Thank you for the information. It has reinforced my preference for non-government solutions to every problem that needs to be dealt with.
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@...> wrote:
>
> CBO: Social Security Now Officially
> Broke<http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/258075/cbo-social-security-now-officially-broke>
> January 26, 2011 12:57
> P.M.<http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/258075/cbo-social-security-now-officially-broke>
> By Kevin D. Williamson <http://www.nationalreview.com/author/14040>
>
> Tags: Despair <http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/tags/7158>,
> Entitlements <http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/tags/7257>
>
> Today's CBO report has some bad news about the
> deficit<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70P5U220110126>.
> But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It's
> officially broke.
>
> The CBO's revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent
> deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover
> sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black
> (the *theoretical
> *black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for
> an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social
> Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.
>
> But there's a bit of camouflage attached: If you include the "interest" that
> the federal government "owes" the fictitious Social Security "trust fund,"
> then the program is in the black. Which is to say, if you think that
> borrowing another $1 trillion from the bond market to shift money from one
> government account to another government account makes the nation $1
> trillion richer, then everything's hunky-dory. But if you compare the
> program's tax income to its benefit outlays, without the "interest" owed, as
> CBO does, what you get is deficits from this year forward to 2021 of $45
> billion, $30 billion, $28 billion, $30 billion, $31 billion, $33 billion,
> $44 billion, $59 billion, $77 billion, $98 billion, and $118 billion — by my
> always-suspect English-major math, about six-tenths of a *trillion *dollars
> in the hole.
>
> President Obama has explicitly rejected the recommendations of his own
> bipartisan deficit panel, specifically the proposal to raise the Social
> Security retirement age modestly over the course of several decades (to 69
> by 2075). But we can only put so many trillions on the national balance
> sheet before our national chit gets called in, at which point it will hit
> the fiscal fan.
>
> Bill
>
>
> In a message dated 1/26/2011 3:25:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> tdietlin@... writes:
>
> Given that the USSC has been pretty much ignoring the Constitution for some
> time, do you have reason to
>
No comments:
Post a Comment