporting universal healthcare is "the richest Nation in history can afford it" the truth might be that the "most indebted Nation in history" may have reached the limit on what it can afford?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span> </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-87394143579301115812014-02-07T12:19:00.000-08:002014-02-07T12:19:37.812-08:00Social Security – Another Set of Democrat Lies?<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Social
Security is used as a political issue for many Democrats despite their original
campaign rhetoric and the reality facing the program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How long can this go on before people
understand that’s the case?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let’s
take Sen. Mark Pryor for example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>According to “On the Issues.org” he signed on to The Hyde Park
Declaration in 2000 which included the following Goal for 2010:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“Make structural reforms in Social
Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits…,
and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement…”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
his 2002 campaign website had the following statement on it:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“This safety net must be maintained if
we are to ensure that our seniors will have a sound income in their golden
years.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://senate.ontheissues.org/Economic/Mark_Pryor_Social_Security.htm"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: blue;">http://senate.ontheissues.org/Economic/Mark_Pryor_Social_Security.htm</span></span></b></a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">He’s
just one of many Democrat Senators who have promised to work to ensure reforms
are made to the program, but who now opposes any suggested changes and
criticizes those who put them forward or supports those efforts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just look at the commercials his supporters
are running against Rep. Cotton.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
while Sen. Pryor helps stop any changes from taking place, what do President
Obama’s cabinet members say about the need for changes to the Social Security
program?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Sec. of Treasury, Sec. of
HHS and Sec. of Labor are three of the trust fund trustees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since at least 2005 the trustees have
included statements like the following in their trust fund reports:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“The projected combined OASI and DI
Trust Fund asset reserves…begin to decline in 2021, and <u>become depleted and
unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 203</u>3.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">…The Trustees recommend that lawmakers address the
projected trust fund shortfalls in a timely way in order to phase in necessary changes
and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">With informed discussion, creative thinking, and
timely legislative action, Social Security can continue to protect future
generations.”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;">Source:
2013 Trustee Report<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.htm"><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.htm</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Some
Senate Democrats do even worse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They lie
about the status of Social Security.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“SEN. DURBIN: Social Security
does not add one penny to the deficit. Social Security untouched
will make every promised payment for more than 25 years. But the deficit
commission was given a charge, add 75 more years of solvency to Social
Security. … The Social Security program, as it's currently put together,
does not have any impact on the deficit.”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Source:
Meet the Press transcript; February 20, 2011.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">SEN.
REID: “Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit, …
It’s in great shape for the next many decades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let’s worry about it when it’s a problem – today it’s not a problem.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Source: The Fiscal Times; March 28,
2011; Michelle Hirsch<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Even
a quick look at the WH OMB’s 2014 Budget (Table S-5 page 189) shows those
claims to be untrue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It shows Social
Security Outlays projected to exceed Social Security Payroll Tax Receipts by
$1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The projected 10 year shortfall was only $200 billion in the 2010
Budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So as the Social Security Trust
Funds rapidly approach the point when they run out of money and mandatory cuts
in benefits are required, Democrats continue to act as if this was hardly an
issue at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And despite initially campaigning
on promises to save Social Security, they now criticize anyone who tries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Could
it be that the same party that lied to us when they told us that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“you
can keep your insurance if you like it”</i></b> is also lying to us about the
lack of need to address Social Security reforms any time soon?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-72579023284515302952014-02-06T05:16:00.000-08:002014-02-06T05:16:09.194-08:00Primary Deficit
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Comments on
Washington Use<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">For
years I’ve wanted to go to the Davis Mts. in west Texas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This year an opportunity has come up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since it’s probably going to be the only time
I’ll go, I’d love to get a new camera and set of lenses for the trip. But these
are pretty expensive items and don’t quite fit into our family budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But after reviewing the Congressional Budget
Office’s 2014 baseline projections I’ve come up with a strategy to try on my
wife. After all, it seems to work in Washington.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When
I talk to my wife I’m going to talk about our <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>“primary budget”</u></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’ll leave out our mortgage payment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That way I can convince her that we actually have a large budget surplus
and can afford the camera equipment after all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However I fear there’s one small problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think she’s dumb enough to buy that
argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
why do we see “Primary Deficit” in the Congressional Budget Office and White
House Office of Management and Budget documents?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Primary Deficit” is defined as the
difference between Receipts and Outlays minus Net Interest. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first time I found “Primary Deficit” shown
on the WH OMB’s table of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Proposed
Budget by Category</u></b> was in the 2012 Budget documents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But now it appears to be a standard feature of
Budgets and Mid-Session Reviews and CBO Baseline projections.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Creating
a new ratio that leaves out a major component of the budget is certainly a
creative way of solving budget problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But does it really do anything solve the problem?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s actually harmful since it allows some
individuals to claim we're making progress when we’re actually falling further
behind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">One of the major
problems that the Nation faces in regards to its budget is the fact that Gross
Debt has grown so fast and so large.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once
interest rates return to “normal”, Net Interest Outlays will explode.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A simple example of that can be seen by
multiplying 3% times $18 trillion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3%
represents the approximate amount that current interest rates fall below
“normal” levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>$18 trillion is the
amount of debt the Nation will have at the end of its fiscal year 2014.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result of that math is $540 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s the amount of Interest Outlays that’s
already built into the Nation’s future budgets based strictly on the fact that
someday interest rates will return to normal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Imagine if we get higher interest rates like we did in the 1980’s!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
who came up with the idea of creating a new ratio excluding Net Interest
Outlays?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t know, but I do know
that I’ve heard individuals who would like us to believe that our debt levels
aren’t a problem talk about “Primary Deficit”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I wish those individuals had to talk to my wife about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can already hear her saying “How dumb do
you think I am?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
CBO’s Table 1.1 (page 9) shows both the 10 year projected Deficit ($7.9
trillion) and Primary Deficit ($2.1 trillion).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But what value is it to know that the deficit without Net Interest
Outlays is $5.8 trillion less than the real Deficit?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It only gives someone a talking point that
sounds good while ignoring the reality that our Budget is spinning out of
control due to the huge deficits and increase in debt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hope people in Washington aren’t buying it
either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-76393647652706304282014-02-05T19:31:00.002-08:002014-02-05T19:31:35.836-08:00Measures of Debt
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt;">Comments on the
CBO Baseline Projections<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt;">By Alan R. Davis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released their 2014 projections in a 182
page document.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Comments in this “blog”
related to the topic of the Nation’s Debt covered in that document.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
CBO lists four measures of Debt:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><u><strong>Gross
Debt</strong></u>: All debt of the Federal Government<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><u>Debt
Subject to Limit</u></strong>: Basically the same as the Gross Debt but relating to the
authorized limit passed by Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><u>Debt
Held by the Public</u></strong>: Excludes Debt Held by Government Accounts (Trust Funds) but
does include that amount held by the Federal Reserve Board.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><strong><u>Debt
Held by the Public less Financial Assets</u></strong>: A technical definition that is
difficult to calculate because of the difficulty in measuring value of the
Financial Assets<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
CBO explains the rationale for concentrating on the “Debt Held by the Public”
as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“(Debt held by the trust funds)...does
not directly affect the economy and has no net effect on the budget.”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So
because of that position, it’s hard to find figures for Gross Debt in their
report and they repeatedly use Public Debt figures in their analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But let’s look at that statement to see if
stands up to scrutiny.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“…has no net effect on the budget.”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What they are telling us is since the
government is the issuer and the borrower, those two transactions cancel
themselves out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also since the
government is paying the interest and receiving the interest those also cancel
themselves out. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On a strict accounting
basis, that may be true for any given year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But it’s not true from the perspective that the government has more debt
that it must pay back at some point in time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">According
to the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust Funds, that point is
coming relatively soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact the 2013
Trustee Report shows that occurs beginning in 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At that point, not only will the Federal
Government have to borrow funds to support the General Fund’s deficit, but also
to start paying back the trust funds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“…does not
directly affect the economy</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">”:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Economists in Washington tell us that borrowing funds from the trust
funds doesn’t impact the economy in the same way as borrowing directly from the
public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They justify this theory by
saying the funds are sitting idly in the trust funds, while those borrowed from
the public are no longer available for use by the private sector economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">How
do the funds make it into the trust funds?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are accumulated through payroll taxes which take money out of the
economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And when it’s time for the
IOU’s to be paid off, the General Fund will have to increase its borrowings
taking more funds out of the economy than otherwise would be required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So over time borrowing the surpluses from the
trust funds to support deficit spending not only puts the viability of the
trust funds at risk, but it increases the long term borrowing needs of the
General Fund.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let’s
put that in real terms from my life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My
parents stressed that I should go to college.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Coming from a large family with moderate income, they told me I needed
to make a sincere effort to pay for as much of my college education as I could.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So beginning in my junior year of high school
I stopped running track and cross country and got a job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I saved as much as I could and put it in a "college fund".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I got my drivers’ license I had to share
a family car rather than have one of my own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Had I used the Government’s logic, I could have used the funds I had
saved for my college education to purchase a car since they were sitting
idly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I could have just issued my
college fund IOU’s for the amount I used.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, when I finally went to college those funds wouldn’t have been
available, would they.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would I have
paid for college? I would have had to borrow the money.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Ignoring the
government account debt is just a way to justify deficit spending and to keep
from having to recognize that our Debt to GDP ratio is now over 100%.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-13453373364661775332014-02-02T14:26:00.002-08:002014-02-02T14:26:37.914-08:00Is There a Crisis with Social Security?
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">There
still seems to be some debate on whether the Social Security Trust Funds are
facing a crisis and require changes to the Social Security program for them to
remain well funded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As long as that
debate exists there’s little chance that any meaningful reforms will be made.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">There
are two sides to the debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One side
talks about the size of the trust fund balances, the fact that those balances
have been growing over the years and the fact that the trust funds have been
able to meet all their obligations in past years as evidence that there isn’t an
immediate crisis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
other side talks about the fact that the number of those drawing benefits is
growing rapidly, especially now with the beginning of the retirement of the
Baby Boomer generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They talk about
the trust fund projections showing that the balances will be decreasing rapidly
in the coming years and that the burden on future generations of workers will become
unsustainable without fundamental reforms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Let’s
look at the comparison of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>some
information from the 2005 and 2013 trustee reports.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Some
statistics on the change from 2004 to 2012:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Increase
in workers contributing to Social Security:<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2.5%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Increase
in those receiving benefits from Social Security:<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>18.8%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Increase
in annual benefits paid:<span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span>59.4%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Increase
in total trust fund income:<span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span>27.7%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Decrease
in annual surplus:<span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>-67.3%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"> -<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Increase
in unfunded liability for Social Security:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>140.0%<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><a href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/trustreports.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/trustreports.html</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Reports on the year 2004)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><a href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/index.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/index.html</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Reports on the year 2012)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">In
additional postings we’ll look at what some of the parties on each side are
saying on this topic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8909581991833595863.post-35689851947066916652012-07-22T17:12:00.001-07:002014-01-28T21:03:48.053-08:00Why Project 1969?Back in 1996 I realized that President Clinton and the Congressional Democrats were using two facts that just weren't true as their main campaign claims. I attempted to get them to correct their statements, but with no success. I attempted to get some of the major media to bring the false nature of those claims to the public's attention. But that met with no success. Then I attempted to get Republicans to counter those false claims and they weren't interested either. So many voters cast mis-informed votes. And that same pattern continues to today.<br />
<br />
I've worked to educate myself on some of the key issues of the day related to Our Federal Government and its finances. This blog is devoted to bringing you real facts that you can use in deciding which Party and which candidates to support.<br />
<br />
I hope you find it helpful.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236086736752207139noreply@blogger.com