Wednesday, May 13, 2009


Recession hits Social Security hard

I found this disgusting article and I have to share it with you.

Geithner reveals report on fiscal health of entitlement programs.

Estimate: Social Security trustfund exhausted 4 years sooner than last year's forecast.

By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer Last Updated: May 12, 2009: 3:31 PM ET

The recession has taken its toll on Social Security. The officials who oversee the program forecast Tuesday that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2037 -- four years earlier than estimated last year.

I do not know why this paragraph is even in the story. The recession has wounded the social security fund! The lie of the year! When I see this I see red and want to start smashing things. Then we go to the next paragraph.

The trust fund reflects a $2.4 trillion surplus paid into Social Security over 20 years that Uncle Sam has borrowed, spent and promised to pay back. Trust fund exhaustion represents the point at which only 76% of benefits could be paid out.

The federal government borrowed? How much interest did they promise to pay and when was the debt supposed to be paid off. Surely the time of paying off the debt would be in time to rescue the fund and take care of the recipients. To arrange it any other way would be a crime against the people of this country. And I mean those very words. Could you imagine the criminal mind of anyone who robbed the very citizens of this country of their pension money? Talk about a criminal deviant mind! And the whole idea of this precious money being loaned out has me in a rage. WHO LOANED IT?! What is the motherfuckers name and where does he live? Who authorized him to do the transaction? Where is the congressional authority to do such a thing? I did some research and found out that this financial mayhem was instituted by punk-ass RONALD REAGAN. You remember Reagan, I'm sure. He is the guy who outspent the Russians and won the cold war. He is the guy who started taking OUR retirement funds and not paying them back. He got a pension for being president that would astonish most folks. Somewhere between 500 and a 1000 times greater than any pitiful Social Security that we might have earned if they left our money alone.

The main reason for the change in forecast: Demand for benefits has grown while money paid in has fallen because of growing unemployment and new tax breaks in the economic stimulus package passed in February.Since the start of 2008, 5.7 million payroll tax jobs have disappeared. And another 4.3 million jobs are being filled on a part-time basis.In the nearer term, the trustees estimate that Social Security will take in fewer taxes than the benefits that will be paid out by 2016. Last year, they estimated the near-term shortfall would occur in 2017.There are those who describe Social Security's situation as a crisis point of 2016 , because that's when the government has to start paying the system back with interest."When Social Security needs to draw down the 'surplus,' the Treasury will have to borrow money, raise taxes or cut other spending in order to redeem the IOUs," said Charles Konigsberg, a federal budget expert at deficit watchdog group the Concord Coalition.But both camps agree on two things: It will be less onerous to tackle Social Security sooner rather than later. In the meantime, there is no threat to current and soon-to-be retirees' benefits.

Aha! The truth is out. The crisis point we have all been told is 2016, when we start taking in less than what we pay out, is not a procedure of population or of some other sin of the masses but merely the time when the 2.4 trillion dollars the scumbags borrowed is to be paid back, plus interest. The only real problem on the horizon will be the Obama exercise in "fixing" the Social Security problem. Any time these crooked bastards fix anything it will cost us an arm and a leg. They really don't want to fix a goddamn thing. They just want problems to go away and then they want money to buy more votes. We are dealing with a class of people who do not produce anything. They merely spend money and tax people. That is what a politician does. They mostly spend money. Your money.

"Despite projections that Social Security can continue to pay full benefits for nearly 30 years, the sooner action is taken the more options for reform will be available and the fairer reforms will be to our children and grandchildren," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a managing trustee of the program.

There we have the dreaded word "reform". Reform , in D.C. is merely a term of endearment for a process whereby politicians rip off tax payers and use spin doctors to convince you that it is in your best interest to be ripped off.

One of the factors causing the long-term shortfall: Americans are living longer. In response, the American Academy of Actuaries is advocating that lawmakers gradually increase the age at which a person can start collecting full Social Security benefits.But it's likely other measures will also be needed.During the 2005 Social Security reform debate, the notion of progressive indexing gained some political traction. Progressive indexing means that benefits of future high-income retirees would be indexed to inflation rather than to wages, as is currently the case. That would have the effect of reducing benefits from their current promised levels because inflation tends to grow more slowly than wages.Medicare: No easy solutionsThe recession also hit Medicare. The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is forecast to be tapped out by 2017, or 2 years earlier than the trustees' estimate last year.The trustees characterized the exhaustion date as "an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provisions of HI services to beneficiariesStarting last year, the fund -- which covers hospital stays and related care -- had already begun taking in less than the system paid out in benefits.

Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary and a trustee, said financial stability for Medicare is intimately tied to health care reform."We know that success ... depends on our ability to fix what's broken with the rest of the system," she said at a briefing, noting that when an uninsured person goes on Medicare, the costs to care for that person are higher than for someone who has had health insurance throughout his adult life."This is more of a process," said Cori Uccello, the senior health fellow for the American Academy of Actuaries. She noted that the burden will likely need to be shared by taxpayers, those in the health industry and Medicare beneficiaries alike.Part of that burden will be relieved once the growth of health care costs is slowed. But, Uccello said, "[That] is not going to happen overnight. It will take many years to see results."

There is a definite need for reform in our Social Security System. I think it will mean that we grow food to feed everybody. I think it will mean that we learn herbs and procedures for keeping us healthy. We have screwed up somewhere along the way. A hundred years ago we did not have cancer and diabetes like we do now. We must go back in time and find out what we did wrong. There is our salvation. One definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different outcome. We keep doing certain things over and over and it keeps killing us and we keep doing them over and over. Drives me nuts!

Stay alive.



tweell said...

From snopes:

"Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals."

Reagan did mess with SS, but at the time SS was spending more than was coming in. He did a quick fix of that, more may have been politically impossible.
Yes, the SS surplus in the late 80's and the way it was masking the deficit was an issue, so in 1990 that was changed, keeping SS off the budget (except for paying the folks that run it).

harveysmokes said...

Here'some more to piss you off. I work in a neonatal unit of a hospital, and found out that preemie babies under a certain weight automatically qualify for social security benefits, even when born to illegal alien mothers. Our gov sends the check wherever they live, here or even home to Mexico--what an incentive to have an anchor baby in the US.

JD said...

All monies coming into the federal government go into the overall pool of funds. There is not lockbox or special fund.
Gas taxes don't go to a highway fund. Telephone taxes don't go to buy computers for poor people, etc.
All Federal dollars received from taxes, fines and tariffs go into the General Fund and are appropriated by Congress.
Unfortunately, Congress has been helping themselves to SS monies for a generation. Only a change in federal law can truely put those funds into a separate system. I think if they did this, they would find the SS system is nearly solvent. But the federal budget deficit would be even larger than any of us could imagine. Note, Social Security Income assistance is not funded (so they say) by Social Security taxes - which is false because they borrow from SS as noted above!