Reply #2: That is essentially what I have unsuccessfully been looking for

[karynnj]

to have certainty that I am correct in thinking that the reason for the difference is what I have posted here.

The 30 year statements, that Kerry has also made, I think assume that the treasury IOUs/bills are real and will be used. they are after all issued by the US Treasury!

The other statements - not Kerry's - that SS is on the verge of not having enough money writes off ALL of the IOUs.

I think Kerry's recent statement is in between. I suspect he is including the general funds replenishing the trust funds the amounts they need to cover the difference between what they take in and what they pay out when he says if you pay Medicare, SS and the interest on the debt, there is too little to cover all government expenses. Where he differs from the Republicans is that he speaks of the need to increase taxes to avoid "cuts that hurt people" and he speaks of growing the economy and creating jobs. The latter immediately eliminates some of the deficit by increasing revenue and decreasing (unemployment/welfare) benefits - though that will not come close to making a dent in this.

Obama is in a very tough place on this. The courageous thing to do - if all this is true - is to tell the truth - unpleasant as it is to the American people. One thing he clearly has to do is make it clear that the Bush tax cuts can not - for anyone - be extended. As Obama has been in DC just since 2005, he is better positioned to tell the truth that Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all allowed this "unified budget - that allowed billions of dollars for SS to be spent as tax cuts and spending. For them, it was win/win - using that money like that stimulated the economy and both creating new programs and cutting taxes make you popular. This would make the President who rode into office on hope and change, the messenger of bad news. ( With FDR and Churchill as examples, doing this does not have to be political suicide - not to mention, it may take the President doing this to really make people see that our leaders have not led wisely and we need to fix this.

I don't think there can be much waste in Social Security significantly. I don't think their administrative costs are a significant portion of the total costs - the checks are. I also do not think that amount of fraud can account for much either. i think raising the cap is a fair way to raise the revenues that SS takes in - making the difference between revenue and outlays positive again (it was just this year that they have been about equal).

I hope that the way that they achieve some of the reduction in Medicare is by removing some of the presents lobbyists won for corporations. The first one I can think of is that they can require that drug companies not charge no more for drugs here than what they charge in other countries (or even specify Canada) and any by extra costs related to producing them here vs elsewhere or transportation they can justify. It is ONLY because they have monopolies due to patents that they can set their own prices. The idea of treating prescription medicine production as a regulated monopoly has a good precedent in the over a 100 year history of Bell Telephone. In the case of Medicare and the US health segment altogether is that there is waste and fraud - and they should eliminate what they find.

Bryon Dorgan, at various times, tried to pass an amendment allowing importation of prescription medicine from Canada. However, there is something exceedingly strange that many of the drugs from Canada were actually produced in the US and exported to Canada. Then, even with the cost of reimporting them, they are significantly cheaper. There is NO WAY that the companies can really justify that they sell the drugs cheaper elsewhere. This means that the US market is bearing a disproportionate share of the cost of management, production and research.