Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Baby Boomer Alert: The Truth Behind Social Security Propaganda

By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog. Posted May 13, 2009.


Reports of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What are we to make of yesterday's report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds that Social Security will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than previously forecast, and Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago?

Reports of these two funds' demise are not new. Fifteen years ago, when I was a trustee of the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds (which meant, essentially, that I and a few others met periodically with the official actuary of the funds, received his report, asked a few questions, and signed some papers) both funds were supposedly in trouble. But as I learned, the timing and magnitude of the trouble depended a great deal on what assumptions the actuary used in his models. As I recall, he then assumed that the economy would grow by about 2.6 percent a year over the next seventy-five years. But go back into American history all the way to the Civil War -- including the Great Depression and the severe depressions of the late 19th century -- and the economy's average annual growth is closer to 3 percent. Use a 3 percent assumption and Social Security is flush for the next seventy-five years.

Yes, I know, the post-war Baby Boom is moving through the population like a pig through a python. The number of retirees eligible for benefits will almost double to 79.5 million in 2045 from 40.5 million this year. But we knew that the Boomers were coming then, too. What we didn't know then was the surge in immigration. Yet immigrants are mostly young. Rather than being a drain on Social Security when the Boomers need it, most immigrants will be contributing to the system during these years, which should take more of the pressure off.

Even if you assume Social Security is a problem, it's not a big problem. Raise the ceiling slightly on yearly wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes (now a bit over $100,000), and the problem vanishes under harsher assumptions than I'd use about the future. President Obama suggested this in the campaign and stirred up a hornet's nest because this solution apparently dips too deeply into the middle class, which made him backtrack and begin talking about raising additional Social Security payroll taxes on people earning over $250,000. Social Security would also be in safe shape if it were slightly more means tested, or if the retirement age were raised just a bit. The main point is that Social Security is a tiny problem, as these things go.

Medicare is entirely different. It's a monster. But fixing it has everything to do with slowing the rate of growth of medical costs -- including, let's not forget, having a public option when it comes to choosing insurance plans under the emerging universal health insurance bill. With a public option, the government can use its bargaining power with drug companies and suppliers of medical services to reduce prices. And, as I've noted, keep pressure on private insurers to trim costs yet provide effective medical outcomes.

Don't be confused by these alarms from the Social Security and Medicare trustees. Social Security is a tiny problem. Medicare is a terrible one, but the problem is not really Medicare; it's quickly rising health-care costs. Look more closely and the real problem isn't even health-care costs; it's a system that pushes up costs by rewarding inefficiency, causing unbelievable waste, pushing over-medication, providing inadequate prevention, over-using emergency rooms because many uninsured people can't afford regular doctor checkups, and spending billions on advertising and marketing seeking to enroll healthy people and avoid sick ones.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: medicare, social security, trustees

Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's the Same Old Story
Posted by: JSquercia on May 13, 2009 3:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing that quite so energizes the heart of a Conservative as the thought that the New Deals greatest achievment (Social Security) can be done away with OR better still serve the players on Wall Street . Wouldn't it have been wonderful to see your Social Security take the kind of hit your 401-K did

They always talk about it not being there for the younger generation and talk about it being bankrupt . It won't go bankrupt as long as people are working there will be an income stream to pay the benefits . At worst the benefits might have to be less than anticipated
the scenario I heard is 80% of projected benefits could still be paid with no changes .

The thing that drives the Conservatives wild is those Notes that were given to Social Security so that the surpluses could be spent elsewhere are coming due and the Right doesn't want to pay them . That is why they dismiss them as pieces of paper . Yes all those tax cuts that vodoo economics handed out were paid for in part by using the Social Security surpluses . Now it is time to Pay the Piper and they don't want to pay .

People must understand that Social Security is an intergenerational tranfer from those working to those retired . My taxes paid for my parents and my childrens taxes will pay for mine .

One thing that could be done is to remove the taxation of benefits that Reagan instituted .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

concerned dad
Posted by: leftyvet on May 13, 2009 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for the insight mr. Reich, its refreshing to hear from someone who has intimate knowledge of these issues. I'm so sick of the MSM rants and lies regarding SS and medicare

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hopefully not just a waste of breath
Posted by: cromagnet on May 13, 2009 10:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times will we have to talk about this before we do something to change it. It's better to get rid of it than always focus on how we are paying for a benefit we will never see.

We need to reform this whole country's justice system that lets the amoral corporations run it. We need to stop their insidious controlling/buying of our public officials. We need their punishments to fit their crimes, not bail them out.

How does a company (Eli Lilly) get away with, making $4.8 billion of revenue for just one years worth of Zyprexa sales, and paying only $1.4 billion in fines. How, exactly, is that a deterrent? The punishment does not come close to fitting the crime. Does this make our justice system a disgrace?
News Article on The Activist Motivator

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hopefully not just a waste of breath Posted by: buschthebearrefreshing
» RE: Hopefully not just a waste of breath Posted by: buschthebearrefreshing
Right on
Posted by: chaoslegs on May 13, 2009 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is interesting is that the CBO prediction of when the social security trust fund would be empty went from 2046 in 2006 to 2049 in 2008.

So you have two issues, one is that CBO has a different model that was 8 years later than social security trustees. The second and bigger point is that no one talked about how social security was more secure when the predictions (of CBO) added years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to cope with health care costs
Posted by: wireup on May 14, 2009 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
High-tech medicine is insane. People think they can live forever and that they're entitled to everything available in the so-called healthcare industry in order to do this.

But the fact is that we DON'T live forever. Sooner or later we each die. What should the goal be? To TRY to live forever? Or to try to live as healthy a life as possible for whatever time we have here on earth?

The latter should be the goal. It's more sensible and less expensive.

And, if this is the case, then how do we achieve it? By taking control of your own body, your own health, being responsible for what you eat and how you treat your body (exercise, etc.).

Anything else is a waste of time, energy, money, and resources.

And please don't waste your time telling me how you have a horrible disease or illness that can only be cured by a million dollar operation. NO ONE is entitled to that, I don't care who they are or how much money they have.

The inability to accept the inevitable is at the root of the problems we have here in the US with health care. Accept aging gracefully, accept the inevitability of death, do the best with what you have, take responsibility for your body and your health. Don't expect to repeatedly abuse your body and then expect someone else to make everything okay when you've done your worst to destroy what you have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One day YOU may need "high tech" medicine Posted by: buschthebearrefreshing
Why the Press Is on Suicide Watch
Posted by: mmckinl on May 14, 2009 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the Comments, Not the Article!

Once again the Media is at the beck and call of the fear mongers and corporate shills ... to try and make the public pliant for more rape and pillage of their benefits ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the Press Is on Suicide Watch Posted by: buschthebearrefreshing
Blaming It On The Boomers
Posted by: cynyk on May 14, 2009 2:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I understand it, Social Security's projected deficit stems from the fact that the Baby Boomers are such a huge demographic cohort, the benefits paid out to them will outstrip the contributions to the system by a now much smaller workforce. Seems to me that the economists are forgetting something - that, eventually, the Boomers will all die. Moreover, the declining size of the workforce should also eventually reverse as the "Baby Boomlet" of the 1980's comes of age. At some point, therefore, contributions should start to outpace benefit payouts again. So it's really just a temporary cashflow problem. In the private sector when corporations experience temporary negative cashflow, they borrow. Can't Social Security do the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blaming It On The Boomers Posted by: JSquercia
Social Security
Posted by: GoKanuks on May 14, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow I gotta feeling if they have endless BILLIONS laying around to bail out failing banks and corporations, They have money for Social Security.

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DON'T CLICK THAT LINK Posted by: brunowe
Fear, Fear, Fear!
Posted by: Sparks56 on May 14, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are afraid are easier to manipulte. All of my life, 58 yrs, an atmosphere of fear has been promulgated and nurtured by government, business, and the media. We cringed in the basements of our grade schools in anticipation of Soviet bombs. We fought the Communists in Viet Nam so we wouldn't have to fight them on the streets of America. Under George Bush II we lived in a police state fearing terrorists. We invaded Iraq for fear of WMD's. Fear, fear, fear! based on lies, lies, lies. (9/11 was not a suprise attack.) Now, once again, we must fear iminent poverty. I don't believe any of it.
The one real threat we do face, global warming, the Republicans scoff at. They deny there is any problem. Hey, not to worry. Buy a GM suv.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health care IS the economy, Stupid!
Posted by: bthespoon on May 14, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that you or anyone in particular is stupid, but that we all are collectively incredibly stupid about our health unsurance non-system. Citizens here who have done their homework as well as the vast majority of people in every other civilized nation on Earth (but ours) know that we insist on admiring naked emperors (insatiably greedy, harmful, unnecessary health insurance middlemen) who are damaging our country (costing us millions of innocent lives and diverting trillions of dollars) in ways Al Qaeda can only pray to achieve.

"Improving and Enhancing Medicare for All" would save Medicare, Social Security AND our economy....not to mention millions of unnecessarily devastated and innocent lives.

We could use some help on the single payer front Bob. Compared side-by-side it wins hands down both morally and fiscally. Evidence based public policy would support it.

I honestly believe that having the political courage to stand up to the moneyed interests and support the Good of the Whole on this issue alone, particularly at this point in our nation's history, could make someone (or ones) go down in history looking like moral heroes and fiscal geniuses...or not. I believe the voting public would reward whoever shows the guts needed to achieve honest reform for years to come...or else dishonest reform will be another missed opportunity that will waste even more dollars and lives.

What is it about real people really dieing that our representatives don't "get"? Why is the single best solution (uniting everyone into one pool under one set of rules for the best cost, quality, reliability, choice and transparency) "off the table"?

Watching them sit with the corporate interests committed to thwarting meaningful reform while giving single payer supporters no seat and no voice is like sitting at the Civil Rights reform table with the KKK while denying Martin Luther King and his supporters an opportunity to present their case.

Sheesh. Democrats look like they're going to look pretty darned bought-and-sold-out silly in "The Big Picture".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US growth over the next 75 years will not be nearly
Posted by: leafsong1 on May 14, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as fast as it was over the last 150. There is no reason to believe that the US government will use any new leverage on medical prices to actually reduce medical prices. Indeed, if history is any indication, look for the present round of health reform to contain provisions ensuring that prices will be sturdily propped up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, we'll be able to pay into the socially accepted Madoff scheme for a great long while...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 14, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...hell, right up until you need to retire, in many cases.

No, old folks and those about to retire will have checked out long before the privilege (if you're convinced its a right, can you show me where the Constitution says that young workers need to pay for retiree vacations?) of seeing any so-called social security money.

So, no problem there. It's Madoff with a two or three decades more of a cushion!

The real problem is social security and medicare, those bastions of hope and beacons of light that are projected--along with their little brother social security--to eat up every federal dollar within the next one or two decades.

What do we do when that happens? We print more Change, because Yes We Still Can!

Nothing wrong here. Move along. The maths...they hurts Americans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ooopsie Posted by: ABetterFuture
Take a page from the VA
Posted by: Democritus on May 14, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Veterans Administration has a great health care system. A vet can go to any VA hospital and get instant care. This is because the VA system is computerized, and so costs are cut way down. A vet's drug costs are way down, too, because the VA can bargain with pharmaceutical companies to get the lowest prices.

Insurance companies and Big Pharma kick and scream about single payer plans, because then their obscene profits would diminish. Medicare for all, imitating the VA plan, would not only be cheaper but it would provide health care worthy of an industrialized nation, not the patchwork of plans that have been trotted out by the lobbyists for large corporations but promise only third-world care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, not really. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Enrollment priority groups Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: nrollment priority groups Posted by: JSquercia
» Quite welcome. FYI: Posted by: ABetterFuture
Yes we knew the Baby Boomers were coming
Posted by: bthespoon on May 14, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why at the beginning of our wage earning careers, Reagan and Republicans along with Tip O'Neill and Democrats raised our Social Security wage taxes by almost 25%..but only on wages (money we actually have to work for, not investment earnings) under $100,000 or so adjusted for inflation; anything above that (plus as I mentioned earlier, money we don't actually work for to earn) we get the 12.4% tax break.

The explanation was SS could not continue as a "pay as we go" system, so beginning with our generation (and beyond) we would have to PRE-pay for our retirement...which we have done and continue to do (but "they" spent and are spending most of it on other things).

I have a major problem with raising the retirement age because that doesn't take into account people who actually have to work hard physically for a living. Paper pushers can work longer than ditch diggers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of my favorite videos of all time
Posted by: bthespoon on May 14, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah yes, that holy grail.....
Posted by: tspanacea on May 14, 2009 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of economists' assumptions: the 3% annual rate of growth. Tell me Mr. Reich, what happens to your rosy scenario for Social Security if we make that 1.5% for the next twenty years? Or forty years? Or plug an even lower rate into your models? So many people seem absolutely incapable of grasping the possibility that growth as we have known it, just might not be possible for this country for a good long while, if ever again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leakman
Posted by: Leakman on May 14, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr. Reich for your insightful article. How come anyone with a lick of common sense can not see that a system like medicare or Va would not save money and the system. Once everything is under control of one payer; we could negotiate for drug prices, medical devices, services, etc. If they don't like it, let them sale their junk to China. This whole scam, affordable health insurance, has nothing to do about change. It's just to keep the money for campaigns flowing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why isn't Robert Reich...
Posted by: nha16 on May 14, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't Robert Reich in President Obama's Cabinet? Why isn't he Treasury Secretary?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health Care
Posted by: Richmond on May 14, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I understand it , Americans spend about one & 1/2 times as much per capita on health care compared with the Canadians . And we also spend about one eighth of all money going to health care on administration ; they spend about one-eighth . So , altogether , we spend about three times as much per person on administration of health care than they do . Our system of health care , is , however , the very best in the world for the top five per cent who can afford it ..... I would like feedback on this . Richmond Parker richmond_parker@hotmail.com Auburn , New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» check out www.pnhp.org Posted by: bthespoon
Take grandma off life support
Posted by: mrxls on May 14, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or deny grandpa $50,000 worth of drugs that will extend his life by three months at age 92. Our relationship with death and the idea of medical entitlement will have to change. The reason Reich correctly identifies the elephant in the room as medicare is we appear to be culturally unable to say yes to these choices individually to serve the greater social good of an affordable health care system. The oft quoted stat is 50% of an individual's medicare costs are in the last year of their life.

I just buried an aunt in her 90's who was appalled to have been "saved" through extraordinary intervention (despite a DNR) to live an extra 18 months of disability and pain. She wasn't happy but there was no way for her to pull the plug. Then again none of us would have wanted to pull it either.

Unless there is a cultural change we're just going to continue to borrow from the future to support the unsustainable practices of today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

glad to see and article like this
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 14, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wealthy oligarchy that runs this country absolutely HATES the very idea of social security. They have been frothing at the mouth over it ever since FDR signed it into law.

If you dig down far enough, a lot of this latest stuff is being financed by the Heritage Foundation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: glad to see and article like this Posted by: manitoumackinac
Anal-oriented Puritans want to raise retirement age
Posted by: Moonray on May 14, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first "solution" we usually hear about in the MSM is to raise the retirement age -- i.e., punish the victim. This is so typically American, a nation still held hostage by the self-hating philosophy of primitive Christianity. Under that world view we all are worthless sinners who should have to work until we drop dead. The big corporations and smaller employers love this idea too, for obvious reasons. And heaven forbid that tax dollars are used to actually help people (unless those people are the employers, the overseers in our modern labor plantation).

Europeans do this stuff so much better and smarter than we do. Obviously we need to raise the SS tax ceiling by another 50K or so; means test benefits to reduce the gravy for the rich; and turn Medicare and Medicaid into efficient federal programs instead of the feed-the-corporate-mafia plans which they are now.
Will it happen? Probably not. That self-hating, redneck, primitive-Christian streak in the American voters probably will show up again in upcoming elections and the Republicans will come roaring back, ready to spread more stupidity and corruption all over the landscape. God bless America, ya'll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Or better yet . . . Posted by: countingdaisies
» Preach on, brother! Posted by: ABetterFuture
Social security will go into personal accounts sooner or later whether you like it or not.
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar on May 14, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be honest. From politicians to we the losers, wasteful spending and corruption has pervaded us all. And since respect for the elderly has been abandoned ages ago, social security is on a one-way road to demise. It's not Bush's or Obama's fault either. It is our morally ignorant and bankrupted society that is to blame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fix Far Easier Than You Think
Posted by: coberly on May 14, 2009 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reich is mostly right. but

the Trust Fund date of running out of money is meaningless. It was always inteded to run out of money after the Boomers had been paid for.

Reich's little fixes would all destroy Social Security ultimately. The cheapest and most honest fix is to raise the payroll tax enough that the workers pay for their own retirement the way Roosevelt intended "so that no damn pollitician can take it away from them. The cost is tiny: ultimatelly about 2% of payroll, and you can reach it with a tax raise of 35 cents per week per year. To pay for your own much longer retirement.

Medicare is similar. While they are playing games about cutting medical care costs, you still need to pay for the insurance to pay for whatever it will cost. With the worst (highest) predictions, you can pay for it with a tax raise of about 70 cents per week per year. This is while your income is going up ten dollars per week per year.

So learn the facts. don't let them panic you into doing something stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really?
Posted by: dockboy on May 14, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Mr. Reich is so confident in Social Security, I wonder if he is depending solely on Social Security. It used to be that way. All you can believe what you will. As for me, I'm not counting on SS being there for me, so I'm saving and investing. If you truly think SS will support you in retirement, good luck!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally? Posted by: Ranjit Kumar
» RE: eally? Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: eally? Posted by: cori
» RE: eally? Posted by: Joshua Holland
I Just called my rep - did you ? 202 224 3121
Posted by: cori on May 14, 2009 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they can afford 10 billion per week for the Iraq war, trillions for Wall St and 40 thousand per yr per inmate for the biggest prison system on the face of the planet, they can afford to pay for our most vital safety nets THAT WE PAY FOR - THAT WE PAY FOR. Their fraud, and corruption has brought us down and caused a global DEPRESSION!!!! when they say it hasn't been this bad since the Depression what the hell do you think they mean? And now not only do they want to give us crumbs for health care reform they want to take away our safety nets. If we don't make a very loud noise about this and vote for the right people we will lose everything!!!!! 202 224 3121 how dare they!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would you mind walking over to John Yoo's office, and kicking him in the butt, for me?
Posted by: red godowar on May 14, 2009 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks... :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ADDING TO MEDICARE WOES
Posted by: Birdland on May 14, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was the fact that Bush hated SS and Medicare. His idea of providing drug coverage for all comers on Medicare helped push it over the edge into red ink faster and deeper. And Bush smiled, like a snake. There is and was plenty of help available to people for prescriptions they can't afford, they just need more publicity. Even the drug companies will help the poor get their medicines cheaper. Bush just wanted to crush the system for good. It worked too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BA
Posted by: mnstra on May 14, 2009 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. I would say that the biggest affront to humanity and close to torture is keeping people alive in an ICU on life support machines-- drugs and therapies. There is a conspiracy between the institution, the family, the doctors and the big pharmaceutical complex with their drugs and artificial hearts to keep the cash cow coming at all costs. Incredible ripoff beyond belief,Regardless of the persons age at that time.They should all be tried for crimes.
We must put a strict ceiling on artificial life support now.Stop artificial life support now.Our planet cannot sustain it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SS freeze
Posted by: scearfo on May 14, 2009 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So then, is the proposed freeze in SS payments for the next three years justified??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reich Confused on the Truth
Posted by: Miachilany on May 14, 2009 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I respect Robert Reich and generally agree with him on most issues, but I think he is way off base on this one. Although I agree with Reich that Social Security is not nearly as bad as Medicare / Medicaid and that the assumptions used could have a significant impact on the estimation of the funding obligation, we undoubtedly have a very serious underfunding obligation in our entitlement programs. I would argue that the 2.6% GDP growth rate assumption is aggressive to begin with and that the 3% Reich uses is pure fantasy. The US is in a whole different worldwide growth phase than it was during Reich’s “post Civil War period” (i.e., emerging growth markets like China and India are now taking a much bigger slice of the worldwide GDP growth and achieving growth rates of earlier US periods), with annual growth since first quarter 2000 through first quarter 2009 at 1.7%. In addition, the higher growth rates of 3% to 4% that we achieved in the mid part of this decade would have only been in the 0% to 1% range if we took out the growth that was attributable to the excessive debt lending that is now contributing to the worse recession since the depression and the deleveraging that is now causing the US to “contract” at over a 6% rate over the last two quarters. Thus, I would argue that the US’s real long term growth rate is probably in the 1% to 2% range, and that the 2.6% growth assumption is probably underestimating the actual problem / funding shortfalls (although unarguably debatable, there are many economists that now support this lower long term growth potential for the US).

In 2006, the US Comptroller General, David Walker, concluded that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal path and that there is an approximate $40 trillion ($7T SS and $33T Medicare) current funding shortfall in the US entitlement programs (see page 27 of US Treasury’s 2006 Financial Report of the US Government at: http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf), given current benefit and tax levels. That is, we would need to fund $40 trillion today to meet our projected entitlement obligations for the next 75 years at the current tax rates and assumed GDP growth rates (i.e., nearly 3X annual GDP or 15X the “total” annual government budget). With no government action over the last 3 years and a crushing recession since 4Q07, this funding gap is undoubtedly much larger today. There is no way to grow out of this problem and we basically have 3 ways to cover this huge funding gap, all of which will have the American taxpayer screaming bloody murder:

1. Reduced future benefits. Obama is currently “mentioning” this for the wealthy Americans.

2. Higher taxes. As Reich states, Obama also has mentioned this option but political suicide.

3. Borrow / print the money. Which will lead to inflation, cheaper dollar, and / or greater budget deficits due to higher borrowing costs.

Mr. Reich’s assessments are both naïve and dangerous, it’s the exact ignorance that has kept politicians from addressing this very serious problem in the past. Like the last financial crisis that came out of nowhere and nearly put the US and the rest of the world in a depression, the huge funding deficits of our entitlement programs will have an even greater negative impact on our economy when the time comes to pay the piper and there is nowhere else to run. So pick your poison from the above 3 options America, reality really sucks sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reich regurgitates propaganda on LABOR ISSUES!!!!
Posted by: okcsteve on May 14, 2009 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He needs to wake up. Thinking people wont listen to propaganda on Social Security, when he himself repeats the lies about "secret ballots going away!" on the MSM???? This guy needs to go get a job at the mall selling Dip 'n dots, the ice cream of the future..or at hot topic because he is an emo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3% growth for 75 years
Posted by: rbenson on May 14, 2009 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Use a 3 percent assumption and Social Security is flush for the next seventy-five years"

Sounds perfectly reasonable. But what Reich fails to mention is that 3% growth is still exponential growth - at 3% growth the size of the economy will double in 23 years! In 75 years the economy would have to be over 8 times larger than today to see his "common-sense" scenario play out. If the past is any guide, this means roughly 8 times more resource and energy usage, with corresponding increases in population.

The only reason these growth rates have been sustained for the past 100+ years is because we have been riding an exponential growth in fossil fuel usage since beginning the industrial revolution. Since WWII the US population has more than doubled, and per capita energy & resource consumption have gone through the roof (we've all heard the stats that in the 1950s decade more resources and energy were used than in the entire human history up to 1950, same in 1960s decade, same in 1970s decade etc). There is absolutely no way that we will see a repeat of this one-time binge in the next 75 years. Economists such as Reich are peddling junk science that has no relation to the constraints of the real world.

On the bright side, the left should rejoice, environmental issues (global warming, sprawl etc) will finally gain a little breathing room as the growth juggernaut runs out of steam. But social security is toast, it is only viable with a runaway exponentially growing economy - you can't have it both ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

very good~
Posted by: nonyio on May 14, 2009 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warhammer Power Leveling up-to-date and wow power leveling information! Here we provide gamers around the world WAR Gold and the gold service wow gold Treasury. Maybe you in the game Warhammer Online Power Leveling encountered problems, but we can provide you with a program to solve. To us here in the WAR Power leveling you will have no difficulties. Come on ~ We also offer mainstream online games such as gaia online gold and SilkRoad Online gold, as well as the SRO gold service Treasury. Finally, we remind you ~ lack of AOC Gold and SNW vis, we will provide you encountered MS mesos and SWG credits as well as the Sword of the New World vis the difficulties to find us~ we are the most professional, most dedicated, the most high-quality , the most efficient, most economical service team game. We will provide you with the most convenient service ~ make it easier enjoy the game more enjoyable ~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SOC SECURITY & MEDICARE CAN BE SAVED AND WHY YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IT YET--PART A
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 15, 2009 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HR 219 --will save SOC SEC AND MEDICARE for all time FOR both military and non-military
HR 236 AND BE9006 COLA PROTECTION

it will protect these benefits without
1. RAISING TAXES
2. WITHOUT RAISING PREMIUMS
3. WITHOUT CUTTING SERVICES

It's no surprise the DEMS want to do away with the lobby groups working for PUBLIC to be protected. It won't pass unless there is an OUTPOURING of PUBLIC pressure on CONGRESS.

Politicians would rather scare everyone with tax cuts and service cuts rather than keep their hands out of the SOC SEC "till" --to keep on using SOC SEC as a "petty cash fund" for pork projects instead which will further aid in bankrupting this Nation.

They would rather scare everyone by claiming it's needful to raise taxes or make cuts or their Socialist rhetoric of---how "selfish" everyone" is for not wanting to pay higher taxes; Rather than refrain from 'raiding" SOC SEC for their pet pork projects.

Here the DEMS CONGRESS JUST took a COLA INCREASE for CONGRESS OF 550.22 PER MONTH ... while DECIDIN you THE PUBLIC could live on 63.00 per month.

they want to raise taxes and price of foods and prescription and even eggs is up 55 %.

and yet they say $63.00 a month--a lousy 5% COLA INCREASE is enough for PUBLIC.

Here, the DEMS want to irresponsibly bailout the business, which will bankrupt US unless we apply brakes and ceilings, and caps and make businesses pay money back in timely fashion.



However, when it comes to doing something GOOD to BAILOUT the PUBLIC the DEMS don't want it--which incidentally is why this is probably the first time you are reading or hearing about it.

EVEN if there WOULD have been only IOU'S in SOC SEC by enacting these bills NOW the funds would adequately be there by 2012 when the baby boomers start to retire.

WASH DC HAS BEEN DRAGGING it's feet because the longer they PUT OFF DOING ANYTHING FOR THE PUBLIC

1. WASH DC SLUGS plan on taking another 242 mill/billion out of SOC SEC THIS YEAR ALONE

why has WASH DC SLUGS BEEN DRAGGING their feet?? BECAUSE THE longer they PUT OFF doing anything for the PUBLIC

1. THE HIGHER taxes will have to go to offset the spending spree they have been on
2. Geightners fix it.. is CREATING a re-inflation bubble scheduled to burst in 7 YEARS worse than this bubble why is that relevant because ONE YEAR LATER the bill for BAILOUT IS DUE AND PAYABLE and if USA cannot pay we will be owned by foreigners( many whom subscribe to sharia law)

WASH DC SLUGS think they can do WHAT they want WHEN they want ABOVE THE LAW AND WITHOUT IMPUNITY while claiming the public can only act by PERMISSION.


To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SOC SECURITY & MEDICARE CAN BE SAVED AND WHY YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IT YET--PART B
Posted by: SassyFrassy on May 15, 2009 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.


Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on.

Seek legislative and LEGAL agencies to DISMANTLE the bailout and kick out the SOCIALIST stimulus. Seek legal action to have these bills enacted right away. see American Center for Law and Justice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THANK YOU ROBERT REICH. YOU HAVE IT RIGHT ONE MORE TIME. IF WE ARE TO
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 18, 2009 11:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
believe David Cay Johnston the fed has been bleeding the coffers of Social Security for years. That is to say that by overcollecting on Social Security the Treasury could borrow from the Social Security Trust fund. I really don't have any number newer than the year 2000 but I'm not how sure much I would trust them if I did. From what I could figure in 2000 the money borrowed was about the equivalent of 100 dollars a month for each Social Security recipient.

This was a Ronald Reagan ploy. Scare the nation in to thinking that Social Security was going belly up and get congress to increase the Social Security withholding and then borrow it out of the trust fund. He then would claim that he didn't raise taxes. The wealthy got it. He had raised taxes on the poor. The wealthy were relieved.

The right wing has been lying to us nonstop since we were born. They tell us that Social Security is only supposed to be a supplement to our real retirement funds. That means the "real" retirement funds that we have deposited with their supporters on wall street. If you have a 401K you must have seen through this lie for what it is. I really enjoy asking all of the conservatives I know if they are ready to put Social Security in the stock market.

Actuarial projections are full of "and well but" but if you have a demographic fact you may well extend a little. The "pig through the python" won't go on forever. The right wing is telling the young people that Social Security won't be there for them. That is a lie. After the pig is through the python there is going to be plenty of money for the retirement of these young people. The shell game that the dishonest right is playing runs like this. Since there is not going to be any money for your retirement, why not just let us have it to manage for you. Yeah sure.

Notice how much pressure is being brought to keep congress from closing the "Cayman Island" style of tax loophole. These people go virtually taxless. This is a exact measure of the weakness of our democracy. We must put a stop to the 40,000 plus lobby power in our government. This can only happen with a massive change in campaign finance. Since the Supreme court has ruled that money is part of free speech, we may find that we cannot constitutionally stop the purchase of government. The Supreme Court may block attempts at campqign finance reform. We forget what the Supreme Court did to FDR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement