posted on August 27, 2001 12:43:53 PM newThe reaming begins.
Feds May Be Forced to Tap Social Security Funds
By CURT ANDERSON
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Aug. 27) - President Bush's tax cut and the nation's economic downturn will force the government to take $9 billion out of Social Security this year to pay for other operations, breaking a bipartisan commitment in Congress, congressional analysts reported Monday.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, offering a more pessimistic view of the government's finances than the Bush administration did last week, estimating the total budget surplus for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 at $153 billion - down $122 billion from its May estimate.
CBO says Social Security will be tapped for $9 billion in fiscal 2001. After a small non-Social Security surplus of $2 billion in fiscal 2002, CBO projects the government will use $18 billion out of the retirement program in 2003 and $3 billion in 2004.
While the White House projected similar numbers, it forecast a non-Social Security surplus of $1 billion this year and next, just enough to permit Republicans and Democrats to say they've kept a promise not to use Social Security tax collections for other government programs.
The CBO report, scheduled for official release Tuesday, was obtained from congressional sources Monday by The Associated Press.
Diverting Social Security money has no practical impact on the program, although it prevents the government from paying down public debt as quickly as it otherwise would. But making the program exempt from such invasions has become a priority as both parties sought the mantle as its greatest protector.
The first year of the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut championed by Bush accounts for about two-thirds of the lowered fiscal 2001 surplus estimate, the CBO report says. A fourth of the reduction was attributed to the troubled economy, mainly in the form of lower tax revenues. The tax cut includes $40 billion in income tax refunds this year and deferring about $33 billion in business taxes into fiscal 2002.
CBO analysts say the economy should ``narrowly avoid recession and recover gradually next year,'' but the recovery is projected to be less robust than the 3.2 percent growth rate estimated by the White House Office of Management and Budget. CBO is forecasting 2.6 percent gross domestic product growth next year, slightly below private consensus estimates.
Over the next 10 years, CBO is forecasting a $3.4 trillion surplus counting Social Security, down from $5.6 trillion in its May forecast. Bush's tax cut and the associated changes in interest costs account for more than $1.7 trillion of the surplus reduction.
However, those numbers assume no additional spending by Congress, including items already promised by lawmakers, such as a Medicare prescription drug benefit, increases for defense and education and a new $74 billion farm bill.
The Bush administration last week forecast a surplus of $158 billion this year, $173 billion next year and $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Over the decade, the White House figured defense spending at $198 billion above the numbers used by CBO and Medicare spending $37 billion higher.
The White House used a Social Security accounting change and a few other assumptions to claim that Social Security would remain untouched this year; CBO did not use those same assumptions.
The president last week said the Social Security fund should not be tapped unless the nation was at war or in a recession and has said that Congress can avoid dipping into it by controlling spending. Yet many of the spending proposals that could force use of the retirement trust fund were made by Bush, not congressional Democrats.
Aside from the political fight, the main impact of the CBO forecast would be on repayment of public debt. CBO says its new estimate will delay maximum debt repayment by four years compared with its May forecast.
posted on August 27, 2001 12:49:40 PM newOuch!....so soon! But then, only a fool can trust a snake bushytail, why don't you take a very long hike...somewhere far away, and let a capable (Dem or Rep) politician try to straighten out your D... mess!
******** Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
posted on August 27, 2001 01:28:08 PM new
Like father, like son. How long into his dad's presidency was it before the no-new-taxes promise was broken? It sure would be nice to hear some good news coming from the White House, for a change.
posted on August 27, 2001 02:11:53 PM new
The chief question that I keep debating, in my mind and with a few friends, is whether or not Bush can possibly be so dumb as he appears. In every major, reputable poll that asked the American people whether or not they preferred a tax cut to reducing the debt, the majority always chose debt reduction. They wanted a tax cut only if the debt could be controlled. Everyone seemed to be agreed that the social security funds could not be raided as they had so often been in the past. All but the most excessively generous economic forecasts indicated that Bush's proposals for budget increases for education, defense, etc., would be unfundable. With an extended economic downturn revenues would fall drastically short. The realistic outcome has now reached fruition much sooner than anyone anticipated.
I can understand how an average citizen who is not much concerned with politics beyond noticing the passing rhetoric of the moment could have been hoodwinked by Bush's "voodoo economics" but is Bush himself so removed from economic reality, and/or dependent upon ideological financial advisors, that he could have pushed through his plan with such zealous certainty? Or on the other hand, did he and/or his advisors know that budget crises were inevitable and as part of a longer term strategy plan to use them in a propagandistic attempt to cut social programs and aid ideological and wealthy financal/corporate backers? Or perhaps a combination of both?
In any event, the shortfalls have come too soon to be anything but politically harmful, unless he is somehow able to shift or evade blame in the creation of public opinion.
posted on August 27, 2001 02:22:39 PM new
That's one of the funniest posts I've read in awhile Antiquary
P.S. james, I need a better laughing smilie. Can I "borrow" your nirvana smilie? I used it twice while you were installing your h/d and got a much better response with, than without it.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Aug 27, 2001 02:26 PM ]
posted on August 27, 2001 02:36:10 PM new
Hey Toke!
I think that any tax cuts at present were foolish, except perhaps for the lower income taxpayers, which may have a greater eventual effect on stimulating the economy, but then I'm only an armchair analyst.
posted on August 27, 2001 04:00:12 PM new
Is he still fishing???
George Bush is like a marionette, just a body with a hollow head, being controled by the Republican administration and the corporate interests that bought his election.
The rich will get richer and the poor will suffer. That is traditional Republican policy but the speed with which this is being done is awesome. As I read yesterday, social security money is headed to wall street. Today, cuts are on the table.
Unfair tax cuts to benefit the rich, raiding social security funds which will hurt the poor especially, leaving social programs without funds, promised education improvements without funds and unaffordable health care is unconscionable
...just so he can pay back his election financiers and keep his unscrupulous corporate buddies rich.
Now, all that we hear about is Condit which I think is just a diversion so that we don't know for a few days what new disasters are being perpetrated in the White House and the Pentagon.
posted on August 27, 2001 04:24:30 PM new"Now, all that we hear about is Condit which I think is just a diversion ..."
Was there ever any doubt, Helen? Certainly, the traditional thing to displace voter's attention from the job that the president's doing is to start a war. But because the Republican politicans made such a >>HUGE<< noise about Kosovo and Clinton and that it was all a dodge to cover up what was happening in Washington, the Republicans had to think up something else. The interesting part about that to me is that even though Republican poltiicans look down their noses at their voters and everyone else and insult them with comments like, "The public can't remember anything six months down the road!" the truth is that we DO remember everything! Remember that the next time Republican polticians make those derisive comments about their own constituants and the rest of Americans everywhere!
posted on August 27, 2001 04:24:55 PM new
"There's not going to be enough people in the system to take advantage of people like me."—On the coming Social Security crisis; Wilton, Conn.; June 9, 2000
posted on August 27, 2001 05:00:36 PM new
This comes as no surprise--I figured he'd manage to dip his fingers into SS pretty soon when he got that ridiculous "rebate" passed.
What's got me worried, is that the other thing I figured he'll do sooner or later is to get us into a war. Since wars tend to reenergize our economy, and Bush has managed to start screwing *that* up, it could be sooner rather than later...
posted on August 27, 2001 05:04:03 PM newBorillar:Bush is not an Honorable Man.
Yeah, but as long as he cleaves solely unto his wife, a vast number of people won't blink an eye. If his trouser snake gets loose, though, his ass is grass.
posted on August 27, 2001 05:05:25 PM newbunnicula...I too, am very concerned about it! This dude is so D...n xenophobic! Has has allienated so many countries in such a short time!
******** Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
posted on August 27, 2001 06:15:10 PM new
I believe that George Bush will be the most dishonorable President in American history but if he refrains from loving a woman, he will be able to convince the American People that he is just a good ole Texas boy doin' the best that he can.
posted on August 27, 2001 07:04:17 PM new
I think that it's High Noon for Bush and to stop talking about Texas as his home. At this new low point in his presidency, there are fewer and fewer Texans happy about him calling himself one of them.
"Mr. President - please step down!"
If Bush had any honor whatsoever, he would resign! He makes all Republicans look like LIARS. He is a shame to this country and it is time for him to step down and to elect a new leader.
Q. How can you tell when a Bush is lying?
A. Are his lips moving?
posted on August 27, 2001 09:26:35 PM new
The auctions I go to have a lot of Utah rednecks and also, or including, a lot of Republicans and Mormons too. The auctioneer hated Clinton's guts but voted for Gore because he felt Bush was a lightweight. Now he feels vindicated. AND, he won't be getting a tax "rebate" either, he says. He asked at the beginning of Sunday's auction how many in the audience had gotten their checks, and only three of us (I included) raised their hands. Then when he made a negative remark about Bush, there was a lot of agreement in the crowd of 200. This is a major change from even a year ago; I hope it means something for the next elections.
Pod people? Pod president? He's an empty suit with an empty skull, I think.
posted on August 28, 2001 08:28:57 AM new
Truth and Lies
"But the important point for now involves honor and credibility. Mr. Bush promised not to dip into the Social Security surplus; he has broken that promise. Critics told you that would happen; they have been completely vindicated. Mr. Bush told you it wouldn't; he lied."
posted on August 28, 2001 01:09:21 PM new
Helen, what I found of interest in that second link to the George Bush web site was the comment, "The government itself must not invest Social Security funds in the market." If the government is not going to be administering our funds and controlling what goes on, then that means that a private stock brokerage firm or group would be handling it. Don't you wish that YOU were the lucky individuals who get to play around with all that money and get all those commissions, fees, and whatever you can steal?
Steal? How could that happen?
Simple. Let's take the Federal Reserve for an example. Now, the EXACT dates I am not positive about, but I do recall the facts of the matter very well. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the government shall mint its own money and regulate its value. In the 1930's after the stock market crash of 1929, the Republicans pushed a bill through Congress creating the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve would be run by Chase-Manhattan Bank. The origonal deal was that Chase-Manhattan would mint the money and regulate its value for FREE as a patriotic duty. That got the bill passed through Congress and back then, the U.S. Supreme Court was asleep and did nothing about this direct and clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
After two years went by with Chase-Manhattan Bank a.k.a. the Federal Reserve administering its obligations just fine, the bank came back to Congress complaining that it was just too large a cost for them to bear and could the TAXPAYER PLEASE PAY FOR IT? Congress approved funding for the Federal Reserve.
Since federal funds were now being given to the Federal Reserve - a privately-owned bank, the U.S. Government decided to send in its own auditors to check things out. What they found was rampant corruption and embezzment in the millions of dollars range. Remember that back then, millions then is like BILLIONS today.
What was the result of that finding? Did those folks go to jail and were they forced to return the TAXPAYER MONEY? Nope! Congress turned around and passed a law that made the Federal Reserve EXEMPT from federal regulation -- including bookkeeping and auditing! [NOTE: This very same idea was later apllied to members of Congress around 1980 just after the FBI Sting operations and it was one fo the first things that the Ronald Reagan adminsitration did]
WOULD IT BE ANY DIFFERENT TODAY WITH INVESTING SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS IN WALLSTREET?
posted on August 28, 2001 01:41:08 PM newIn the 1930's after the stock market crash of 1929, the Republicans pushed a bill through Congress creating the Federal Reserve.
I believe this is incorrect.
In 1912, with the election of a Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, and a Democratic Senate, which gave the Democrats a majority in both Houses of Congress, the stage was set for passage of a comprehensive banking reform bill.
...it dramatically illustrates the two key responsibilities given to the Federal Reserve System 75 years ago: to serve as a lender-of-last-resort in times of crisis and to provide a national currency that would expand and contract as needed. Such was the primary vision of the framers of the Federal Reserve Act in the summer of 1913 as they planned the most radical banking reform in the country's history. Later that year, on Dec. 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson laid to rest years of political and practical debate when he signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.
bushytail, why don't you take a very long hike...somewhere far away, and let a capable (Dem or Rep) politician try to straighten out your D... mess!
