The Democrat War on our 401(k) Plans

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

Retirees can’t get by on Social Security alone.  And we can’t raise Social Security payments because the program will be insolvent in a few years.  Because of our aging population.  More people are leaving the workforce than are entering it.  So fewer people are paying taxes to support those in retirement.  And those in retirement are living a lot longer into retirement than the Social Security actuaries thought they would.  Which is why Social Security is going bust.  And people need other sources of retirement income.  And a big source of that retirement income has been our 401(k) plans.  Which President Obama wants to take away (see Obama’s budget bad for 401(k) savers by Scott Hanson posted 3/19/2014 on CNBC).

President Obama’s proposed budget for 2015 would be a disaster for the millions of Americans who are underprepared for retirement. This plan would reduce the tax incentives for employers to offer retirement plans to their employees…

Under Obama’s budget plan, higher-income earners would be limited to a tax deduction at the 28 percent level, even if their current income-tax bracket is much higher…

This means they would not only pay taxes on some of their contributions today, they are fully taxed when they withdraw the money in the future. This, of course, is double taxation.

The Social Security Trust Fund doesn’t have any money in it.  All the money we’re paying into Social Security is going right out to pay for someone else’s retirement.  And what’s left over the government spends to buy votes.  Replacing our money in the Social Security Trust Fund with IOUs.  Promises to repay the money when we need it.  How?  By either borrowing more money.  Printing money.  Or taking a portion of our other retirement money we’re setting aside.  Our 401(k) plans.

It’s no secret that the Democrats hate these 401(k) plans.  For that’s a lot of money people are NOT spending.  And money they can’t tax.  The government is full of Keynesians.  They believe the only healthy economy is an economy where people spend everything they earn.  Keynesians see savings as leaks from the economy.  And they don’t like that.  For them consumption is everything.  And saving is for chumps.  They want our 401(k) plans.  Some have even been thinking about just taking that money and replacing it with some government program.  Like Social Security.  So they can get that money now.  And spend it.  For there are so many votes to buy and so little money to buy them with.  So the Democrats will wage their war on our 401(k) plans.  And then move on to something else.  For they have an insatiable appetite to spend.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Threat of Default on the Debt is from the Left not the Right

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 10th, 2013

Politics 101

We have a Debt and Spending Problem as we are Spending so much that we have to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Contrary to popular belief the government doesn’t just borrow money.  They also raise money by taxing us and charging us fees.  A lot of it.  In this past fiscal year (October 2012 to September 2013) they raised $2,450,200,000,000.  That’s $2.45 trillion dollars.  Sadly, they spent $3,537,100,000,000.  Or $3.5 trillion.  Giving us a deficit of $1,086,900,000,000.  Or $1.1 trillion.  Which is why we’re having a debt crisis.

Interestingly, the left does not believe that we have a debt problem.  Or a spending problem. For they see no problem with these numbers.  The only problem they have is with Republicans.  Who do believe we have a debt problem.  As well as a spending problem.  And they want to do something about it.  Before the debt grows so big that it threatens the full faith and credit of the United States.

Now the Democrats, who don’t think we have a debt or a spending problem, are saying the Republicans are threatening the full faith and credit of the United States.  With their shutting down of government.  And their demand for spending cuts before raising the debt ceiling.  Which proves the Republicans point.  We have a debt and a spending problem.  Because we are spending so much that we have to raise the debt limit.

The Interest on the Debt is only 11.75% of the Available Revenue so there is no Danger of Default

Of course, this explains the $1.1 trillion deficit.  Out of control spending.  That the government is funding with more and more borrowing.  Which threatens the full faith and credit of the United States.  Because the more debt we accumulate the less likely we’ll ever be able to pay it off.

But are we risking default on the debt now?  With this battle over the debt ceiling?  No.  Yes, the debt is huge.  Currently it is in excess of $16 trillion.  About six and a half times total federal revenue.  To get an idea what that means consider you have the median household income which is approximately $51,000.  If you carried the same amount of debt the federal government carries you would have approximately $331,500 in credit card debt.  Any household with a median income of $51,000 with credit card debt of $331,500 has a bleak future.  And unless they win the lottery they will not escape bankruptcy.

So $16 trillion in debt is recklessly high.  And impossible to pay off.  But as bad as that is the amount of revenue the federal government collects via taxes and fees greatly exceeds the interest on the debt.  The interest on the debt is $415.7 billion.  This is the amount the government has to pay to avoid defaulting on the debt.  Which is easy to do with $2.45 trillion in revenue.  The interest on the debt is only 11.75% of the available revenue.  So even if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling there is no way in hell the government will be unable to pay the interest on the debt.  Unless the government chooses NOT to pay the interest on the debt.  Even when they have the ability to pay the interest on the debt.

The Democrats become Chicken Little whenever anyone ever Threatens their Spending Authority

So why all the talk of defaulting on the debt?  And ruining the full faith and credit of the United States?  Simple.  Democrats are liars.  And what do liars do?  They lie.  The interest on the debt is in no danger of going unpaid.  It’s all that other government spending that is in danger of going unspent.  That spending that makes people dependent on government.  And buys votes.

The left tries to frighten the people so they can keep spending.  And keep buying votes.  They try to scare Social Security and Medicare recipients.  Telling them they will lose their benefits if the Republicans don’t stop what they’re doing.  Even though they won’t.  First of all we pay into our own retirement account. At least that’s what the government tells us.  And there is a Social Security Trust Fund.  Full of our money just waiting to pay our benefits.  Or so they say.  But the Trust Fund doesn’t have money in it.  It has government IOUs.  Because the government spent that money.

So that’s why Democrats lie.  So they can keep spending and buying votes.  Which they won’t be able to do if they can’t borrow more money to spend.  And they’re spending so much that they can’t afford to lose their charging privileges.  This is why they warned the sky would fall if the sequestration spending cuts went into effect.  But as we all witnessed the sky did NOT fall with those spending cuts.  There was some discomfort.  But nowhere near the calamity the Democrats warned would befall us if they didn’t get their way.  Bringing us to their greatest fear.  That life can go on with a large spending cut.  And telling us that the government can cut spending even more.  Far more.  Which is a threat to their ability to buy votes.  And to their power.  Which is why they become Chicken Little whenever anyone ever threatens their spending authority.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shutting Down Government and Taking Hostages

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 3rd, 2013

Politics 101

Democrats close National Parks and Deny Cancer Treatment for Children to win Political Contest

The politicians have shut down the government.  And the executive branch (i.e., President Obama’s branch) is really trying to make the shutdown hurt.  In fact they are gleeful.  For the president had his ass handed to him over his redline comment on Syria.  Having been ridiculed on the international stage he is trying to show how tough he is with people he can push around.  Americans.

So President Obama has closed national monuments.  To really annoy the people.  Even World War II veterans (men who know a thing or two about courage and bravery and being tough) coming to see the outdoor World War II monument.  Yes, he closed that, too.  But he didn’t stop there.  His executive branch even tried to close Mount Vernon.  The privately owned and privately operated Mount Vernon.  Proving the politics that motivate the president and the Democrats.

When a reporter asked Senator Harry Reid if he would approve a spending bill that would let children with cancer to participate in an experimental treatment program he said ‘no’.  Because if he did that would mean the other side would have won.  When you’re talking about winners and losers, though, you’re not doing what is best for the American people.  You’re doing whatever you can to win.  Regardless of what’s best for the people.

The Obama administration refused additional security in Benghazi so they wouldn’t offend their Muslim Hosts

The Democrats are playing hardball.  Acting like petulant children who can’t get their way.  And they don’t care who they hurt in the process.  Children throwing tantrums rarely do.  Pity they couldn’t show this same toughness when it comes to real enemies of America.

President Obama and the Democrats have unleashed every invective in the dictionary against the Republicans.  Calling them terrorists and their actions jihad.  Yet they bend over backwards not to offend those waging jihad against America.  To this day they still call the Fort Hood massacre workplace violence.  After the Boston Marathon bombing they held off calling it an act of terrorism.  And refuse to call the bombers Muslim even though they were Muslims fighting a jihad for Islam.

When the American ambassador in Libya requested additional security for their mission in Benghazi the Obama administration refused the request.  As they didn’t want to offend the sensitivities of their Muslim hosts in Benghazi by showing that we were worried about our safety there.  For President Obama won the War on Terror with the killing of Osama bin Laden.  So there was nothing to worry about.  And there was an election coming up.  So not only were they worried about their Islamic host’s sensitivities they were worried about how a ramp up of security in Benghazi would look back at home.  As they were getting a lot of miles out their campaign slogan.  “Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.”  Which led to four dead Americans in Benghazi.

The Democrats hold Social Security Recipients Hostage whenever they can’t get What they Want

Of course, what government shutdown would be complete without scaring old people?  Yes, they have brought up Social Security.  Because those Social Security recipients are hostages to the government.  If the government doesn’t get what they want the government threatens to take away their benefits.

The government shutdown does not affect Social Security.  But tying the current fight in with the future fight over raising the debt limit helps the Democrats.  For they buy a lot of votes.  Which isn’t cheap.  Each year federal spending increases to pay for new and/or expanded federal programs that buy votes from those they make dependent on government.  This is the Democrats’ great fear.  That they won’t be able to raise the debt limit.  So they can continue to buy votes.  Which they must do as they can’t win in the arena of ideas.

Which is why they’re already playing the Social Security card.  Taking Social Security recipients hostage.  Threatening them that if they don’t pressure the Republicans to stop trying to be responsible they will make them pay.  And stop issuing their checks.  Which further proves how political everything is.  First of all, we pay into Social Security.  There is a Social Security Trust Fund that is supposedly holding our money.  Which means one of two things.  Either they’re withholding our own money from us.  Or Social Security is really a Ponzi scheme after all.  And the Trust Fund is empty.  Filled with nothing but federal IOUs.  Yes, they’ve spent that money to buy more votes.  So not only have they spent more than the government can pay.  They’ve also raided our retirement accounts.  To buy votes.  Which is what Obamacare is all about.  Buying votes.  To get even more Americans dependent on the government.  So the government can hold them, too, hostage to get what they want.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Krugman says there is no Problem with Social Security showing why we shouldn’t listen to Keynesians

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Paul Krugman is a Keynesian economist.  He even won a Nobel Prize.  And the Left loves him.  Because he says it’s okay for the government to spend money it doesn’t have.  In fact, government should be spending more.  The reason why the stimulus failed according to Krugman is that the $800 billion wasn’t enough.  Which is why the Left loves this guy.  Because he says things like spending $800 billion is not spending enough.  Giving them moral authority to spend more.  For, after all, this guy is a Nobel Prize winning economist.  So he must know what he’s talking about.

Then there are real economists. People who actually understand how business and the economy as a whole works.  People of the classical school of economics.  The Austrian School.  And the Chicago school.  Who don’t think much of Mr. Krugman.  Or Keynesian economics.  For all they see is a historical record littered with failure.  They know why those in government only listen to Keynesian economists.  Because they simply want to expand government spending.  For they like having all of that money flow through their hands.  While reputable economists want that money where it benefits the economy most.  In the private sector.

Krugman gets a lot of air time.  Because he advances the government’s agenda.  Which the mainstream media is helping the president pass.  So you see him on television a lot.  And sometimes someone with a real understanding of the economy will have a little dustup with him.  As someone did recently on ABC.  The topic was Social Security and the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF).  Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) said Social Security was going bankrupt.  Krugman said Johnson’s facts were all wrong.  That Social Security had a dedicated revenue stream.  And the SSTF was fat with investments not only earning interest but can be used to pay benefits.  Bruce Krasting does a little fact checking.  Here are some excerpts (note: this article appears to have missed the editing process and contains quite a few typos some of which we corrected) (see Paul Krugman Has Got His Social Security Facts Wrong by Bruce Krasting posted 3/11/2013 on Business Insider).

CR[S] [Congressional Research Service] had this to say about the TF for FERS [Federal Employees’ Retirement Service]

The assets in private-sector pension funds represent a “store of wealth” that firms can use to meet pension obligations as they come due. The CSRDF [Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund], however, is not a store of wealth for the federal government.

Got that PK [Paul Krugman]? The CR[S] says there is no wealth (aka money) in the TF:

The OMB [Office and Management and Budget] provides more clarity on TFs. From the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010: Analytical Perspectives

Balances in the trust fund are available for future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense.

Ah! There is no money in the TFs. They are bookkeeping entries. OMB concurs with CR[S] – TFs are not a store of wealth. More:

The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.

How many ways does OMB have to say this to convince PK? Another:

The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

Is this getting through to progressives like PK? This is not the tin hats talking PK. This is your “guys”.

Senator Johnson made the statement that the SSTF accounting was similar to a person who writes themselves an IOU for $20, and then somehow believes he actually has an asset. PK objected. This is what the OMB has to say about it; no wiggle room for PK with this:

These trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, netting to zero for the Government as a whole.

Got that PK? The Senator was correct. Writing an IOU to oneself nets to zero. If the OMB was the arbiter of the TV debate, it would have said that the Senator had the facts, and Krugman was blowing smoke.

Let me explain this in another way.  Remember the movie Dumb And Dumber with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels?  Where they drive to Colorado to return a women’s briefcase?  That briefcase was full of money and was supposed to pay a ransom to get that woman’s husband back.  Jim Carrey’s character picked it up before the kidnappers could because he had just driven the woman to the airport and was smitten with her and wanted to return it to her.  So she would marry him and they could live happily ever after.  And hence the road-trip to Colorado to return it.  Much hilarity ensued.  But then that briefcase opened.  And the boys saw all of that money.  These guys who had no money and no place to sleep.  In a cold Colorado winter.  And there was all that money.  So they did the only responsible thing.  They borrowed from that briefcase.  Leaving an IOU each time they did.  Then they bought some bare necessities.  The finest hotel suite.  A Lamborghini sports car.  New designer clothes.  Etc.  You know, bare necessities.  Near the end of the movie the briefcase is opened by the kidnapper who only sees slips of papers.  Their IOUs.  The kidnapper is enraged.  And Jim Carrey’s character reassures him that those IOUs are as good as gold.  Because they intend on repaying all of that money.  Even though each of them is dirt poor and unlikely to earn that amount of money in their remaining lifetime.

That briefcase is the Social Security Trust Fund.  All of that money poured into the Trust Fund.  While all those politicians looked at it.  And then thought about all the spending they wanted to do.  So they did the only responsible thing.  They spent the money in the Trust Fund and left IOUs in its place.  IOUs that they never will repay.  And everyone knows this.  Except, perhaps, Paul Krugman.  All rational people know how the government will replace those IOUs.  They will print money as they need it to pay benefits.  Causing even more inflation.  Raising prices further.  Forcing our retirees who paid into the Trust Fund to get by on less in their retirement.  Basically like what is happening right now.  And will only get worse.

You can’t loan money to yourself.  You can’t spend your personal savings and replace it with an IOU.  Because it nets out.  For if you borrow money you owe money.  Which means you’re doing stuff on both sides of the ledger.  And when you figure out your net worth (subtracting what you owe from what you have) you find there is little there.  The balance of your savings less the sum total of your IOUs is what you have to live on in retirement.  Nothing more.  For once you spent your savings they’re gone forever.  Just like that money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  They spent it.  And it’s gone forever.

Paul Krugman apparently doesn’t understand this.  As do few Keynesians.  For they keep spending money.  And running up more debt.  But never see any problem.  Unlike real economists.  Who, sadly, are not advising the government.  For they refuse to tell the government what they want to hear.  Like Paul Krugman and his fellow Keynesians.  Who say things like they’re just not spending enough.  Which is what every politician wants to hear.  No matter how ridiculous or asinine it may be.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Social Security Receipts, Outlays and Surplus 1940-2012

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 19th, 2013

History 101

Social Security is going Bankrupt because of an Aging Population, Inflation and Untrustworthy Politicians

Social Security introduced the era of Big Government.  When the Roosevelt administration passed it into law it faced fierce opposition.  For it wasn’t the job of the federal government to provide a pension.  If it was the Founding Fathers would have included it in the Constitution.  But they didn’t.  Thanks to the Great Depression, though, a serious crisis FDR didn’t let go to waste, FDR was able to change America.  By taking the federal government beyond the limits of the Constitution.

The fear was that it would grow into a massive program requiring more and more taxes to support it.  Which the FDR administration refuted in a 1936 pamphlet (see The 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security).

…beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.

Of course, that wasn’t true.  It was either a lie.  Or a disbelief that anyone would ever decouple the dollar from gold.  Or wishful thinking that we can trust politicians.  Whatever the reason the Social Security tax rate is a long way from that 3% today.  And the maximum earnings amount is a lot higher than $3,000.  But despite the tax rate and the maximum earnings amount soaring from these promised lows it’s still not enough.  For Social Security is struggling to avoid bankruptcy in the near future.  Because it has become a massive program requiring more and more taxes to support it.

Social Security is suffering from three major problems.  The first is an aging population (fewer people entering the work force to pay for the greater number of people leaving the workforce).  The second is inflation.  And the third is that politicians manage it.  Who just can’t control themselves around big piles of money.

The Social Security Surplus increased in the Nineties thanks to the Peace Dividend, Japan’s Lost Decade and the Dot-Com Boom

Social Security is off-budget.  Employers and employees pay into the program to provide for the program’s benefits.  These are dedicated taxes.  They are only to pay for Social Security benefits.  That is why it is off-budget.  They don’t mingle Social Security taxes with all the other taxes the government collects.  To pay for all the things in the federal budget.  Technically, those taxes are supposed to go into a retirement account that grows with interest.  And this big, growing pile of money is supposed to pay the benefits.  But in reality it doesn’t work this way.  The government collects taxes.  From these taxes they pay current benefits.  And anything left over, the Social Security surplus, goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.  We can see this graphically if we plot receipts, outlays and the surplus (see Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1934–2017 and Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2017 at FISCAL YEAR 2013 HISTORICAL TABLES).

Social Security Receipts Outlays Surplus 1940-2012

For the first 30 years or so of this program it hardly made a dent in our lives.  Small amounts were going in.  Small amounts were going out.  And small amounts were going into the trust fund.  Then a lot of people started retiring.  Just as birth control and abortion changed the family size.  And President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  Allowing them to print money like never before.  Which, of course, depreciated the dollar.  This is why receipts and outlays started trending up after 1971 (when Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold).  To get a better look let’s zoom in and look at the years from 1970-2012.

Social Security Receipts Outlays Surplus 1970-2012

The Seventies were a horrible time economically.  As the government went all in with Keynesian economics.  Which resulted with high inflation and high unemployment.  And stagnant economic growth.  Stagflation.  And Social Security was in trouble.  Receipts were greater than outlays.  But not by very much.  Receipts and outlays may have been trending up but the surplus was pretty flat.  Until President Reagan and the Democrat Congress fixed Social Security to avoid bankruptcy.  After 1983 receipts trended up greater than outlays.  Which caused the surplus to trend up.  Thus saving Social Security.  For awhile.  Now let’s zoom in further to the years 1990-2012 to see what happened in the last two decades.

Social Security Receipts Outlays Surplus 1990-2012

President Reagan won the Cold War by spending more on defense than the Soviets could ever match.  At least not without starving her people to death.  And the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  In 1991 the Soviet Union was no more.  Creating a huge peace dividend for President Clinton.  Which coincided with the dot-com boom.  And Japan’s Lost Decade (Japan’s economic woes were America’s prosperity).  Making the Nineties a very good time economically.  And that healthy economic activity translated into a nice uptrend in the Social Security surplus.  However, low interest rates and irrational exuberance fed the dot-com boom.  It was not real economic growth.  It was a bubble.  And when it burst it gave George W. Bush one painful recession at the start of his presidency.  Which was compounded by the tragedy of 9/11.  Causing a fall in economic activity.  Which caused Social Security receipts to fall.  While outlays continued to grow.  Causing a decline in the Social Security surplus.  Once again cuts in tax rates restored economic activity.  And the Social Security surplus.  Which continued until another bubble burst.  This one was a housing bubble.  Caused by President Clinton with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending.  Where his justice department pressured lenders to qualify the unqualified.  And when the housing bubble burst into the Subprime Mortgage Crisis giving us the Great Recession receipts fell while outlays increased.  Sending the surplus into a freefall.

Social Security is Doomed to Fail because you just can’t Trust Politicians around Great Big Piles of Money

There is both a Social Security tax rate.  And a maximum amount of income to tax.  Both of which they have had to increase to keep up with inflation.  To make up for that aging population.  And to offset the corrupting influence of politicians around big piles of money.  And contrary to that 1936 pamphlet those tax rates started rising early.  And often (see Historical Social Security Tax Rates).

Social Security Surplus and Tax Rate

The Social Security tax rate rose as high as 12.4%.  Which is a 313% increase from the maximum amount guaranteed in that 1936 pamphlet.  And this great upward trend began in the Fifties.  Continuing through the Sixties.  In fact most of the increases came before Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  Showing what a horrible job the government actuaries did in crunching the numbers for this program.  As it turned into exactly what the opponents said it would.  A massive program requiring more and more taxes to support it.  And President Obama reducing the tax rate from 12.4% to 10.4% didn’t help the surplus any.  Or the solvency of Social Security.

Social Security Surplus and Maximum Earnings

While the tax rate began rising in the Fifties the maximum taxable earnings amount didn’t.  This amount was pretty flat and able to produce a surplus until 1971.  When President Nixon unleashed the inflation monster by decoupling the dollar from gold.  And the only way to produce a surplus after that was by continuously increasing the maximum earnings amount.  Further proving what a horrible job the government actuaries did in crunching the numbers for this program.  But why are they projecting Social Security will go bankrupt after raising both the tax rate and the maximum taxable earnings amount?  For despite all of the ups and downs there has been a surplus throughout the life of the program.  Some seventy years of a surplus and the miracle of compound interest should have built up quite a nest egg in the Social Security Trust Fund.  But it hasn’t.  Why?  Well, we can see what it could have been.  If we take each year’s surplus (starting in 1940) and add it to an account earning interest compounded annually at an interest rate of 3% through 1971 and 6% after 1971 (to account for inflation) it would look something like this.

Social Security Surplus Earning Compound Interest

Note that these amounts are in millions of dollars.  So at the end of 2012 the ending balance in the trust fund would be $16.5 trillion.  Which is large enough to wipe out the entire federal debt.  From 1980 through 2008 the surplus grew on average 8% each year.  If we assume this growth through 2050 that would take the trust fund to $184.5 trillion.  In 2075 it would be $960.9 trillion.  In 2076 it would be $1.03 quadrillion.  Or $1,027.3 trillion.  With this phenomenal growth based on a realistic 6% interest rate why is Social Security going bankrupt?

Because there isn’t a big pile of money in the Social Security Trust Fund earning compound interest.  The money goes in.  And the government takes it out.  Leaving behind treasury securities.  IOUs.  They raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for other on-budget government expenditures.  With the off-budget surplus.  Hiding the true size of the federal deficit.  And putting Social Security on the path to bankruptcy.  Because you can’t loan money to yourself.  You can only take money meant for one thing and spend it on another.  Leaving that first thing unpaid.  This is Social Security.  And why it was doomed to fail from the beginning.  Because you just can’t trust politicians around great big piles of money.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Off-Budget Social Security Surplus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 18th, 2013

Economics 101

Because we have Limited Income we Prioritize our Expenses

We all want more than we can afford.  We may want to drive a brand new Lincoln MKT but can only afford a used Focus.  So we drive a used Focus.  We may want to live on the beach in Southern California but can only afford a 2-bedroom apartment in Pasadena.  So we live in a 2-bedroom apartment in Pasadena.  We may want to dine on filet mignon and champagne every night but can only afford Hamburger Helper and a store-brand soda.  So we dine on Hamburger Helper and store-brand soda.

In life we have to make choices.  And live within our means.  So we budget our money. We list all our income.  And all of our expenses.  Breaking down the expenses in order of importance.  Rent is more important than cable television.  The electric bill is more important than stopping at Starbucks every morning for a Venti Caramel Macchiato.  The gas bill is more important than unlimited texting.  Because we have limited income we prioritize our expenses.  Those most important we budget to pay first.  Those less important we enjoy when we have some disposable income left over.  After paying everything that is more important first.

This is responsible living.  Which a lot of people do.  Live responsibly.  While some don’t.  And use credit cards to buy things they can’t afford.  Or they do a little work on the side ‘under the table’ for some extra spending cash.  Money they don’t report as income so they don’t have to pay income taxes on it.  Because like Billy Joel said you can pay Uncle Sam for the overtime.  Or not.  And a lot of people choose not.  Interestingly, a lot who do are die-hard Democrats who want to raise tax rates on the rich.  But when it comes to their hard-earned money they want to hide it from Uncle Sam.  But I digress.

Social Security Taxes are Dedicated for One Thing—Social Security Benefits

We can call money we earn on the side off-budget money.  We don’t add this money to our household budget.  It’s special money to spend on things we enjoy.  For if a husband does some plumbing work on the side his wife may want to use that money to pay down a credit card balance.  Or spend it on new window treatments.  While he may have other ideas for that money.  Maybe some new fishing equipment.  Or a new power tool.  Or maybe using it to go tailgating with the boys.  That money could buy a lot of food to barbecue.  And a lot of beer.  Things that are a lot of fun.  While paying down a credit card balance is not.  Just as window treatments are not.

So by keeping this money off-budget he can use it for what he originally intended it for.  Him having fun.  Keeping the money off the family budget prevents anyone from using those targeted funds for some other unintended purpose.  Preventing out of control spending growth on other less important things.  He is actually doing the family a favor by hiding this money.  Or so he rationalizes.  Because hiding it prevents his family from spending too much money.  For let’s face it if you have that additional money you’re going to budget it on something.  You may even commit to some long-term spending obligation.  Like buying a new Lincoln MKT.  Which will be a problem if the husband throws out his back doing all of those side jobs and goes on disability.

Another example of off-budget money is Social Security.  Specifically, the Social Security surplus.  Contrary to the government calling it a retirement investment it is not an investment.  The government collects Social Security tax revenue.  And pays Social Security benefits from that tax revenue.  What’s left over is the Social Security surplus.  (Until it becomes the Social Security deficit.)  And they put it into the Social Security Trust Fund.  Outside of the regular budget.  So they can’t spend it on other things.  And any budget negotiations won’t affect it.  For employers and employees pay into Social Security.  And this is the money we get back in benefits.  Those benefits are not budget items paid from all the other taxes the government collects.  That pay for things from defense spending to food stamps.  No.  Social Security taxes are dedicated for one thing.  Social Security benefits.  Which is why they moved it off-budget.

If the Deficit is Consistently Understated there will be no Money to Redeem the Securities in the Social Security Trust Fund

But that doesn’t stop the government from spending that money.  Just like so many unions have underfunded pension plans so, too, government can’t resist the allure of a great big pile of money.  Because it’s just sitting there.  Not being spent.  Something that just pains a politician to no end.  Unspent money.  But because it’s off-budget they just can’t spend it.  They have to borrow it first.  So the money goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.  They then remove the money from Social Security Trust Fund.  And leave behind an IOU.  Treasury securities.  Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

So even though that money is dedicated for Social Security benefits and is strictly hands-off for other spending the government spends it on other things.  And it works out pretty well for the government.  Not only do they get a little extra money to spend it helps conceal the extent of their other spending.  For this off-budget money decreases the budget deficit.  Caused by all of that on-budget spending.  That far exceeds their ability to pay for it.  To illustrate that see the following table.  This is a very simplified fictional federal budget.  We have tax receipts.  And federal outlays.  Broken down into two general categories.  Guns and butter.  That’s defense spending.  And everything else.  Note how if they leave the Social Security surplus alone (without) there is a deficit of 47%.  But if they borrow that money (with) it reduces the deficit to 10%.

Social Security Surplus Off-Budget

When they talk about the budget deficit it includes the Social Security surplus.  That money is dedicated for one thing.  Social Security benefits.  They’re not suppose to use it for anything else.  So they shouldn’t count this revenue in the budget that pays for everything else.  When they do they understate the true budget deficit.  Worse, the money in the Social Security Trust Fund does not earn a return on investment.  Like with a 401(k).  Yes, there are Treasury securities in the trust fund.  But a government that is consistently understating their true deficit will never have the money to redeem those securities.  So they will do the only thing they can.  Print money.  Which is what they mean by the full faith and credit of the United States.  Print money.  Causing inflation.  And raising prices.  Making that meager Social Security benefit buy less.  Not to mention that Social Security itself will soon be insolvent.  Thanks to the growth in all of that other spending.  That is growing so great that they continually need to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Social Security Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2013

Economics 101

The Employer has to Write the Check to pay the Full Amount of Social Security Taxes

Social Security taxes are one of the biggest expenses businesses have.  If you look at your paycheck you will see some withholding taxes.  Included in those taxes you will see Social Security.  Or FICA (which includes both Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes).  These are your contributions for your retirement.  But you don’t pay them.

The Social Security contribution is ostensibly split into two parts.  There’s the employee contribution (those taxes withheld from your paycheck).  And the employer’s matching contribution.  But the employer pays the whole thing.  Just like employers pay for unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, disability insurance, health insurance (for the most part, some employees contribute a portion these days), life insurance, paid vacation, paid holidays, paid sick days and pension contributions (for those who still pay pensions).  All of these benefit the employee, not the employer.  Yet the employer picks up the tab for these expenses.  And Social Security is no different.

Actually, there is one difference.  All of these employer-paid expenses reduce the employer’s taxable income.  Except one.  The employee’s Social Security contribution.  The employer has to write the check to pay the full amount of these taxes.  Paying the full amount (both employer’s and employee’s contribution) reduces the amount of cash they have on hand to pay their other bills.  The full amount of these Social Security taxes influence hiring decisions.  And once they pay these taxes it’s income they’ve earned they no longer have.  But they still pay income taxes on it.  Despite the employee paying income taxes on this same income.

One of the Largest Expenses a Business has is Social Security Taxes

So the employee does not pay Social Security taxes.  It’s just another on a long list of expenses an employer has to pay.  That said the employee’s contribution does reduce his or her net pay.  When President Obama cut the employee’s Social Security tax rate 2% the employee’s net pay increased.  While the employer matching portion remained at the same rate.  Yet the check the employer wrote for Social Security taxes reflected this 2% reduction.  Because the employer pays all of these payroll taxes whether it’s unemployment, workers’ compensation or Social Security.  The following chart summarizes sample labor costs.  Both at the Obama tax cut.  And after it expired.  For an employee with a gross annual pay of $66,360 (for 47.4 weeks of work plus 4.6 weeks paid time off).

Note the 2nd largest cost after health care is Social Security.  Both the employer’s and employee’s portion add up to $9,027 (both at 6.2%).  Which is a lot of money.  If an employer has 15 employees that Social Security check they have to write totals $135,408.  Half of which does NOT reduce an employer’s taxable income.  Assuming an effective tax rate of 26% (for a small business owner filing as a subchapter S or an LLC where their business earnings flow through to their personal tax returns) that’s an additional $17,603.04 ($4,514 X 15 X 26%) of taxes the employer has to pay on income that they receive no benefit from.

Under the Obama tax cut this employee had $1,456 less withheld from his or her paycheck.  Or $52 less a week.  Or $5.60 less a workday.  Almost enough to pay for lunch.  Or enough to make you stop going out to lunch.  For the 15 employees that’s $780 pulled out of the local economy each week.  For a city with 500,000 workers that’s $26,000,000 pulled out of the city economy each week.  That’s a lot of economic activity.  That can provide a lot of jobs.  So why let the Obama tax cut expire when they have such a positive effect on the economy?

Social Security is Going Bankrupt thanks to an Aging Population

Because Social Security is going bankrupt.  And the solvency of Social Security isn’t helped when you cut the only funding mechanism for it.  The Social Security tax.  That 2% reduction in the tax rate cost the retirees some $176 billion each year.  That’s why they let the Obama tax cut expire.  $176 billion is a lot of money for a program going bankrupt.  And it’s a lot of money for a government that runs a deficit.  Which is the real reason why they wanted to let the Obama tax cut expire.

When the government needs to pay for their deficit spending the Social Security Trust Fund is just too tempting to pass up.  All those payroll taxes flowing into the Social Security Trust Fund.  Just sitting there.  Not being spent.  It’s just too much for a politician to resist.  So they raid the Trust Fund. They take that cash and spend it.  Leaving behind a bunch of IOUs.  Treasury bonds.  The kind that can’t be bought or sold.  Non-negotiable.  Which means the only way to redeem these bonds (and to repay the Social Security Trust Fund) is by raising taxes, further borrowing or reducing benefits.  Such as raising the age when you can start collecting Social Security benefits.  All of which we’ve used to try to forestall the inevitably bankruptcy of Social Security.

So Social Security is a very complex thing.  Social Security taxes are a tremendous cost burden on businesses.  And they pull a lot of spending money out of the economy.  Reducing economic activity.  Yet as much money as they pull out of the economy it’s not enough.  Social Security is still going bankrupt.  Thanks to an aging population (the number of beneficiaries is growing at a greater rate than those entering the workforce to pay for these benefits).  And even though the rate of money flowing into the Social Security Trust Fund is falling it’s still large enough for politicians to raid to pay for other out of control spending obligations.  Ensuring that Social Security will go bankrupt no matter what tax rates are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AARP’s Endorsement of Obamacare puts pressure on Social Security Benefits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 29th, 2012

Week in Review

AARP endorsed and helped pass Obamacare into law.  In exchange for an exemption from the very law they supported so they can sell their “Medigap” insurance policies easier than their competitor Medicare Advantage could sell theirs (see AARP latest to receive Obamacare break by Matthew Boyle posted 5/19/2011 on The Daily Caller).  Good for AARP.  But not for the senior citizens they represent.  For Obamacare will lower the quality of US health care.  And increase health care costs.  Especially for seniors.  So whenever AARP starts quoting Ronald Reagan one should be suspect as they are no friend of Ronald Reagan.  For Ronald Reagan would not have approved of what AARP did to help pass Obamacare into law.  Even if he and Tip O’Neill worked together to pull Social Security back from the brink of insolvency (see Ronald Reagan’s 9 Wisest Words About Social Security by Alejandra Owens posted 12/19/2012 on AARP).

That legislation, negotiated by President Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill, focused on what was needed protect Social Security for the long term. Reagan understood that Social Security is a separately funded program unrelated to problems in the rest of the budget, and he clearly stated that: “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”

Indeed, today the Social Security trust funds hold $2.8 trillion in government bonds. These reserves have been built up with the contributions that workers and employers have paid into the system for the dedicated purpose of paying Social Security benefits. These funds are held in legally established trusts and cannot be used for any purpose other than paying benefits. According to the latest Trustees’ report, Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033, and roughly 75 percent of benefits beyond that time.

The Social Security Trust Fund?  There’s no trust fund.  The government raided it long ago and replaced it with IOUs.  Government bonds.  Current Social Security taxes go to pay for current benefits.  There is no pile of cash earning interest anywhere.  No personalized savings accounts for individual Social Security contributors.  If there were then there would be no Social Security crisis.  No, that money is gone.  Spent by the government to fund their current spending obligations.  Which are so great that even by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund they still can’t find enough cash to prevent a deficit.

The government spends our Social Security contributions for every other purpose they want to other than paying our benefits.  They just launder the money first through the Treasury Department.  Exchange IOUs (i.e., government bonds) for that cash.  Then they go and spend that cash.  And when it comes time to redeem those government bonds they’ll probably just print money.  Inflating the money supply.  And depreciate the dollar.  Making it ever harder for a senior to live on their retirement savings.  And because of what AARP did to help pass Obamacare into law there will even be less money available for Social Security benefits.  Requiring more printing of money.  And more devaluing of the dollar.  Making life a living hell for the retirees they supposedly represent.  At least according to that article in The Daily Caller.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democrats Prove there is no such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 25th, 2011

Week in Review

So much for that Social Security trust fund (see The GOP’s payroll tax debacle by Charles Krauthammer posted 12/22/2011 on The Washington Post).

This is a $121 billion annual drain on the Treasury that makes a mockery of the Democrats’ reverence for the Social Security trust fund and its inviolability. Obama’s OMB director took Social Security completely off the table in debt-reduction talks under the pretense that Social Security is self-financing. This is pure fiction, because the Treasury supplies whatever shortfalls Social Security faces. But now, with the payroll tax holiday, the administration openly demonstrates bad faith — conceding with its actions that the payroll tax is, after all, interchangeable with other revenue and never actually sequestered to ensure future payments to retirees.

This is the real reason why the Democrats are so steadfast against privatizing Social Security.  They want that money.  Our contributions to our retirement.  And if we privatize it they can’t spend it.  And if we privatize and die our heirs get our unspent retirement money.  The government doesn’t get to keep it.

The Democrats also love Social Security to scare old people with.  By saying the Republicans want to take it away.  And yet here they are.  The only funding mechanism for Social Security, those payroll taxes, is going on holiday.  The Democrats are defunding Social Security for two months.  Now that means one of two things.  They don’t care about the money being there for our seniors.  Or this 2 month holiday doesn’t amount to much money to either the Social Security trust fund.  Or the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Obama uses a Joint Session of Congress for a 2012 Campaign Speech on Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2011

The Obama Jobs Speech was the Same Old Same Old with the Angry turned up to Eleven

The big speech was last night.  President Obama‘s Jobs speech.  After waiting with bated breath.  For him to come back from vacation.  On Martha’s Vineyard.  Where no one wants for a job.  Or anything.

What you thought of it depends on your party affiliation.  If you’re a Big Government liberal Democrat that wants to stick it to the rich, I’m sure you liked it.  If you were looking for substance, I’m sure you were disappointed.  It was just the same old same old.  With the angry turned up to eleven.

Here are some selections from the transcript with commentary (see Obama jobs speech transcript: Full text (as delivered) posted 9/8/2011 on Politico).

These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share — where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in a while. If you did the right thing, you could make it. Anybody could make it in America.

For decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the decks too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington has not always put their interests first.

Yeah, it used to be like that.  Until greed set in.  Government greed.  Their insatiable want of private sector wealth.  And power over our lives.  High taxes.  And punishing regulations.  These have hurt American businesses that once provided those fair shakes.  It’s President Obama and his party that have been making this a business unfriendly nation.  Giving American businesses an unpleasant choice who struggle to compete.  Either close.  Or conduct business in a country that lets them compete.

Just look at the effect of Obamacare.  All hiring is frozen.  And those who can get Obamacare waivers are.  The communist Chinese don’t have these problems.

The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.

He says as he scolds the American people.  And our Republican representatives.  Yelling at us.  Scowling at us.  Fed up with us.  Because he is not getting his way.

Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers.

Absolutely right.  And the best thing Washington can to is to stop helping.  Their tax and regulatory policies are smothering economic growth.  You want to help?  Then get out of the way.  And let business do what business does best.  Grow.  And create jobs.  To meet demand.  That the market is demanding.  Not building what the government thinks is best.

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for.

That urgent is it?  Urgent.  But not so urgent to cancel your luxurious vacation on the exclusive Martha’s Vineyard?  Where the rich and famous vacation to get away from people like us.  You know, if it could wait until after Martha’s Vineyard, it can’t be that important.

Democrats and Republicans support everything in this plan?  If so why isn’t this already law?  If not important before, why is it now?  Some two and a half years into your presidency?  And some two and a half years after applying your laser-like focus on job creation?

It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed.

Jobs for teachers?  There’s nothing stimulative about that.  They don’t hire workers.  And the kids they teach aren’t going to hire any workers for a very long time.  This is just more money for teachers’ unions.  Which will be funneled back to the Democrat Party via union dues.

We pay teachers with tax dollars.  Paid by the taxpayers.  This is money the government transfers from the private sector economy to the public sector teachers.  So before teachers can stimulate with this money the private sector has to lose it first.  They take a large sum of money from the private sector.  And give it to the teachers.  Less administration costs to make this all happen.  To stimulate the private sector economy.  Which means the teachers spend less money than the private sector would have if they were able to keep their money.  This is a net loss of economic activity.  And is not stimulative.

Teachers are like government.  They provide an important service.  But they are taxpayer financed.  And like anything taxpayer financed, they are a drag on the economy.

More shovel-ready construction projects?  You told us yourself there is no such thing as a shovel-ready project.  This won’t be stimulative either.  Construction projects just don’t happen overnight.  Even if you get rid of all the regulatory red tape.  Projects take months to engineer.  If you cut that short there will be cost overruns to correct all the things missed in the engineering process.  Then there’s the asbestos abatement study.  Lead abatement.  Environmental impact studies.  At best these will start hiring in time for the 2012 election campaign.  Which no doubt is the goal.

It will provide — it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. (Applause.) It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and if they hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. (Applause.)

If tax breaks are good for businesses then just cut tax rates.  A tax rate cut is more stimulative than a onetime tax credit.  A tax credit does not instill business confidence.  Because hiring a new employee is far more costly than any onetime tax credit.  Especially with Obamacare bearing down on small businesses.  It’s these permanent costs of current tax and regulatory policies.  These are what are keeping business skittish about expanding and hiring.  And a onetime tax credit won’t change that.  A repeal of Obamacare would probably spark some business growth.  But not a targeted tax credit.

Pass this jobs bill — pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages.

Wishful thinking.  Whoever came up with this is an economic simpleton.  He might as well have asked everyone to voluntary pay more for their groceries.  So the stores will hire more people with all that additional profit.  Employees are another cost of doing business.  Voluntarily increasing these costs above the market cost will only make these businesses less competitive in the market place.  Threatening their business.  And all the jobs they currently provide.

It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. (Applause.)

Yes, payroll tax cuts are good.  They reduce the cost of doing business.  And let employees keep more of their earnings.  So cutting Social Security and Medicare taxes will help.  But this will only set up higher taxes down the road.  Because these programs are going broke.  Businesses understand this.  They know it will only be temporary.  And illusionary.  For they will pay more in the future.  So they aren’t going to hire more now.

Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? (Applause.)

No.  It didn’t.  We took over the title of economic superpower from the British before the federal highway bill.  And private industry built the railroads.  And robber barons.  Sure, government helped.  But it didn’t lead the way.

China?  Really?  Why is China building so much infrastructure?  Because they have cheap labor.  They couldn’t do what they’re doing if their labor costs were the same as ours.  And that high-speed rail system?  They’re now questioning quality and safety.

And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating.

According to my calendar it’s September.  And I’m pretty sure it’s September throughout the country.  Which means what?  That’s right.  The kids just went back to school.  Which means the next round of school renovation projects will take place starting next June.  When the kids get out of school.  Not very stimulative if you ask me.  Unless you just want a lot of people working on these school renovations during the 2012 election campaign.

And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles.

Just like you promised your $800 billion stimulus wouldn’t contain any pork or earmarks?  When it was mostly pork and earmarks?  Fool us once shame on you.  Fool us twice shame on us.

And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy. (Applause.)

Great.  Nothing guarantees to speed things up like making it go through a new government bureaucracy.  Which can better send money to friends of the administration.  Just like that $800 billion stimulus.

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job.

Let’s crunch some numbers.  Say you hire someone.  Pay them $30,000.  Your half of Social Security and Medicare taxes come to $2,295 for the year.  Now factor in your other costs.  State and federal unemployment insurance.  Workers’ compensation insurance.  Health care.  Etc.  Not to mention their salary.  It adds up to a lot of money.  Far more than that $4,000 tax credit.  For hiring someone they don’t need to support their current level of business.  And you know what?  A smart business owner isn’t going to do this.

The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. (Applause.) If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy.

The government has to take that money out of the private sector economy first.  Before it can pay unemployment benefits.  Someone is still spending that money.  Just a different someone.  By the time you add in the cost of administering those benefits, there is a net loss in economic activity. 

Unemployment benefits help the unemployed while they look for another job.  They don’t stimulate the economy.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. (Applause.)

Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in real spending cuts.  Not cuts in the out-years that will disappear in the next budget deal.  Real cuts.  If not they said they would downgrade the U.S. sovereign debt rating.  They couldn’t do it.  The best they could do was a $1 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years.  And by golly if S&P didn’t downgrade our credit rating.

And the special commission is to find another half trillion in spending cuts?  On top of the $1.5 trillion they were already looking for?  That Congress was unable to find?  And now they have to find $2 trillion?  Yeah, like that’s going to happen.  That’s a plan with but one goal.  Failure. 

With this kind of spending, a deficit reduction plan can only mean one thing.  More taxes.  Just what the economy needs.  Not.

While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix. (Laughter.) We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake and where everybody pays their fair share.

An executive secretary probably earns something north of $60,000 a year.  That puts her in a top marginal tax bracket of 25%.  Crunching the numbers and this executive secretary will pay $11,125 in federal taxes.  Now let’s assume Warren Buffet has a half billion dollars in investments that pay a return of 8%.  That’s a capital gain of about $40 million.  Taxed at a paltry 15% capital gains tax that’s a measly $6 million in federal taxes.  Funny.  His secretary has a higher tax rate.  But Buffet pays approximately 53,833% more in tax dollars.  I don’t know how you can say one person paying $40 million in taxes isn’t paying his fair share.

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? (Applause.) Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. (Laughter.)

This is nothing but political grandstanding and class warfare.  And rather Orwellian.  In Nineteen Eighty Four, they just changed the meaning of words to control the people.  Such as slavery is freedom.  But changing the meaning of words doesn’t change what slavery is.  It’s still slavery.  No matter what you call it.  And political grandstanding and class warfare is political grandstanding and class warfare.  Even if you say it isn’t.

Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -– while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition.

America can’t compete with China because Chinese labor is cheaper.  So to make American products more competitive the president wants to subsidize our high cost of labor.  With American tax dollars.  Spread the higher cost of U.S. goods throughout the American economy.  Leaving everyone with less money for their own personal needs.  So we can keep Big Union working.  And supporting the Democrat Party.  Which will only increase government spending.  Our deficit.  And our debt.

To subsidize Big Labor they’ll have to pill that money out of the private sector economy first.  So you subtract X from the private sector economy.  And give X to Big Union.  Less an administration fee, of course.  Meaning that there will be a net loss of economic activity.

If we provide the right incentives, the right support — and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules — we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that we sell all around the world.

The free market doesn’t need government incentives and support.  They did fine and dandy in the old days without any government help.  And making our trading partners play by the rules?  If you could do that they would be playing by the rules already.  There’s nothing you can do to make China stop undervaluing the yuan.  Unless you want to throw up protective tariffs on Chinese goods.  Of course they’ll retaliate.  Which will only make everything more expensive for the American consumer.  Besides, we already tried this.  Just before the Great Depression.

You really want to talk about the government picking winners and losers (i.e., incentives and support)?  Really?  After the Solyndra bankruptcy?  And the FBI raid on their executive homes?

Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I’ll work with you, with Congress, to root it out. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that do put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. (Applause.) That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations.

Didn’t Al Gore already reinvent government?  To root out wasteful spending and regulations?  Yeah, he did.  Or tried.  Turns out that’s a lot easier said than done.  Especially when you don’t really mean it.  I mean, come on, the Left lives and dies for these costly regulations.  They’re not just going to sit idly by and let them get repealed.  Not when they fund Democrat candidates in elections.

But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.

Really?  So you’re not going to let anyone do what you did?  Like Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  When you used the worst recession since the Great Depression to pass your stimulus?

Basic protections are one thing.  But your regulatory zeal has shut down this economy.  Just ask the Gulf oil workers.  If you can find any.  Because they aren’t working on rigs in the Gulf anymore.  Thanks to you.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad — (applause) — launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

The seeds of the first transcontinental railroad were sowed back in the 1830s.  Lincoln became president in 1861.  The NAS was established by an Act of Congress.  Land grant colleges came into being in with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890.  First introduced in 1857.  Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.  But he did not create these other acts of Congress.  Congress did. 

And the transcontinental railroad?  That was Congress, too.  And one of the most corrupt Congresses in history.  The incentives and support Congress gave encouraged them to build track on ice.  Zigzag to cover as much land as possible to claim the mineral rights beneath. And when east and west finally met, they kept building track.  Parallel to each other.  To keep collecting money for track mileage laid.  And the cost overruns made a lot of Congressmen wealthy.  No, this railroad was not America’s finest hour.

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?

The government Internet (DARPA) was nothing more than file sharing and email for scientists.  If private enterprise and entrepreneurs didn’t step in that’s what the Internet would still be. 

The computer chip?  Funny. I thought that was Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor.  Which was ultimately based on the transistor.  Invented in 1947 by John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley of Bell Labs.  Who replaced vacuum tubes with semiconductors everywhere.  Except in high-end audio amplifiers.

What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? (Applause.) How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

Actually they’d probably be a lot better off.  As far as a return on investment, Social Security is one of the worst retirement investments out there.  Why?  Because it’s not an investment.  Your money goes into the Social Security trust fund.  Where it ‘waits’ for your retirement.  But before you do, the government takes that money and spends it.  Leaving an IOU in the trust fund.  This is no IRA.  No 401(k).  No mutual fund.  It’s not even a savings bond.  In fact, if you die before you collect, all that money you paid in is kept by the government.  It doesn’t go to your heirs with the rest of your estate.  Like an IRA, a 401(k) or a mutual fund would.

But Social Security has been a real success.  For the government.  Because it has made generations of people dependent on government in their retirement.  Who live in fear of losing their benefits.  And will do anything to keep those benefits coming.  Even if it means screwing their own children.  And their grandchildren.  They’re so frightened by the Democrats that they will vote Democrat.  No matter how much the Democrats steal from future generations.

I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose.

That’s right.  You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  And they will milk this for all it’s worth.  Stimulus.  Bailing out the UAW pension funds (i.e., the auto bailout).  Financial reform.  Obamacare.  Everything they’ve always wanted.  But could never get through the normal legislative process.

The Problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian who wants to Grow the Government

Once again the professor scolds those who don’t agree with him.  And offers more of the same.  Which has already failed to reverse the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it’s not going to work this time.  How do we know this?  Because if this stuff worked it would have worked the first time.

And it would be nice to see the plan before our representatives pass the plan.  For as CBO said before, you just can’t score a speech.  We need to see the numbers.  And the leaps of faith.  But I guess it’s hard to quantify soaring rhetoric.  Especially when you’re offering the same thing.  That you’re trying to make sound different this time.

The problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian.  With one slight difference.  Keynesian stimulus is supposed to be temporary.  Whereas Obama’s stimulus gets added into the baseline budget.  Making his stimulus spending permanent.  His number one goal isn’t growing the economy.  It’s growing the government.  That’s why his polices don’t help the economy.  But they sure have grown the government.  And in Obama’s book that’s mission accomplished. 

But he sure would like a second term to continue the fun.  But I just don’t see that happening.  For I can’t see how he can fool that many people into believing that they’re better off after four years of his policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries