December 06, 2004
Phony Optimism
Rather than comment on American Pundit’s recent column over on the left, I decided to do some research and post a complete response to his claims about Social Security.
American Pundit writes that “mildly optimistic economic forecasts” show that Social Security is not facing a crisis. His “mildly optimistic” forecasters, however, are the liberal Century Foundation, and throw away their intellectual credibility by writing in the cited report, “Social Security is stronger today than it has been at any time in its history.”
Moving beyond mildly wildly optimistic forecasts, what really is the future of Social Security?
The Social Security Administration itself writes:
The annual cost of Social Security benefits represents 4.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) today and is projected to rise to 6.6 percent of GDP in 2078. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds is 1.89 percent of taxable payroll, down slightly from 1.92 percent in last year's report. The program continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2018 and will be sufficient to finance only 73 percent of scheduled annual benefits by 2042, when the combined OASDI trust fund is projected to be exhausted.The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote on the subject this year:Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase in payroll taxes of 15 percent or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two). To the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required. Ensuring the sustainability of the system beyond 2078 would require even larger changes.
Under the laws that currently govern Social Security, spending for the program will increase from about 4.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) now to more than 6 percent of GDP in 2030, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects. In later years, outlays will continue to grow steadily as a share of GDP, though more slowly. Over the long term, paying the Social Security benefits scheduled under current law will require economic resources totaling between 5 percent and 8 percent of GDP, CBO projects.And in another document, a year old, CBO writes:
At the same time, the federal revenues dedicated to Social Security will remain close to their current level--about 5 percent of GDP--in the absence of changes to the program. Thus, annual outlays for Social Security are projected to exceed revenues beginning in 2019. Even if spending ends up being lower than expected and revenues higher than expected, a gap between the two is likely to remain for the indefinite future.Any changes to Social Security will have to be made in the context of the pressures on the total federal budget. CBO projects that spending for government health programs will grow even faster than spending for Social Security because of rising health care costs. In particular, increasing outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are projected to cause long-term shortfalls in the rest of the budget that will be even greater than Social Security's. Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies are likely to result in an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public, which will have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy.
The cost of the Social Security program will rise significantly in coming decades--a change that has long been foreseen. Average benefits typically grow when the economy does (because the earnings on which those benefits are based increase). However, in the future, the total amount of Social Security benefits paid will grow faster than the economy because of changes in demographic structure. As the baby-boom generation reaches retirement age and as decreasing mortality leads to longer lives and longer retirements, a larger share of the population will draw Social Security benefits. Moreover, the number of people age 65 or older will double during the next 30 years, while the number of adults under age 65 will grow by less than 15 percent--meaning that in three decades, the older population will be more than one-third the size of the younger group, compared with one-fifth today. Consequently, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that unless changes are made to Social Security, spending for the program will rise to 4.9 percent of GDP in 2020, 5.9 percent in 2030, and 6.2 percent in 2050.Are these warnings just the product of a Republican cabal that seeks to rob old people of their hard-earned money? Is the data cooked? Not according to congressional Democrats, whose data closely matches that of the SSA and CBO. All the way back in 1999, President Clinton talked of the need to save Social Security, using the budget surpluses he thought would last 25 years or more.
The difference is not in the data, it's in the politics. The congressional Democrats recommend... nothing. No change. They agree with the SSA's data, but don't want (or won't admit to wanting) a tax hike to address the shortfall. The one thing they are sure of is that President Bush's proposal is a bad idea.
Returning to American Pundit's wild optimists, they point out, rightly, that there is a great deal of uncertainty. We do not know what the economy will do in two years, let alone twenty. Nor do we know what populations and immigration trends will be. They also point out (again correctly) that the Social Security Trust Fund of $1,600,000,000,000 is denominated in U.S. Treasury Bills. This introduces another element of uncertainty: the dollar. While the current plunge of the dollar has only impacted foreign currency markets, analysts are becoming increasingly afraid that if China, Japan, and a few others bail out of the market that the dollar could plummet and send interest rates - and inflation - soaring at home. That would proportionally gut the SocSec Trust Fund of value, and could bring the crisis' moment of truth - when the Fund disappears - much closer than the base-case economic predictions.
The magnitude of the projected shortfalls (and hence of the attendant uncertainty) is staggering. Numbers like 1.6% of GDP sound small, until you realize that means $175,000,000,000. That means that if the expected shortfall appears and is not mitigated, we can expect to burn through the Trust Fund in a decade.
Economics (in which I have a degree) is a notoriously unpredictable sport. Optimists point to strong growth in the last fifteen years; pessimists point to weak growth in the last thirty years; optimists point to strong growth in the past fifty years, and so on. The government should do what it can to mitigate recessions and promote growth, but it should also have the humility to realize that it cannot control macroeconomic trends. Moreover, policymakers should display the wisdom to prepare for a less-than-rosy future. If the next two decades work out like the period 1973-1993, then we could be in big trouble. If they look more like 1994-2004, on the other hand, we have nothing to worry about.
President Bush's plan may not be the best way to address the Social Security dilemma. However, after years of lamenting politicians who cannot see more than 2, 4, or 6 years down the road (oh, those long-sighted senators!) I am glad to have a president who is thinking about my retirement as well as his own. As the CBO (and a basic understanding of mathematics) points out, the sooner we address the crisis, the less drastic our measures will have to be. If we wait until a few years before the shortfall breaks on us like a tidal wave, as American Pundit suggests we ought, we will experience either debt or new taxation equal to 27% of total Social Security outlays. Whatever the benefits of high taxation, sudden high taxation is a surefire way to sink the economy (c.f. Herbert Hoover).
So far I have simply argued that something needs to be done to address the Social Security crisis. Democrats may (when it becomes more obvious and impending) decide to raise taxes to pay for the new costs. This would at least be better than sitting on their hands, but as a conservative, I fundamentally differ with the congressional Democrats' inference that government income redistribution is value-neutral. I much prefer to live in George Bush's 'Society of Stakeholders'.
Any financial advisor will tell you that saving for retirement should begin as early as possible - usually forty or more years before retiring. Social Security is part of the same industry, and the same principles of saving, risk management, and decreasing final returns apply. We should act now, and our public debate on the issue should address the economic concerns - "What will work?" - and the political concerns - "What do we want our society to look like?". I want to live in a society where elder poverty remains rare and where people own themselves and their means of production and consumption.
Posted by Chops at December 6, 2004 10:19 AMSweet mother of pearl that was long! My apologies to anyone who gets fired or goes through menopause while reading this.
What’s worse is that I have more to say, about the effects of borrowing from Social Security and the impact of Social Security tax hikes in a deficit-spending environment. Let’s just say we’re headed for an economic apocalypse unless the Republicans rein in spending.
Posted by: Chops at December 6, 2004 11:58 AMIs there really any problem with eliminating Social Security altogether?
We could pass a law that will stop paying Social security 40-45 years after the date of passage, except for the people already on it at the time. Taxes, at that time, could be lowered proportionally to the rate of payment over the coming years.
That way, people just entering the job market would be able to save or their own retirements. It wouldn’t affect anybody paying into or receiving social security now.
Obviously, in real life this plan would be a lot more complicated, but I’d like to know how people feel about it.
Chops, I don’t get it.
Americans are some of the least taxed and we bitch the most about it. Yet we spend hundred of billions of dollars on technology for defense and we can’t even take care of our veterans.
Tax cuts are only wonderfull if you can show the fiscal restraint to make them worthwhile.
When are we going to stop borrowing from Peter to pay Paul?
Posted by: Rocky at December 6, 2004 12:30 PMTheTraveler - A good idea that probably wouldn’t happen. If SocSec gets cut, those taxes might well end up going to welfare, or some other government program. Depends on how much of the borrowing from the SocSec fund that Chops alluded to actually takes place, but in my experience, once government grows it tends to stay as big, rather than decrease.
Posted by: Nick Mason at December 6, 2004 12:37 PMNick & Traveler -
I think Traveler’s idea would work, because the tax is completely separate from other taxes.
However, I think that preventing elder poverty is a good thing. Bush’s proposal is a compromise. It gives people some control over their savings, but mandates that they save. If that mandate isn’t there, we would return to the 1920’s and earlier, when many old people lived in a truly sad state. We should have Social Security - but it will require a 21st-century plan to work in the 21st century.
Here’s a few policies that need to be enacted:
1. Raise the retirement age to 70. It has already been raised to 67 for people born in 1960 and after; it should be raised to 70 for people born in 1965 or 1970. With longer lifespans and more education, Americans are working less and living more, which just doesn’t work. We need to work more to pay for our longer lives. Simple.
2. Make payroll taxes (OASDI & Medicare) flat. Right now they are regressive, affecting only the first $100,000 of income. The tax rate, which is effectively 15%, should be decreased and the effective maximum eliminated. That would mean that payroll income for high wage-earners, such as CEO’s, athletes, and rock stars would be taxed the same as mine and yours. This would not affect income from savings and investment, so it would not discourage that (which we want to encourage). And it would mean lower taxes for everybody who earns below $120,000 or so. This would create, inter alia, more marginal incentive for those who need a marginal incentive (those near the poverty line) and would encourage employers to hire more lower- and middle-income workers.
The current tax is regressive and unfair, and disproportionately encourages growth of high-end salaries and discourages employment of low- and middle-income workers.
Posted by: Chops at December 6, 2004 12:50 PMChops,
Your next article should be ; “Divorse is a career option”, it fits right in with with this one on SS problems.
Under current SS laws, a divorsed spouse, married for 10 or more years, has the right to 1/2 the SS amount of the former spouse or their own personal account, whichever is more.
The benifits of the “working spouse” aren’t reduced by that amount, thats just an “extra” that comes out of the system.
Heres the KICKER ; IT multiplies!, meaning a divorsed spouse that never worked can get 1/2 of the amount from every former parnter they were ever married to for 10+ years!
Is something wrong with the SS system ?
Posted by: Beagle at December 6, 2004 03:21 PMLook, think of rolling hills as far as one can see. That is Social Security funding. Over the decades the program has run deficits, then surpluses, then deficits and now surpluses, and in another decade or two, another deficit period.
The only problem with Soc. Sec. funding is that Congress has so deepened our national debt through deficit spending, that there will be no revenue surpluses to draw from to carry us through the valley of the next deficit period to the next hilltop.
What is wrong with Soc. Sec. is Congress and the poeple who continue to reelect these fiscal idiots with no regard for spending discipline and even less for the intelligence of the American people. Ya’ll reelected this problem, now live with it, it is everyone of you voters who voted incumbents back into office that are creating the most of the problems we are and will experience, including Soc. Sec. bankruptcy.
There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that if the American voters refused to reelect incumbents saying “We want Soc. Sec. to succeed”, we would have functional and affordable Soc. Sec. for as far as the eye could see forthcoming from the new freshman Congress.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2004 03:24 PMThe reason you need Social Security is that a significant number of people can’t or won’t save for their retirements. Much as we might dislike the government being involved, the alternative is poor old people complaining about how they are mistreated but nobody listens – only this time they may have a point.
Think of the lottery. The lottery is a kind of tax on stupidity. Nobody who could count farther than five would play the lottery except as a way to contribute to his/her state’s tax revenue. Yet there are a significant number of people who actually think they will win. Some even are basing their retirement plans on a big lottery win. I think we should tax stupidity, but as long as you have such people, you have to have some government involvement when the 99% of them who hasn’t won the lottery has no money, no job and no hope.
David -
You’re absolutely right that fiscal irresponsibility is the root cause of the SocSec dilemma. Bush’s proposed solutions enforce a degree of responsibility by taking control of the money out of Congress’ hands and putting it in the hands of its purported owners. Whether that is the optimal plan, I don’t know, but whatever plan is proposed needs to include checks and balances to prevent Congress from dipping into the till.
Or how about a balanced budget amendment?
I don’t know much about how the Social Security system works, as I’m not quite old enough to start thinking about collecting it, but isn’t it ironic that our government is telling us we need to be financially responsible as individuals while they borrow money as though there’s no tomorrow? I don’t think I can trust a government that takes that stance because it’s as though they’re forecasting their own failure: “Better save your pennies, kid, because we aren’t going to be around when you need us.”
In an ideal world we would all be able to save money for our retirements. I think the movie White Chicks proved that this is anything but an ideal world.
Posted by: Alejo at December 6, 2004 04:11 PM“The reason you need Social Security is that a significant number of people can’t or won’t save for their retirements.”
- I won’t save for a new car, are you going to pay for me to get one?
Posted by: kctim at December 6, 2004 04:20 PMkctim, your comment ignores the lower middle class and poor, and even some in the middle class, who must choose between medical costs today, vs. retirement tomorrow, children’s college costs vs. retirement, upgrading old housing vs. retirement, continuing education and job upgrade vs. retirement. When American workers are paid enough to afford a middle class lifestyle and save for retirement, get back to me and we might have something to agree upon.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2004 06:29 PMChops, for a broader review on Bush and Social Security, see my article in the center column, President Bush Does Not Have a Plan!
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2004 06:31 PMPeople that have paid into S.S. all their lives
deserve and are entitled to receive those funds
back as originally planned.
This is NOT a case where most of the people are
expecting something they have no right to expect.
77 million baby boomers are gonna be angry when
they retirement age is increased, benefits are
slashed, and taxes are increased.
Those people got swindled.
That’s the simple truth of it.
Congress plundered their S.S.
By the way, did you know Congress persons
don’t have to participate in S.S. and Medicare.
NOOOoooooo sir ! They have their own special
multi-million dollar retirement pensions with
far superior medical benefits from a plan for
Congress persons only.
It’s NO wonder they don’t give a hoot about Social Security !
They don’t participate in that doomed system !
Congress has created a special system just for
them. Very clever wouldn’t you say ?
Like their automatic raises that take effect
automatically now. Their raises used to come
to the floor for a vote.
People noticed when the voted themselves a raise.
Well, what did they do? They removed that
embarrassment. They made their raises automatic.
Now, they only have to vote if they DON’T want
a raise !
The problem is greed and rampant corruption.
But, Americans don’t think so. Amazingly,
they ignore all of this. The problem is complacency. And all of the greed and complacency is rooted in laziness.
So, politicians and voters deserve each other,
and the ultimate consequences.
1: Cu$hy Pen$ion$ for Congre$$
2: Cu$shy Pen$ion$ for Congre$$
3: Automatic Raises for Congress
Let’s just say we’re headed for an economic apocalypse unless the Republicans rein in spending.
Chops, you’re absolutely correct. Unfortunately your article doesn’t address the fact that partial privatization is going to cost taxpayers an extra TWO TRILLION DOLLARS on top of what we already pay for Social Security, AND it doesn’t solve the problem that Bush implies that it does.
Partial privatization alone is not going to get Social Security through the temporary baby boomer spike without either raising even more taxes on top of the two trillion, or cutting benefits.
I posted a full discussion of this article in my thread.
Your article also doesn’t address the risks of partial privatization. My 401(k) account still isn’t worth what I paid into it before the last market slump. What do you think will be the result of a market slump after the government encourages Americans to invest their Social Security benefits in the market?
A good guess would be a massive bailout costing taxpayers even more.
If you want to deal with this issue on a purely economic basis, I’d make the case that just funding Social Security through the baby boom spike (if necessary) will be cheaper for taxpayers than partially privatizing it.
AP,
Where are you getting the two trillion dollar figure? That seems a bit excessive, considering that’s about how much the government spends in a year. Not that I’m in support of partial privatization, I’m just curious about the number.
Traveler, Bush’s partial privatization will cost up to two trillion over ten years.
Looks like Bush decided to “borrow” the money - as if we never have to pay it back.
To amplify some earlier some comments, if anyone is being unrealistic, it’s Bush. He’s promising to keep making payments to retirees AND give the same money to younger workers to invest. Who can oppose that? Kerry should have gone along with this hare-brained scheme instead of trying to explain why it’s not affordable. He probably would have won.
A completely unscientific observation: During the 2000 election, my elderly aunt observed that “they” claim during every election cycle that Social Security is in crisis. I did a little research. Believe it or not, this was the conventional wisdom during the 1960 election.
Now of course, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t really a wolf this time. Personally, I haven’t found ANY numbers that I trust. There is so much at stake here that both sides are willing to fudge the numbers.
Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2004 09:19 AMDavid
I am afraid that we probably agree on more things then you think. LOL!
I’m not trying to dispute the need for some type of SS, I realize it has its place in todays “keeping up with the Joneses” society.
I just think it should be totally voluntary.
I also am not forgetting about any of the “classes.”
All classes should have the option to invest or save as they see fit. We should be able to choose whether we want the govt to take care of ourselves or if we want to be responsible enough to do it ourselves.
You don’t have to come up with extra income to invest either, just use what the govt now steals under the name of SS.
You don’t have to come up with extra income to invest either, just use what the govt now steals under the name of SS.
You’ll have to pry that money from the cold, dead fingers of today’s retirees, and the ones who will join them. Good luck.
Nothing can be done to change SS for the seniors of today and they deserve every penny of SS benefits they can get.
No one is saying that totally stopping SS and disregarding seniors is an option.
Any reform should not affect those who are now or near retirement.
I am 38. I would gladly give up all money taken from me for SS and not receive SS benefits when I retire if I was given the option to quit paying now.
Posted by: kctim at December 7, 2004 10:00 AMNothing can be done to change SS for the seniors of today and they deserve every penny of SS benefits they can get.
So, basically you are implying it is immoral for the government to “steal” your money, but entirely appropriate for the government to take the “stolen” money and give it to the elderly. That doesn’t compute.
Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2004 10:08 AMkctim,
Me too !
: )
When Social Security started in 1936 it was
supposed to be a fund that grew and Congress
couldn’t touch it. But, that upset greedy
politicians. In 1939 they devised a sneaky way to spend the surpluses in Social Security.
That doomed S.S. And Congress and voters will never (based on their track record)
have the discipline to manage it or anything else responsibly.
People won’t do anything, until it’s too late or almost too late.
The fact is, if they simply cut pork-barrel,
and started putting that money into Social
Security, and make S.S. untouchable by Congress, it would save it.
But, that’s unlikely to happen.
Congress’ track-records shows deficit spending
(which is accelerating) for the last 44 years.
There is one common thread in almost all posts.
Several people communicate a problem.
Everyone argues about it.
Then a few propose solutions.
Everyone argues about the solution.
There’s never any consensus, and no one ever acts to implement any solution.
It’s the same in Congress. The only thing they can all agree on
is the pork-barrel that keeps them in their cu$hy jobs and eligible for
their ob$cenely cu$hy multi-million dollar pensions.
Perhaps there is a threshold somewhere in years
past in which the country reached a point of no return?
Or perhaps it is just the nature of humans to repeat the cyclic rise-and-demise.
What ever it is, it seems to be escaping us all.
No,
I would forfeit my S.S. if they would stop making me pay it.
I’d would have much rather have kept the
$quarter million my wife and I (both age 46)
have paid into Social Security and Medicare
thus far, but we would gladly forfeit that if
the government would stop making us pay the
taxes, since we’ll NEVER see a cent of it.
Woody
The seniors of today have all participated in SS and deserve their “contract” to be honored by the govt.
That computes.
If you all are not responsible enough to take care of yourselves, then be a slave to the govt. I don’t care.
As for myself, I would rather let my future be in my hands.
Did you know,
Under the current system, you could work and pay the max. in SS for 25 years, take a break for a few years, living off your earnings, become disabled, never draw a dime, sorry about your luck…crawl off and die!
It happened to my sister a couple years ago.
Its the luck of the draw whether you ever get anything back or not, you might get the max for never paying anything, or you might pay the max and get nothing in return!
But that makes sence, like lugnuts on a birthday cake, besides, the Gov. likely needed to money to spend on the “endangered three peckered toad” or some such thing!
Posted by: Beagle at December 7, 2004 12:08 PMThe Daily Howler discusses the SS crisis today.
Beagle,
That doesn’t surprise me at all.
Corruption in the political realm undermines democracy and subverts the rules, reduces
fairness, accountability, and transparency, and results in the unfair & unequal provision of such services.
It chips away at the foundation and erodes the institutional capacity of government as
procedures are disregarded, and cleverly subverted for greedy purposes.
The greed and corruption of Congress knows no bounds.
Perhaps we should be asking a more basic question.
How can the government have legitimacy and be
trusted when it does all of these things ?
And how can we be so complacent to allow it ?
Mike Houser,
RE: The Daily Howler discusses the SS crisis today.
______________________
I do not dispute that article.
What it may fail to account for though is
the behavior and track-record of Congress.
What if Congress doesn’t slow down the waste and
pork-barrel spending? Spending is accelerating.
The rate of spending is not linear.
Especially, when Congress has been increasing
the debt every year for the last 44 years.
Currently, interest on the National Debt is
about $1 billion per day (about $700,000 per
minute). Excluding Social Security revenue
(which is pay-as-you-go) that’s about 1/3
of total federal revenues.
That seems very irresponsible to me.
It is also a burden that can be restrictive and
harmful perhaps when we can least afford it.
______________________
What Congress is doing is absurd.
Where’s the sanity ? Look at some of this pork.
Congress is what really worries me.
I think they’re brains all turned to $#!T after they got elected.
______________________
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Daniel,
“$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.”
Appearently you have no idea how important this is.
Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2004 03:47 PMPerhaps we should capture all that gas and
generate some electricity with it.
Like milking machines ?
: )
I realize methane has some impact on global warming, but it seems insignificant
to the primary causes: millions of cars and trucks and buses, power generation,
gas heated homes, lawn mowers, forest fires, volcanoes, refrigerants,
wood burning stoves, etc.
There doesn’t appear to be an economic way to reduce cow flatulence.
So, that was probably $19 million wasted.
However, if they could capture the gas, that may be useful.
Did you know New York city generates electricity from methane from its sewers ?
Daniel,
I have read that methane (cow farts) causes more enviro harm than all the autos in the world. I’m not sure if thats true, but if you could trap that gas economicaly, you would be rich.
( this part is humor, please don’t ban me watchblog manager)
” Do you know where “mad cow” started ?…Well if you were female, and had your tits played with twice a day, but only got bread once a year, you would be mad too”…sorry, farmer joke.
Posted by: Beagle at December 7, 2004 04:42 PM: )
That’s funny.
I just saw something about that.
Cow Flatulence
I admit I’m not prepared to argue that issue.
It just happened to be one of the items on the pork-barrel spending list.
Perhaps spending $19 million would have been justified had it produced a solution?
Now, see what this discussion devolved to.
Posted by: Daniel at December 7, 2004 05:04 PMMaybe that’s why the dinosaurs are extinct ?
Posted by: Daniel at December 7, 2004 05:06 PM$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
???
I don’t think the pidgeons have a $7 trillion debt.
Obviously, the pidgeons know more about economics than Congress!
Rocky,
OK, aside from $19 million for studying Cow Flatulence (which is still suspicious and
that $19 million still provided no viable solution; see rebuttal1 , rebuttal2),
what about all the rest of that stuff ?
Surely, there’s no way to justify $57,000 spent for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two ?
Or, do I apparently have no idea how important this is ?
When I hear about this sort of thing,
and then hear some troops don’t have body armor,
and the truly needy go without, it goes all over me.
I’d like to slap some sense into these people,
and see them incarcerated for theft, because that is what it is.
Daniel,
Cheney has to have something to play solitare.
Something to play with ?
That invites many comments, but I’ll refrain.
We really need to get rid out all these bums.
Its interesting how everyone argues about how to spend on this and that, and
argue about how to fix Social Security, etc., but never fix the real problem. Congress.
If we fixed Congress, a multitude of other
wonderful improvements would probably follow.
In 1992, 124 persons were voted out of Congress.
We need to get that number up to 435.
And then, do it again every year.
All new people (no D’s or R’s or previous politicians).
Over and over, every election,
until those paraistes get the idea, and stop buying
$57K dollar gold embossed playing cards at the tax payers expense.
Also, persons in Congress don’t get 100% benefits
and pension unless they’ve been in office 5 years.
All the more reason to keep voting them all out until things improve drastically.
Did I just hear a call for term limits?
and an elimination of legistlative perks?
Male em live by what they give to everyone else.
And make spring boarding from Gov’t to private perks illegal.
Yes, and it could be done without passing a law or bill or costing a cent.
As for the lobbying thing, that would take care of itself, once the politicians are
sufficiently discouraged from giving special attention to special interest groups.
My problem with Social Security Privitization is that it’s being planned by the same crew that brought us the Iraq War. I can expect as good a result from this as from that.
Not to mention their wonderful success at fixing the economy.
Ed
Some might want to blame Republicans for spending,
but both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for spending.
When Reagan was elected, the National Debt was 30% of GDP. Now, it is over 70%, and
it’s projected to exceed GDP by 2010.
Congress is the problem.
Posted by: Daniel at December 12, 2004 07:49 PM
