Why does nobody speak of the real Soc. Sec. scam? Ds or Rs....

[kuozzman]

I know this is kind of long, but at least read the quotes in bold, which basically summarize everything I write. I've got an even longer version on my website with much more of these excerpts from the congressional record:
http://ignorantusa.tripod.com/id19.html

Given the heightened scrutiny of Social Security and it’s potential problems in recent weeks, it seems like the public would be aware of all the problems associated with the program, as well as their causes and of course the solution(s) being proposed. Unfortunately, nearly all public discussion and media coverage about Social Security fails to mention the real Social Security crisis, which both Republicans and Democrats alike should be very concerned about. Why is there so little discussion about how much this is going to add on to our record twin deficits, while the dollar is hovering near record lows? On 1/17, John Snow said “the numbers that are being tossed around for the extra borrowing are a half-trillion to $2 trillion.” A half-trillion to $2 trillion!? That’s one hell of an approximation! The low end of that is more than double the cost of the war in Iraq! Well, once you find out what this money is for, it’s no surprise that there is little discussion about it. It’s the so-called “surplus” in the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, it only exists on paper.

The government used the growing surplus as if it were “general revenues” and replaced it with “special issue” government bonds, a type of government IOU designed exclusively for the government trust funds, which are worthless unless and until the government chooses to repay the looted money by raising taxes or borrowing massive additional funds from the public. They are basically phony assets (non-marketable government securities) held in the trust fund as if they were real assets. They are not. They cannot be used to pay benefits. And the government continues to loot and spend the approximately $438 million in Social Security surplus that is generated each and every day.

This is explained in the CBO’s annual report on the “Budget of the United States” annually, in some form or another. (2000 Report): These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. From an economic standpoint, the Government is able to prefund benefits only by increasing saving and investment in the economy as a whole. (2003 Report): The Government’s responsibilities to make future payments for social insurance and certain other programs are not shown as liabilities according to Federal accounting standards; however, they are measured in other contexts.

On October 9, 1990, Senator Moynihan said this in a speech on the Senate floor, and the moderator asked Senator Heinz if he agreed with the characterization of what was going on as “thievery.” With great candor he said, “Certainly not. It is not thievery. It is embezzlement.”

Congressional Record: January 9, 1990-Senator Moynihan
http://thomas.loc.gov


Senator Harry Reid of Nevada then made the following statement on the Senate floor, “I think that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we are talking about here. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources: One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.

Congressional Record: January 9, 1990-Senator Heinz
http://thomas.loc.gov

On October 13, 1989, Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, in a speech on the Senate floor, expressed his outrage at the fraudulent practices that had been taking place. He said, “Of course, the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit. As we all know, the Social Security payroll tax has become a money machine for the U.S. Treasury, generating fantastic revenue surpluses in excess of the costs of the Social Security program.”

(Still quoting Sen. Hollings)
Any way you slice it, it is a lousy public policy to borrow massively from the Social Security trust fund with no credible plan for reimbursement. Of course, the immediate damage from this approach is that it allows us to mask the true scale of the Federal budget deficit, thus making it easier for us politicians to sit on our hands. This is a gross breach of faith with the American people.

Congressional Record: October 13, 1989-Senator Hollings
http://thomas.loc.gov

However, Bush continued to loot Social Security in violation of the law. George W. Bush’s father looted every penny of the Social Security surplus generated during his term, and Bill Clinton continued to treat the surplus as if it were general revenue. The money continued to be “embezzled” and spent, with almost nobody aware that the “crime” was taking place.

Gore made his “lockbox” proposal during his 2000 Presidential election campaign. Bush also promised to keep his hands off Social Security money. Bush reiterated this pledge over and over, and further cemented it with a statement in his first State of the Union address, delivered on February 27, 2001, in very blunt terms, Bush said, “To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone.”

Well, not surprisingly, Bush broke that promise. He “embezzled” and spent every dollar of the $509 billion in surplus Social Security revenue generated during his first term, making him the biggest contributor of all to the real Social Security problem. This looted Social Security money became a major source of funding for Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Social Security is $509 billion deeper in the red today because of Bush’s looting in his first term, and he continues to loot the fund to the tune of approximately $438 million dollars each and every day.

With the surplus drained by recession, last year's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut and the war on terrorism, the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes.

In 2004, $262 billion in Social Security funds are to be tapped. In 2003, the budget used $259 billion.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30917FF34590C758CDDAB0894DA404482

[undergroundpanther]

1. kick

They don't speak of it because they are all thieves.

[Red State Blues]

2. why would thieves tell you they're stealing from you?

"Given the heightened scrutiny of Social Security and it’s potential problems in recent weeks, it seems like the public would be aware of all the problems associated with the program, as well as their causes and of course the solution(s) being proposed."

HA!, for that the public would have to be paying attention for at least 20 years AND be able to remember details. What do you think this is, football statistics?

OK, you've got the general fund (where our taxes go), the social security fund (where most of our payroll taxes go), and the surplus social security fund (where the ADDITIONAL payroll taxes that we've been paying since '85 or '86 go). Three things, I know, infinitely complex.

What Hollings and Moynihan were particularly upset about was that they were behind the (85 or 86) increase that WOULD HAVE fixed Social Security! All we would have had to do was stick to their plan and Social Security would be fine today! It's not in as bad shape as the Republicans would have us believe for sure, but it's not true really to say that there is no crisis either. But when the bastards come back with their hands out to increase the payroll taxes AGAIN, remember that they already "fixed" it once, (and they really did! it was a good plan, if they didn't loot it, there would be trillions available (6 or 7, I think) just sitting there, collecting interest for the last 20 years!)

When Moynihan saw what they were doing with his beautiful plan, he said screw it, if you're just going to steal the (surplus) money for the general fund, GIVE IT BACK! He tried to repeal HIS OWN PLAN! (yes, what he really wanted was to just get back to actually following the plan, but I believe he was willing to toss it if it came to that.) For this stunning bit of honesty, Moynihan was crucified by the Republicans, they actually accused him of trying to DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY! For the most part, the Democrats stood by and twiddled their thumbs. Until Barbara Boxer and Conyers (and a few others) no Democrat has made the mistake of trying to tell the truth about anything important again!

Any President who makes the mistake of really using a "lockbox" will be destroyed politically by the opposition who will scream bloody murder about the "sudden skyrocketing" deficit that will be caused by this bit of truth in accounting. Really, they're all in this together, the Dem's and R's. Bush II took advantage of their (Dem's) past complicity and promptly gave the only bit of money that had ever NOT been looted out of the trust fund (under Clinton BTW) to the wealthiest people in the country! Bush (II) to Dem's: "What, you've hand your hands in the cookie jar for the last 20 years and you think you're going to tell the truth NOW?! Ha!" Plus, the whole thing is so outrageous it sounds like conspiracy theory, even though this one has been in all the papers.

Remember, income taxes affect all your income, payroll taxes including the surplus payroll taxes stop at a cutoff point, somewhere around 90K/year these days I think.

What this means is that the B* tax cuts, while going primarily to the people who had paid the most in ABSOLUTE terms into the surplus trust fund (because they made the most money and paid in all the way to the cutoff point), ACTUALLY paid in at the lowest rate when you look at it as a percentage of income.

If anything I'm saying here comes as news to you one important thing to remember is that if you properly pay your taxes, AND IF the majority (or all) of your time in the workforce was after 1985, AND IF you don't pay the maximum (earn less than the cutoff point), YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS GETTING SCREWED THE HARDEST IN ALL THIS MESS! YOU have paid a greater PERCENTAGE of your income into Social Security THAN ANYONE ELSE and will most likely get it the hardest on the back end as well, when they slash your benefits.

But that won't be all, before they slash our benefits we can count on at least one more major increase in the payroll tax (to "pay back" that money they've been stealing from you since '86) but this one will be much nastier than the last, 20 years of compound interest on trillions of dollars is hard to make up (remember there was actually supposed to be 40 years of compound interest in the trust fund before we had to take anything out!)

This will be (looked back on as) the largest financial scandal ever and it has been done completely in plain sight. The MSM's reporting on this was actually pretty good back in the day, until they started accusing Moynihan of destroying, rather than saving, SS. Then it went to hell although there's nothing I've said here that should be considered in any way "secret".

The second largest financial scandal ever was the Savings and Loan debacle, the reporting on it has always been for shit, though there has been enough info out there that in a rational world would prevent any Bush from attaining any elected office. "Curiously", the Dem's pretty much sat on their hands for this one too.

Of course, BushCo may very well come up with a new fleecing that will trump both of these older scandals, we'll see.

Cheers!

[dmr]

3. Thank you, kuozzman

I don't have time to read all this now, but I have this thread and your website bookmarked.

:kick:

[Red State Blues]

4. kick