Those who continue to tell us that Social Security must be cut (together with other government safety nets) as part of an austerity measure to reduce the deficit in order to restart the economy are either idiots or sociopaths -- particularly if they persist in promulgating this mantra now that the the national deficit is rapidly heading toward zero!!! Moreover, ecomomists who are not whoring for the rich who wish to rob the poor are in agreement that the only way to restart the economy now is by renewed government spending.

---

 theREALnews                                                                         - Permalink -

Papantonio: Deficit Reduction Exposes Austerity Lies

KMC >> 12pm - May 25, 2013

Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder talk about the falling deficit, and how both the traditional media and the Republicans don't want Americans to know that Obama's economic policies are actually working.

Watch Ring of Fire every Sunday at 12pm Eastern/9am Pacific on Free Speech TV!

Follow more of our stories at http://www.RingofFireRadio.com Be sociable! Follow us on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RingofFireRadio Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/RingofFireRadio Google+: http://plus.google.com/118415831573195648557

President Obama and many members of Congress claim that Social Security must be cut to reduce the national deficit. Nothing can be farther from the truth! First, Social Security will run a surplus for the next 20 years. Second, Social Security is a $2.8 Trillion insurance policy prepaid by the beneficiaries and by law is not permitted contribute to the national debt. Third, the national debt is now falling on its own accord (the Congressional Budget Office projects the current fiscal year deficit to be 4.0% down sharply from 7.0% last year) ...and any further reduction of the deficit would be a drag on the economy.

---

 theREALnews                                                                               Permalink

Social Security Act Turns 78

Signed into law in 1935, the Social Security Act launched an integral social safety net program, but is it still sustainable? - August 14, 2013

Blogger's Note: The part in my header having to do with the spontaneous reduction in the National deficit was found here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-deficit-is-shrinking-2013-8

It's good that the GOP has admitted to lying about the fiscal crisis. However, the question remains: Will Obama now back off his plan to cut Social Security and Medicare?

---

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2013 05:15 AM MST

GOP: We’ve been lying all along

Boehner's admission that we don't really have a debt crisis reveals his party's ulterior, program-cutting motives

BY DAVID SIROTA

John Boehner (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)

I never thought I’d write these words, but here goes: Thank you, John Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for finally admitting on national television that all the fiscal cliffs, sequestrations and budget battles you’ve created are, indeed, artificially fabricated by ideologues and self-interested politicians and not the result of some imminent crisis that’s out of our control.

America owes this debt of gratitude to Boehner after he finally came clean on yesterday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week” and admitted that “we do not have an immediate debt crisis.” (His admission was followed up by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who quickly echoed much the same sentiment on CBS’ “Face the Nation”).

In offering up such a stunningly honest admission, the GOP leader has put himself on record as agreeing with President Obama, who has previously acknowledged that demonstrable reality. But the big news here isn’t just about the politics of a Republican House speaker tacitly admitting they agree with a Democratic president. It is also about a bigger admission revealing the fact that the GOP’s fiscal alarmism is not merely some natural reaction to reality, but a calculated means to other ideological ends.

Before considering those ends, first remember that Boehner (like Obama) is correct on the facts.

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, “Even if we do run deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II” and “it will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid- to late 1990s.” It is also lower than the 80 percent of GDP level that many economists say starts to put countries in a precarious position. Additionally, citing Congressional Budget Office data, the Center for American Progress notes that the long-term debt outlook is only dire because the projections simply assume without question that “future Congresses will enact huge new deficit-increasing tax cuts and spending hikes.”

“The debt outlook is bad (but) we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with,” writes Krugman. “We’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with.”

So yes, we should start dealing with the long-term debt in a pragmatic and sober way, but we shouldn’t pretend it is some sort of imminent crisis worthy of draconian austerity measures.

If we could somehow do that, then there would be plenty of gradual steps that could be taken right now — steps that deal with the debt in measured ways that do the least harm to the overall economy. Those include starting to phase out the Bush tax cuts, which show no correlation with job growth and yet are the single largest driver of annual deficits; starting to reduce defense and war spending, which, job-creation-wise, is one of the least effective ways for the government to spend money; starting to move the United States toward the least costly, more efficient, and more effective single-payer healthcare system that most industrialized countries have, and that lowers overhead for employers; and starting to spend more money on social programs that fight economic inequality, with the understanding that driving down such inequality tends to boost macroeconomic growth and consequently boost public revenues (this is the Reagan-esque idea of growing one’s way out of debt).

But, of course, we aren’t having a sober and measured discussion about such pragmatic solutions. Instead, the national conversation about the budget is dominated by debt demagogues with ulterior motives. Taking a page out of the shock doctrine playbook that says every crisis is an opportunity, these alarmists have sought to create the perception of an immediate crisis in order to quickly manufacture opportunities to legislate their otherwise politically impossible agenda items.

In practice, that means Wall Streeters and conservative ideologues citing the supposedly imminent crisis to successfully nudge the political establishment to endorse cuts to Social Security, even though the program has almost nothing to do with the debt crisis. It also means a GOP budget that targets most of its cuts at the social programs that the poor and middle-class most rely on (this, at the same time most of these same alleged budget hawks supported an extension of most of the deficit-expanding Bush tax cuts; decry any cuts to the defense budget; and either outright oppose a single-payer system or support the Obama healthcare law that while certainly expanding coverage, nonetheless buttresses the private health insurance industry and, thus, arguably makes such a single-payer system more out of reach).

From Boehner to Ryan to the Bowles-Simpson tandem to an unending parade of television pundits, the last year has been marked by the most prominent political voices ignoring the more prudent way forward, and instead claiming that these shock doctrine prescriptions — i.e., Social Security/Medicare cuts, social program cuts, etc. — are all required. And not just required, but required immediately, because of the supposed urgency of the debt crisis.

Using that supposed urgency as a rationale to create fiscal cliffs, sequestration battles and debt ceiling crises, their talking points have lately assumed a similar tenor to that of the old Thatcherites’ “There Is No Alternative” mantra, the idea being that because the emergency is supposedly so imminent, there is simply no other way forward than the conservative neoliberal path of profligacy for the rich (tax cuts, continued corporate subsidies, etc.) and austerity for everyone else.

But suddenly, thanks to yesterday’s declarations by Boehner and Ryan, the charade’s most sacred lie has been exposed. In acknowledging that “we do not have an immediate debt crisis,” GOP leaders are admitting that there is, in fact, an alternative. They are also admitting that their longtime claims to the contrary were ends-justify-the-means tactics to manufacture an unnecessary panic — one that they hoped would scare America into abruptly accepting the kind of draconian policies polls show the public opposes.

Now that the truth is out, maybe a more reasoned debate can begin and more pragmatic policies can finally take center stage.

 

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.  

MORE DAVID SIROTA. 
 

WASHINGTON POST YELLOW JOURNALISM NOW A PART OF THE FASCIST-AMERICA PROPAGANDA MACHINE (AND TO THINK, I WAS ONCE A SUBSCRIBER...)

---

Washington Post Discards All Journalistic Standards In Attack on Social Security

News outlets generally like to claim a separation between their editorial pages and their news pages. The Washington Post has long ignored this distinction in pursuing its agenda for cutting Social Security, however it took a big step further in tearing down this barrier with a lead front page story that would have been excluded from most opinion pages because of all the inaccuracies it contained.

The basic premise of the story, as expressed in the headline ("the debt fallout: how Social Security went 'cash negative' earlier than expected") and the first paragraph ("Last year, as a debate over the runaway national debt gathered steam in Washington, Social Security passed a treacherous milestone. It went 'cash negative.'") is that Social Security faces some sort of crisis because it is paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. [The "runaway national debt" is also a Washington Post invention. The deficits have soared in recent years because of the economic downturn following the collapse of the housing bubble. No responsible newspaper would discuss this as problem of the budget as opposed to a problem with a horribly underemployed economy.]

This "treacherous milestone" is entirely the Post's invention, it has absolutely nothing to do with the law that governs Social Security benefit payments. Under the law, as long as their is money in the trust fund, then Social Security is able to pay full benefiits. There is literally no other possible interpretation of the law.

As the article notes the trust fund currently holds $2.6 trillion in government bonds, so it is nowhere close to being unable to pay benefits. The whole point of building up the trust fund was to help cover costs at a future date when taxes would not be sufficient to cover full benefits. Rather than posing any sort of crisis, this is exactly what had been planned when Congress last made major changes to the program in 1983 based on the recommendations of the Greenspan commission.

The article makes great efforts to confuse readers about the status of the trust fund. It tells readers:

"The $2.6 trillion Social Security trust fund will provide little relief. The government has borrowed every cent and now must raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more heavily from outside investors to keep benefit checks flowing."

This is the same situation the the government faces when Wall Street investment banker Peter Peterson or any other holder of government bonds decides to cash in their bonds when they become due. In such cases it "must raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more heavily from outside investors." The Post's reporters and editors should understand this fact.

The article then goes on to incorrectly accuse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of misrepresenting the finances of Social Security:

"In an MSNBC interview, he [Senator Reid] added: 'Social Security does not add a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has and, for the next 30 years, it won’t do that.'

Such statements have not been true since at least 2009, when the cost of monthly checks regularly began to exceed payroll tax collections. A spokesman said Reid stands by his comments and his view that Social Security is entirely self-financed."

Of course Senator Reid is exactly right. The system is self-financed under the law. In 2009 it began drawing on the interest on the government bonds it held. That is exactly what the law dictates, when Social Security needs more money than it collects in taxes, it is supposed to draw on the bonds that were purchased with Social Security taxes in the past. This means it is self-financing.

Again, this is like Peter Peterson selling his government bonds to finance one of his political ventures. Just like Social Security, he is drawing on his own money. The Post may have missed it, but there was a big debate last summer over raising the government's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. This $14.3 trillion figure included the $2.6 trillion borrowed from Social Security. If Social Security sells some of these bonds and this money is used to pay benefits, it does not raise the debt subject to the ceiling by a penny. This is very simple and very clear.

The article then turns to Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles who describes a plan he put forward along with former Senator Alan Simpson, his co-chair on a deficit commission appointed by President Obama [the article wrongly describes this plan as being the commission's plan. That is not true, the commission did not approve any plan.]

“It would have hit upper-income workers while raising benefits for the most needy, those with average lifetime earnings of less than $11,000 a year. 'By making these relatively small changes, you make it solvent and you make it be there for people who depend on it,'” Bowles said. 'I thought that’s what we as Democrats were supposed to be for.'"

Actually the plan put forward by Bowles and Simpson would have implied large cuts for most low-income workers who would not have met the work requirements needed for the higher benefit. The cut would have taken the form of a 0.3 percentage point reduction in the annual cost of living adjustment. This cut would be cumulative, after 15 years of retirement a beneficiary would be seeing a benefit that is roughly 4.5 percent lower as a result of the Bowles-Simpson plan. The plan also phased in an increase in the age for receiving full benefits to 69, which is also a benefit cut for lower income retirees.

For lower income retirees Social Security is the overwhelming majority of their income. This means that the benefit cut advocated by Bowles and Simpson would imply the loss of a much larger share of their income than the end of the Bush tax cuts would for the wealthy. However, the Post has never described the ending of these tax cuts as a "modest" or "small" tax increase.

It is also worth noting that "upper-income workers" who would face benefit cuts under the Bowles-Simpson plan are people with average earnings of more than $40,000 a year. This is not ordinarily viewed as the cutoff for upper income. In reference to the ending of the Bush tax cuts, the Post once ran a front page story questioning whether people earning $500,000 a year were wealthy. Clearly they apply a different standard to Social Security beneficiaries.

To push its line of fat and happy seniors the Post misrepresented research by Gene Steurele on returns from Social Security taxes. At one point it told readers:

"That return is diminishing, in part because people today have paid more into the system than previous generations. But a two-earner, middle-income couple retiring this year can expect to get $913,000 in Social Security and Medicare benefits over their lifetimes, in return for $717,000 in payroll taxes."

The trick in this picture is that the return refers to Social Security and Medicare, not just Social Security which is the topic of the article. The Steurele paper actually has the Social Security returns shown separately in the exact same chart. Stuerele calculated that the two-earner couple referred to in the article would pay a bit less than $600,000 in taxes into the system and collect around $560,000 in benefits.

[This couple will get more back in Medicare benefits than they paid in taxes, but this is primarily because our health care costs twice as much per person as in any other wealthy country. This is a good argument for reforming the U.S. health care system but has nothing to do with the topic of the article.]

This article also repeatedly refers to the debate over cutting benefits as being an "ideological battle." There is no evidence presented in this piece that there is any ideological issue at stake. On the one hand are hundreds of millions of workers who want to see the benefits that they paid for. On the other hand are many wealthy people, exemplified by people like Peter Peterson and Erskine Bowles who would rather use Social Security money to keep their own taxes low or to serve other purposes.

This is a battle over who gets the money. The references to ideology just confuse the situation.

[Addendum: In a comment, Art Dover calls my attention to another inaccuracy in the article. It asserts: "The payroll tax holiday is depriving the system of revenue." This is not true. Under the law, Social Security is 100 percent reimbursed from general revenue for the taxes that were lost as a result of the payroll tax holiday. This is yet another fabrication by the Post in its crusade to cut Social Security.]

By Dean Baker | Sourced from Center for Economic and Policy Research

Posted at October 30, 2011, 12:33 pm