Atrios catches Bush's Social Security plot

[Capn Sunshine]

For those of you unfamiliar with Atrios, he's a blog superstar who's political savvy and insight is awesome.
He has a focus ability that the Mainstream Media could use. It seems he is the only one who noticed the Government's legal requirement to publish the Social Security Annual report has not been met, and speculated on its cause:

The fact that the report is late and the Social Security Administration is being less than forthcoming with the release date of the Trustees Report should definitely not serve to fuel conspiracy theories about political pressure to cook the books.

The reason to cook the books is that productivity gains for 2005 once again came out far ahead of predictions. At some point by their own stated methodology (which I can't locate at the moment) the high productivity gains in recent years should serve to revise upwards the long run productivity growth estimate, at which point Social Security will be declared solvent until the end of the universe.

And we can't have that.

I guess the Bushies think no one will notice that there's an excellent chance Social Security is solvent into 2080, or they plan another round of distraction , either with the war on illegal aliens or the war on christianity.

[NV Whino]

1. Well, I want to kick this

But I'm afraid my language would just singe the post. Soooo.... just kick.

[tanyev]

2. Kick for later.

[FloridaPat]

3. Thanks for the info about Atrios. Never heard of him before.

* is doing everything he can to destroy SS. I applied for a job at the new Lowe's here. 14 people in orientation - 1/2 in the grey hair stage. They are going to hire around 200 people. Went to Cypress Gardens for an interview. Most of the people there are grey haired. Same with the grocery stores. Just imagine what it will be like if they destroy SS! Maybe that's the plan - lots of cheap labor.

[bunkerbuster1]

45. Atrios is an essential in your rotation.

Not only is he a "recovering economist" who cuts through the BS and follows the money, not only is he a top dog at Media Matters, but his forum attracts some of the sharpest people around.

(And you have not lived until you've seen them cut a RW troll down to size. It's a thing of beauty, it is.)

[0007]

48. It is all about corporations and it's needs and to hell with the

average human being.

[Gman]

4. K&R #5

Let's make sure everyone notices now.

[NVMojo]

5. Keep it kicked till we find out what the deal is!

[mom cat]

6. Or they might not want people to know how much has been "borrowed"

until they can print enough money to cover the loss!

[electropop]

11. I think they've absconded with a few hundred billion

and they're waiting for their palaces in undisclosed locations to be complete before they make their getaways.

[sofa king]

12. If they've already started stealing Social Security money...

That would go a long way toward explaining why the Thief in Chief wants to change Social Security so badly.

There is a depressing precedent for the Bush Administration not turning in its homework on time, for far darker reasons than its usual hallmark incompetence. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 requires that within six months of taking office, and annually thereafter, the White House must publish both public and classified versions of a National Security Strategy.

The Bush Administration didn't publish a National Security Strategy in its first six months, as required by law. They didn't publish one after September 11, 2001, or prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. Finally, they did produce one in September of 2002, a rah-rah "we have to invade Iraq NOW" document which eerily echoes the theories of the PNAC--which makes perfect sense since Paul Wolfowitz reputedly wrote it. Coincidence or not, just about the same time that Bush targeted the Social Security fund for looting--I mean restructuring, a totally unqualified Paul Wolfowitz was put in charge of the World Bank.

The Administration has not published a NSS since the invasion of Iraq even though the strategic landscape has dramatically changed since then, and thus it has been in violation of the law for the vast majority of its occupation of the White House. But more importantly, it's now obvious that the NSSes were not published because the Bush Administration did not dare elucidate its ill-conceived plans for the future--a future of perpetual warfare and profiteering.

So I think this incident with Social Security should be ringing alarm bells all over town.

[Iowa]

17. I doubt that could be pulled off surreptitiously (stealing SS money)...

The lion's share of Social Security "money" is made up of two things:

1) The SS trust fund (which primarily holds US Government Bonds).
2) Payroll deductions (part goes out immediately to current retirees and the balance goes into the trust fund).

So I suppose they could steal the funds coming in that do not go out to the retirees, but the only way they could steal from the trust fund (outside of the relatively small amount of marketable securities in the fund) is to sell the trust fund's treasury securities on the secondary market. But that would be picked up by the financial markets pretty quickly. More importantly, the bonds in the trust fund are a special series available only to trust funds. While these bonds do carry the same full faith and credit of the US government (which guarantees that interest and principal payments will be paid on time) as the treasuries securities individuals hold in their personal accounts, the bonds in the trust fund are not marketable. In other words, you could not carry one down to your bank and cash it in, nor could you sell it to someone else on the secondary market. These bonds represent a legitimate government debt owed specifically to the SS trust fund.

So I highly doubt that money is being stolen from the trust fund. I suspect this is just a failure to do the job they're supposed to be doing (think FEMA and Homeland Security). Either that or they're trying to come up with a new format that will be a better fit for the chimperor's propaganda and another planned run at the system. Tough to know, but theft would be low on the list, IMO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. I was under the impression that the 'trust fund' these days was

a sham - that any surplus SS revenues went into the general funds with a sticky-note saying "this is SS trust fund money".

This is the money that * has been spending - they've been gutting the trust fund for years. That's why they insist that SS will go broke - because they KNOW they've been looting it and there is no turst fund.

Am I wrong?

[lyonn]

30. NCevilDUer, That was how it has been described by many

It would totally shock many of us if there was a SURPLUS, IOU's maybe, but, not surplus.

[Iowa]

33. No, that isn't correct...

Please see my reply to NCevilDUer. "IOU's" and "Bonds" are the same thing! US Treasury Bonds are solid investments, and that's what the trust fund holds. Savvy investors hold treasury bonds. The trust fund is sound. There IS a surplus! And the surplus is real.

Please help spread the word. The future of SS depends upon people understanding the truth. Thanks.

[Iowa]

32. Yes, you are wrong, but you are not alone...

This is exactly what the Republicans want us to believe, but it's false propaganda designed to undermine faith in the system in an effort to soften us up for a future raid on the system.

The credit quality of the bonds in the trust fund are exactly the same as those investors buy for their individual accounts. The bonds in the trust fund carry the full faith and credit of the US government, which guarantees that interest and principal payments will be paid on time. In the investment world, US Treasury securities are considered to be the safest investment available - and the bonds in the trust fund are no different.

The national debt is roughly 8.4 trillion. The SS Trust fund holds approximately 1.8 trillion of that. I don't know about you, but I invest in treasury securities, and when I do, I fully expect that I'll be repaid. The SS Trust Fund is making essentially the same investments we're making - yet the spinmeisters would have us believe that the treasury securities we buy for our personal accounts are sound investments, while the securities the trust fund buys are "sticky-notes" or "IOU's" (the message being that they're worthless). And that's bull. If it were true, the wealthy Republicans would be dumping their treasury securities. They aren't. It's all spin.

Furthermore, it's important to understand that ALL bonds are IOU's. That's what a bond is. Creditworthiness of the debtor determines the quality of the bond - and the SS trust fund holds bonds of the highest quality. So even if the bonds were in the form of a sticky-note it wouldn't matter - if it carries the full faith and credit of the US government, it doesn't matter if it's on a sticky-note, the back of a napkin, or a fancy embossed paper bond. It's all the same. Hell, my I-Bonds are nothing but electronic blips (I buy through Treasury Direct). I don't even have a sticky-note! Forget it. It doesn't matter.

The trust fund is just one of many debt holders. The bonds in the trust fund are as legitimate as any other government bonds. But the Republicans would like to renege on the payment of the bonds in the trust fund (while preserving the full faith and credit quality of their personal treasury holdings) and the only way they can do that is if we, the citizens, let them. And that's why they're trying to soften us up. In short, it's not about the quality of the bonds in the trust fund - it's about making good on the SS promise. The republican plutocracy wants to renege on the promise. That's all it is. The SS Trust Fund is rock solid.

To all DUers: Please help spread the word. The future of SS depends on people understanding the truth. Thanks for listening.

[Lasher]

38. I'll give that one a thumbs up and two snaps (EOM)

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Thanks for the clarification, Iowa.

And BTW, what's a lighthouse doing in Iowa?

Just asking.

:hi:

[Lasher]

34. Yes, you are wrong

Iowa's post is an informed one, but I'm going to disagree with part of it. The Social Security Trust Fund could indeed be stolen. In fact, the pukes have a deliberate plan to do exactly that, and they set it in motion long ago. Here's how it works:

1) Endless tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, driving up the deficit.

2) Wring hands saying we can't afford to pay for our social services (Social Security included) even though we can always afford round after round of 1) above.

3) "Educate" the public about a Social Security chrisis that does not exist, in order to sell the idea of enacting "reforms" to "save" the program. All "reforms" endorsed by Republicans consist of sacrifices by Social Security beneficiaries, and of the privatization smoke screen.

4) Convince the public that the Trust Fund does not exist by repeatedly saying it it consists only of "worthless IOUs", that "the money has all been spent", etc.

5) Under this cover, default on the Treasury Bonds that are heald by the Trust Fund.

This scheme, if successful, would result in an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor, to the wealthy elite who are the ones actually benefitting from Dubya's tax cuts. This is exactly what they are up to.

The pukes actually do see a chrisis coming: In about 2011 the general fund will have to start paying off some of the Treasury Bonds that are held by the Trust Fund. They don't want to pay these obligations as I have said, so that's what all the urgency on their part is about. The general fund will have to come up with the revenue to pay these obligations, but in this respect the very same thing is true of the Treasury Bonds currently held by foriegn governments like China.

Don't fall for this scam. There is a minor Social Security shortfall that is currently projected to occur in about 2048 - and I am encouraged to have learned in this message string that there might not be a shortfall in the future at all. But if we don't regain control of at least one house of Congress this year, Republicans are going to gut Social Security - exactly as I have described here.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

35. too late to vote for this but it's not too late to...

:kick:

[Iowa]

41. To avoid confusion on the part of any who read your post...

...it's probably a good idea to clarify a couple of things:

"Iowa's post is an informed one, but I'm going to disagree with part of it. The Social Security Trust Fund could indeed be stolen.

That's not an accurate portrayal of the "theft" issue as it was being addressed in this thread up to this point. So when you say you disagree with my comments about theft, it may create some confusion in an area that is already misunderstood by many. So in an attempt to clarify I'll add the following:

1) My comments regarding the likelihood of theft had to do with the OP - and subsequent references in this thread leaving the impression that the trustee's report was delayed due to the theft of securities in the fund since the last report was issued one year ago. I'm disputing the notion that Bush operatives are going into the vault (so to speak), walking off with the trust fund's treasury securities, cashing them in, and spending the money on other things. Anything is possible, but I'm not buying that explanation.

2) What you're referencing is a whole other matter, and something I also addressed briefly by saying: "...the Republicans would like to renege on the payment of the bonds in the trust fund (while preserving the full faith and credit quality of their personal treasury holdings) and the only way they can do that is if we, the citizens, let them. And that's why they're trying to soften us up...". You are describing something that the republicans might do in the future (if they can pull it off). I'm responding to something the republicans are accused of having already done over the past 12 months. These are two entirely different issues, and when you set it up as one single issue over which you and I don't agree, it introduces a layer of complexity into the mix that clouds the matter and could create confusion.

3) What you're describing actually would not be stealing in the truest sense of the word because it would probably be done within the confines of the law. That's what makes it so important that people grasp the big picture! Since the most likely scenario would be probably be carried out LEGALLY, it can be prevented if enough of us understand the truth. If the republicans do pull it off, it would be an outrageous, immoral, sinister, manipulative (insert adjective) transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy. But to couch it in terms of a theft isn't quite accurate and may lead some to believe that the future of the system relies on fate. That's just not the way it is. The assets are there unless the people relinquish their claim on them. The SS system isn't some two-bit, half-ass, lemonade stand that can be ripped off by any shyster who gets a hankerin' for a couple of trillion bucks. The risk lies not so much with the custodians of the assets, but with the people themselves. I think it's best we're very careful with the words we use to frame the issue lest people get the wrong idea.

4) And finally, I think we probably do disagree over the minor point of default. I doubt very much that the government would default outright on the bonds in the trust fund as laid out in the excellent scenario you described in your post. They'd probably just roll them over indefinitely, and then clean up the books after the SS system was reduced to nothing, and everyone stopped caring.

So in the final analysis I doubt very much that you and I disagree at all, except perhaps on minor semantics, and I hope this provides a bit of clarification for anyone who might trip onto this thread and wonder why we seem to be saying virtually the same thing, yet they're seeing it framed as a disagreement. Thanks for listening! And anyone who reads this or Lasher's posts - please spread the word!

[Lasher]

46. Semantics are sometimes important

I'm going to stick with my general application of the word theft. If the Trust Fund were stolen it would be done legally, as you say, but a law does not have to be broken for a theft to occur. I am inspired to share a famous quote by Pretty Boy Floyd: "Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen." But this is just semantics, and I understand your preference to define the term more narrowly.

One of the good points you have made is, a Trust Fund raid would not look anything like the Beagle Boys breaking into Scrooge McDuck's Money Bin. You're right, they probably won't literally default on the Treasury Bonds. Instead, they hope to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) future liabilities to (or below) a point where they can be indefinitely sustained by payroll tax revenues. Then the general fund would never have to redeem the Treasury Bonds. And they want to do this in time to prevent redemption of Treasury Bonds that are currently anticipated to begin in 2011.

I think I will add you to my Buddy List. You are a powerful resource on one of my favorite subjects. It is not often that I disagree with someone with whom I agree so strongly. We do need to spread the word, to help clear up the confusion that has been intentionally created by sinister forces.

[Iowa]

7. K&R

[sce56]

8. How about let's get this verified then have everybody send it to there rep

:kick:

How about let's get this verified then have everybody send it to there reps and senators demanding and investigation and formal letter, Rep Waxman, style to Bush


I see you use one of my best props but I get it from awolbush.com

[Capn Sunshine]

14. Is Matthew Igelesia's experience good enough for verification?

The Missing Report

By Matthew Yglesias | bio
I spoke to Sean Kevelighan at from the Treasury Department's public affairs office about the case of the missing Trustees' Report. He said "there isn't a timetable" for the release of this year's report, but that there would be a 2006 report, he just couldn't tell me when. I brought up the Trustees' apparent statutory mandate to produce a report by April 1 and he said he didn't know anything about that, but conceded that there is a statutory requirement to do a report each year. "I wish I could tell you more," he said.

I don't know exactly where this fits on the fishiness scale, but it's pretty fishy.

This from TPM Cafe which is pretty solid as far as sources go in blog universe. They are all DC based journalists who write regularly for The Nation, Washinton Post, New Yorker, et al.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Another kick so this stays up where it can be seen.

[senseandsensibility]

10. k and r

I can't believe no one in the corporate media is investigating this.:sarcasm:

[Ice4Clark]

13. Here are the dates of past reports

1995 - September is all it says
1996 - July is all it says
1997 - 4/24/97
1998 - 4/28/98
1999 - 3/30/99
2000 - 3/30/00
2001 - 3/19/01
2002 - 4/9/02
2003 - 3/17/03
2004 - 3/24/04
2005 - 3/25/05

Here is the past history of the reports I could find online. So, how long has the law been in effect? Anyone know?

[Capn Sunshine]

15. I got the impression this was part of the original act

which can be found here.

In 2001 the Social Security Trustees released their annual report on March 19.

In 2002 it was March 26.

In 2003 it was March 17.

In 2004 it was March 23.

In 2005 it was March 23.

From the Act linked above:

The Board of Trustees shall meet not less frequently than once each calendar year. It shall be the duty of the Board of Trustees to—

(1) Hold the Trust Funds;
(2)<11> Report to the Congress not later than the first day of April of each year on the operation and status of the Trust Funds during the preceding fiscal year and on their expected operation and status during the next ensuing five fiscal years;
(3) Report immediately to the Congress whenever the Board of Trustees is of the opinion that the amount of either of the Trust Funds is unduly small;
(4) Recommend improvements in administrative procedures and policies designed to effectuate the proper coordination of the old-age and survivors insurance and Federal-State unemployment compensation program; and
(5) Review the general policies followed in managing the Trust Funds, and recommend changes in such policies, including necessary changes in the provisions of the law which govern the way in which the Trust Funds are to be managed.
The report provided for in paragraph (2) above shall include a statement of the assets of, and the disbursements made from, the Trust Funds during the preceding fiscal year, an estimate of the expected future income to, and disbursements to be made from, the Trust Funds during each of the next ensuing five fiscal years, and a statement of the actuarial status of the Trust Funds. Such statement shall include a finding by the Board of Trustees as to whether the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, individually and collectively, are in close actuarial balance (as defined by the Board of Trustees). Such report shall include an actuarial opinion by the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration certifying that the techniques and methodologies used are generally accepted within the actuarial profession and that the assumptions and cost estimates used are reasonable. Such report shall also include an actuarial analysis of the benefit disbursements made from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund with respect to disabled beneficiaries. Such report shall be printed as a House document of the session of the Congress to which the report is made. A person serving on the Board of Trustees shall not be considered to be a fiduciary and shall not be personally liable for actions taken in such capacity with respect to the Trust Funds.

[sce56]

16. Kick

:kick:

[Ignacio Upton]

18. Don't worry, they will make shit up again about Social Security........

Last year they pushed the date in which Social Security cuts benefits by 20%-30% to the year 2041, and the year before that it was 2042 (I should also note that this year is the worst-cse scenario out of many projections.) I bet this year it will be 2040 or 2039. Remember, the Social Security Administration that puts out this report is full of privatization supporters appointed by the Idiot in Chief.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. I just don't think the public is in the same trusting mood

They were before. Thisis a practical, non-partisan issue. Respect for the law. All that entails. Where's our report, dammit?

[yellowdogmi]

19. Maybe the distractions are on purpose

so they can siphon that off in the forms of tax cuts and give aways to their cronies in the last few years of this administration.

[ngGale]

21. Kick ...

:donut:

[dmr]

22. Kick

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

23. Kick to uncover the chicanery. nt

[Lasher]

24. Republicans want to gut Social Security

And they will do it unless a Democratic majority is elected to Congress in 2006.

This is a true and simple message that needs to be repeated often this year.

Thanks for the excellent contribution, Sunshine.

[Capn Sunshine]

25. you're welcome

just 'cause we have them cornered doesn't mean they still won't try to fuck us over on the way out.

[zann725]

44. They've already cut some benefits Meidcare (i.e. Physical Therapy) in 2006

substantially. When someone I know requested a special medical treatment under Medicare, they were advised to write a letter of request to: "THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION?!!!" (Are there TWO "Heritage Foundations?")

If not, when DID the Heritage Foundation become in charge of what kind, and amount of Medicare benefits seniors or disabled receive?

With their history of compassion for we-the-people, what senior or disabled would be foolish enough to appeal to HF for compassion or help?!

And if they've already cut some Medicare benefits rather silently, how soon until they equally "silently" reduce Social Security benefits?

[LisaLynne]

26. Excellent catch, Captain and Atrios! K&R! nt

[lonestarnot]

28. "fool me once...dughterder...can't get fooled again..." Oh yeah?

Once a fool always a fool!

[subterranean]

29. Well, that would fit their modus operandi

Twisting the facts to support their ideology, and ignoring the ones that don't (as with global warming, Iraq, etc.)

[Mind_your_head]

31. K & R

:kick:

[Capn Sunshine]

36. Thanks for kicking

I don't like kicking for no reason :evilgrin:

[seemslikeadream]

37. Social Security and Medicare in an Impasse Over Trustees

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/washington/04benefit.html?ex=1144814400&en=f1da4dc638173036&ei=5059&partner=AOL

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: April 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 3 — President Bush and the Senate are at an impasse over the appointment of trustees for Social Security and Medicare, crippling the panel that supervises the two programs.

This, in turn, has delayed the annual reports on the financial condition of the programs, which together account for more than one-third of all federal spending. Under federal law, the reports are supposed to be sent to Congress by April 1.

Since 2000, Social Security and Medicare have had two public trustees: John L. Palmer, former dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, and Thomas R. Saving, an economist at Texas A&M.

Their terms have expired, and Mr. Bush has renominated them, but the Senate has taken no action. Senate leaders of both parties say they want to follow the precedent of having the public trustees serve no more than one term. But the White House said Monday that the Senate should approve the president's nominees.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a champion of Social Security in his 24 years in the Senate, advocated the appointment of public trustees as a way to increase public confidence in the program. The trustees are supposed to make sure that assets of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are properly managed. They also try to ensure that the administration's annual reports to Congress are as reliable as possible.

In the absence of public trustees, the administration has delayed sending the 2006 reports to Congress.

In a joint statement issued with last year's reports, Mr. Palmer, a Democrat, and Mr. Saving, a Republican, broke with the Bush administration and said that Medicare's financial problems were more severe than those facing Social Security. At the time, Mr. Bush was expressing more alarm about Social Security and was trying to build support for private investment accounts.

[Trevelyan]

39. This should remain kicked until we get some answers.

:kick:

[senseandsensibility]

40. kick

eom

[earth mom]

42. Here's a thread from GD that didn't get much notice.

Glad to see that this thread got the attention this topic deserves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x830341

[Capn Sunshine]

43. Yeah, Marshall caught Atrios as well

but how to we bump it to the next level, ie media coverage?