Tim Russert distorted the deficit and Social Security on MTP this AM

[kentuck]

He showed one graph of the surplus when Bush came into office and the present deficit and totalled the difference as something less than $600 billion dollars. Now we know that we have run deficits of $300-400 billion for the last 4 or 5 years which adds up to more than a trillion dollars difference - not $600 billion. It is much worse than Tim portrayed it.

And he was adamant about how much Social Security was taking out of our budget. But the truth is that Social Security is not taking anything "out" of our budget - it is putting funds "into" our budget. If not for Social Security funds, the deficit would be $150-200 billion higher each year. They are robbing the SS funds to pay for taxcuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq. If they had not taken that money out of Social Security, which was not being taken out when they came into office in 2001, then Social Security would not be in the "dire straits" they now claim.

Tim Russert did not do a very good job explaining these issues, in my opinion.

[blue cat]

1. Please email him

your concerns. I'm going to email this as well.

[Jim__]

2. I doubt russert understands these or any other issues.

He parrots what he's told. Have you ever heard russert make an original point? I haven't. In his supposed role as a political analyst, I find him singularly unimpressive.

[karynnj]

25. I agree - he has made the same points many many times

to many people - he very clearly believes them. I don't think he is ever good on economic or analytical issues.

My biggest problem is that he ignores that the intent in 1986 in increasing the SS payments was to prepare for this big bump. The problem is that in determining the deficit, the unused reveue from this (which was to fund later SS needs) was counted in REVENUE, but accounted for on the cost side. So when they looked at Government expenditures minus Revenue to get the deficit - it was treated like general income and spent.

The problem is that Russert then had the chart that showed that SS and Medicare costs with more than half of total expenditures. This ignored that they are paid by the taxes for them which, for social security, even now bring in more money than is paid out. The problem is that in the future, there is a point where they should have pulled from the extra paid in from 1986 to now - but the very people who were behind fixing it in 1986 have said they know that money is gone and spent. That's why Casey's answer on the tax cuts was right - the tax cuts are giving away money the government doesn't have - even when they include this amount.

The budgets in the Bus years have been unbelievably dishonest. Here's part of Senator Kerry's comment on the budget that people like Santorum thought was great>

"When considering the budget of the United States, honesty at minimum means actually counting every dollar we plan to spend. It sounds simple -- it's what every American does -- but this budget doesn't do it.

Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost at least $400 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The president's Social Security scheme will cost another $750 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The budget ignores interest on the debt, which not even the most creative accountant would leave out.

This budget is like an Enron budget -- smoke the numbers, cook the books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out. When Enron went bust, stockholders were the losers. When this budget goes bust, the American taxpayer will be the loser. They'll lose because this budget does exactly what Enron did: It makes irresponsible choices the administration does not want you to know about. "

link:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=234788

So much for Republicans being fiscally responsible.

[stopbush]

3. That's what happens when you have Ken Mehlman prepare the charts.

[blue cat]

4. email

[e-mail]

[Nozebro]

5. Mr. Russert is merely doing his job.

Why in the world would you expect an apologist/cheerleader for the interests of the rich (HIS class) to do anything else? When has he ever claimed to be looking out for those of other classes?

[Cosmocat]

12. Honestly ...

It could have been A LOT worse ... He DID nail Santorum on the house issue, not backing down until Santorum stammered "maybe a month or so" ... He also did not let Santorum get away with the Saddam/Al Queda connection and the pathetic 500 depleted mustard shells as WMD gag ... Nailed him on a few other things, too ...

He was hell bent on making more of the SS thing than it is, but that was just him trying to be "balanced" ...

Frankly, I thought he was tougher on Santorum than Casey overall ... After seeing Tweety lay into Santorum, I think these guys see him going down, and are trying to regain some semblance of being honest brokers creds by beating up on a big name R ...

[orwell]

6. You are confusing deficit...

...with debt. The debt is the accumulated deficit. The increase in total debt under scrubbie's misadmin is well over a trillion dollars, probably closer to two trillion. But the difference in surplus under Clinton's last year and the current year deficit of this maladministation is probably close to 600 billion.

But then all of this is a lie in that Social Security surpluses are used to temporarily mask the true operating deficit. Also, little items such as the Iraq war are not included. But here Russert can be right as well. As a budgetary item SS is a large portion of the total budget of the US and is projected to grow even larger as the baby boom retires. That is when all the IOU's written by our profligate Congress will come due.

In essence this is all smoke and mirrors and has been for decades. We are now the largest debtor nation by far with the worst total debt and balance of payments. This is primarily due to living far beyond our means, both as a nation and as individuals. The only thing that ensures our ability to carry on is our massive military machine which backs our rubber checks with extremely efficient and bloody terror.

[kentuck]

7. No... I am talking about the "deficits"...

The "deficit" last year was over $300 billion - the year before that the deficit was about $400 billion. This years "deficit" alone would add up to the difference Timmy showed on the TV. It is true that the deficits each year are added to the national debt. However, the deficit last year was separate from the deficit this year, although they both will be added to the national debt. The slate is not wiped clean of the deficit or the debt with each new budget. Too complicated to even try to explain I suppose?

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Orwell appears to be right.

The deficit is indeed a slate that is wiped clean each year. The debt is not.

The difference between the annual surplus which Clinton left office with and the annual deficit which Bush created represented approximately a $-600b chronic annual swing in our financial state. I didn't see MTP today, but I surmise that this is what was being addressed.

BTW, a $300b deficit does not imply a $300b growth on our national debt, it's actually much greater. The $5.6t debt that was left in 2000 has grown almost 50%, far more than can be accounted for by simply rolling the annual deficits over into the debt column.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

[kentuck]

11. Exactly!

That is the point that I was trying to make. We are now closing in on $9trillion dollars in "debt". The debt is accrued by adding together the "deficits" of each year. Maybe a point not worth making, but the "deficits" each year are not "old debt" - they are "new debt". So they should be totalled together if you are attempting to show the true difference in the last five years. It's like saying my debt this year is only $10K on my credit cards but in acutality, I owed $10K for each of the last 5 years. My single deficit is $10K but my accumulated "deficits" (debt) is $50K. It seems dishonest in some way...

[orwell]

13. The confusion lies...

...in the terms you are using in your original post. Russert could be marginally right depending how he exactly phrased his assertion. As I never watch any of this mindless drivel, I am only going by your report. There is no doubt that he is trying to obfuscate the real problems, as have almost ALL members of government for decades. He is a tool, and as such catapults the propaganda with gusto. It is not only a matter of his sizable paycheck, but the reinforcement of his and many other's egomaniacal worldview that is at stake.

Of course deficits should not only be totalled together, but even more important they should be properly recoginzed (expensed) in the first place. We haven't even achieved that basic methodology because almost everyone is lying to us. In that respect, both parties are at fault as are their willing co-conspirators, the bulk of United States citizens who re-elect them.

I stick by my original post. ;)

[kentuck]

16. By today's accepted terminology, you are absolutely correct...

However, I stick by my post that it is/was deceptive. :)

[Yupster]

24. I just read somewhere

that this year's defecit was quite a bit below $ 300 billion. I was surprised because just a few years ago it was over $ 400 billion.

[acmavm]

8. Sent my e-mail. I also pointed out that Mr. Russert is running his own

deficit in the integrity department.

[me b zola]

10. I was screaming when he broke out that pie chart--wht a lie!

Thanks for posting this, kentuck. I'll be dropping 'lil Timmy a note.

[SharonAnn]

14. Plus, he said Social Security was more than Defense. IT'S NOT!!

His pie chart clearly showed that it was greater than the Defense DISCRETIONERY spending. That's not the same as the entire Defense budget.

And, so what if it is? Isn't taking care of U. S. citizens more important than anything else?

[TahitiNut]

15. Maybe this will help ...

It MUST be remembered that the 'surplus' in the Social Security Trust Fund must be "invested" somewhere ... just like money in a savings account or money in an insurance company's reserves. Only an imbecile thinks that money is kept in some mayonnaise jar buried in the back yard of the White House. (I won't go into my disagreement with creating such an enormous SSTF surplus/reserve in the first place. That was decided during the Reagan/Bush years and, imho, was fucking brain-damaged!)

I'm personally far more comfortable with "investing" the Social Security Trust Fund in T-bills than in corporate stock. If there weren't a Federal Debt (and fairies were real), I'd want those funds to be "invested" in government bonds, mostly domestic. The LAST thing I want is to have those funds INFLATING the 'market value' (greater fool value) of corporate stock. That'd just be a Ponzi rip-off for the wealthy.

[kentuck]

17. But it logical to pay as you go..

If you're going to "borrow" the SS monies, there should be an offset. If you're going to cut taxes for the wealthy, you are going to have to pay for it. If you're going to spend $500 billion per year on defense, then you need to pay for it. The only government program presently paying for itself is Social Security. The "surplus" of Social Security is being borrowed and not paid back. It is true today as it ever was - there is no free lunch. We all pay, if it means less in education, less in retirement, less in infrastructure, whatever...

[TahitiNut]

18. What you're railing about is called the "Unified Budget"

Up until some years ago, the various Trsut Funds managed by the Fed were "off-budget" and reported separately from all other federal spending/receipts. It's how they REPORT ... but the SEPARATE figures are still available and reported as well. It's the flim-flam in the rhetoric, and not a substantial difference at all. There has always been some "net" but it wasn't as politically advantageous when the SSTF was relatively small (prior to about 1988).

There's no question whatsoever that when the OASDI EXPENSES exceed the OASDI RECEIPTS, the Fed will have to shift their borrowing from the SSTF to PUBLIC (and foreign) sources of funds. When that happens, interest rates will go up and the value on secondary market for older T-Bills will go down.

[kentuck]

19. It's difficult to understand how...

we can take hundreds of billions of dollars "off-budget" to fight a war that is not necessary but we cannot take the same "hundreds of billions of dollars" and provide healthcare or other needs of the people? Why is one OK and the other not?

[TahitiNut]

22. That's just lying about the FUTURE, not the present and not the past.

In the Federal Budget process, they are not projecting (or budgeting for) the cost of military adventurism (crimes) in Afghanistan or Iraq. This regime has decided to fund those crimes by "Emergency Appropriations" and their partners in crime, the Congress, is going along with this lying about the future - the future (which begins in the next second) impact on the budget, the deficit, and the accumulated debt.

The accounting actuals, reported as 'historical' in each February's release of the Federal Budget, DO INCLUDE that spending and that spending is reflected in the Fiscal Year dficit and the accumulated debt.

It's smoke and mirrors. It creates confusion in public discussion (like this thread) but it DOES NOT change the reality. That's why I maintain my charts.

There is NOTHING wrong with "investing" trust fund reserves/surpluses in T-bills, imho. (While I have serious disagreements with the way the future 'health' of OASDI was addressed in the 80's, mostly by increasing the payroll tax to build an enormous 'surplus,' the Fed has been "borrowing" that surplus/reserve from the very beginning of Social Security.

That's NOT the issue.

The REAL issue is the way in which politicians are lying about our deteriorating fiscal condition and the irresponsible spending/taxation balance.



On edit: Let me emphasize that this is NOT a 'problem' with Social Security. It's a problem with how politicians are lying about the Fiscal outlook of the Federal government. The 'problem' with Social Security is largely the result of Class Warfare - the obliteration of the middle class, the war against the working poor by creating the lowest federal minimum wage in over fifty years, and the impact on payroll tax receipts by the decimation of the lowest 90% of the payroll itself!

Simply stated, every $1 increase in the minimum wage corresponds to about a $0.15 increase in payroll tax receipts. Increase the minimu wage, increase the wages of the working poor, and the payroll taxes increase as well. Since the lowesst paid are getting paid less and lesss, the Social Seccurity system, which DEPENDS on taxes on those wages, is getting shorted. It's CRIMINAL!

[WHAT]

20. of course, Russert is a ...

potato, after all.

[InkAddict]

21. Holy cow! Showing graphs?

Just who does he think he is - Ross Perot?

[Justice Is Comin]

23. The two biggest things that are going to take us to 1929

because of bush

1. The lockbox is completely empty and the baby boomers are going to explode the debt. It's not represented in the 600 billion.

2. Iraq debts are covered up and totally obfuscated because they use supplementals to get the money every few months. Not in the 600 billion.


And the cherry on top is that the Chinese and Japanese own us now. Whenever they feel like squeezing, we'll have to dance, thanks to urine face.