| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| $45 trillion gap seen in US benefits |
| 2007-12-18 |
| The government is promising $45 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare and other benefit programs. $45T by when? Will it be paid down, or continue to grow? That is the gap between the promises the government has made in benefits and the projected revenue stream for these programs over the next 75 years, the Bush administration estimated Monday. The $45.1 trillion shortfall has increased by nearly $1 trillion in just one year, according to the administration's "Financial Report of the United States Government" for 2006. And, it's up 67.8 percent in just the past four years. In 2003, the shortfall between promised benefits and revenue sources over a 75-year period was put at $26.9 trillion. The shortfall includes Social Security and Medicare in addition to Railroad Retirement and the Black Lung program. I wonder if we're going to see a marked decrease over the next few years in the Dems reminding everyone that it was them that invented Social Security. When the gap in funding social insurance programs is added to other government commitments, the total shortfall as of Sept. 30 represented $53 trillion, up more than $2 trillion in just a year, the report said. Osama and Zawahiri are so proud of you. Of course they're pretty upset that they went to all the trouble of starting WW III when all they would have had to do was wait another few months for you to take yourselves out. Oh well. Same end result. "Our government has Members of Congress said the increase in the unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare underscored the critical urgency to do something in light of the looming retirement in coming years of 78 million baby boomers. Not bad for a bunch of guys who need a bench vice to do their testicular cancer checks. "The longer we delay action on the issue of entitlement reform, the more difficult the solution will become," said Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Thanks for the tip, genius. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., said the new report emphasized the need to enact legislation he is supporting that would create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations on overhauling benefit programs and then submit those recommendations to an up-or-down vote in Congress. It'll cost you about $1.5T/year to yak about it. Maybe you could get free catering to the lunch meetings because it's fairly important and might be worth the money. "If we don't take action now, it threatens to destroy our social safety net and ruin our economic prosperity," Cooper said in a statement. Didn't W say something like that about four years ago? Perhaps these idiots think the people have forgotten already. That only cost them $6T to figure that out. It only took me about two seconds to figure it out at the time. I guess I should be King. I'd say "Off with their heads!", but it wouldn't make any difference because they aren't using them anyway. The new report said that the federal budget deficit would have been 69 percent higher than the $162.8 billion reported two months ago if the government had used the same accounting methods as private companies. Under the accrual method of accounting, the deficit would have totaled $275.5 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. That's OK, at $1.5T/year, the $162B over two months figure is actually smaller making it the lesser of your worries. Oh, nevermind. I can guess right now which problem will sieze your focus. Under the accrual method of accounting, expenses are recorded when they are incurred rather than when they are paid. That raises the costs for liabilities such as pensions and health insurance. The new report was released by the Treasury Department and the president's Office of Management and Budget. The $275.5 billion deficit under the accrual method of accounting was still down by 38.7 percent from the deficit under this accounting method the previous year, when it totaled $449.5 billion. The deficit on a cash-flow basis of $162.8 billion represented the lowest imbalance in five years. The administration noted the decline in the deficit under both measurements. "The 2.6 trillion in record-breaking revenues that flowed into the Treasury this year reflect a healthy economy," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement accompanying the new report. Yeah. Don't tell the Dems, though. Waste of time. You would do better to tell them "Method A results in more revenues and therefore more pork than Method B." Just make sure you don't tell them that Method A is the result of lower taxes and they choose properly. Note that I did not say spend properly. But officials warned that something must be done to address the significant shortfall in the government's largest benefit programs for Social Security and Medicare. You act like you just discovered something that nobody knows about. "Reducing the deficit in the short-term will put us in a better position for dealing with the longer-term entitlement issue, which can only be characterized as an oncoming fiscal train wreck," said OMB Director Jim Nussle. I would never have guessed. Congress ordered the government a decade ago to start issuing annual reports using the accrual method of accounting in an effort to show the finances in a way that was comparable with the private sector. The law of averages says they'll end making the right decision now and then. Too bad it has to be by mistake. As it has for every report, the GAO, Congress' auditing arm, said it could not sign off on the books because of problems at various agencies, most notably the Defense Department. Besides, they'll be dead when it starts to be a real problem, anyway. Screw the children, it'll give them something to do when they grow up. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #13 Social security taxes are the largest tax 70% of Americans pay. All workers pay 15.3% (including the employer portion) on the first $100,000 or so. Once that is figured in, those in the $80-100K pay a larger percentage of their income than the highest income tax brackets. Especially when considering property taxes and long term capital gains taxes (15%) that make up much of the income of the rich. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-12-18 15:33 |
| #12 Procopius2k, your data is for Federal Income Tax. That doesn't fund the entitlements, which come from Social Security taxes and Medicare/Medicaid taxes. But I wish more people were aware of the data you referenced. Note that, in contradiction to common knowledge and the harping of the MSM and other lib elites, the lower 50%'s share of the income tax burden is nearly 25% lower in 2005 than in 1999. It won't be long before the majority of the voters pay no income tax whatsoever. Now we hear calls for the 'rich' to assume an increased share of the entitlements. In other words, make the entitlements progressive, also. |
| Posted by: KBK 2007-12-18 15:17 |
| #11 The government is promising $45 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare and other benefit programs. So? They'll do what they've always done, print more money, and lie.(Of course) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-12-18 15:00 |
| #10 Make SS opt-outable. See how many think the state is a better investor than they are... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-18 14:37 |
| #9 I'm feel dirty - but I still take the benefit. Look up hypocrite definition #2 in Webster's - you'll find me. GORT, I don't mind donating a bit to help you regain your balance after a difficult time. But feel free to take your guilt and donate to some of the funds for the troops, perhaps in your beloved wife's name. Me, I don't mind paying a bit more than my fair share in taxes, given that it's going to support my parents and in-laws in their old age, and Broadhead6, Besoeker and almost enough others in ways I consider critically important. Not to mention those of you who sacrificed your health and comfort to keep us all safe in the past. As for the pork, there always was and always will be that; the question is how to keep it from overly parasiting what's needful, and given the currently reducing deficit, I'm not going to worry overmuch. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-18 14:35 |
| #8 I'd hate to see what they would do to the billionaires who bellyache about paying their fair share. Right Danielle. Here's the data from 2005 Income - Percentage of the total Tax Paid Top 1% - 39.38% Top 5% - 59.67% Top 10% - 70.30% Top 25% - 85.99% Top 50% - 96.93% Bottom 50% - 3.07% http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Those generating the top incomes are the ones who are carrying everyone else on entitlement gravy train. While its fun to point out individual cases of 'shirking' obligations, the truth is that the bulk of our national personal tax income is carried by a very few in the total population. Instead of demonizing these people, you'd better be trying to figure out how to make more. That's because everyone else wants someone else to pay for their 'entitlement'. A democracy only lasts till the people figure out they can vote themselves money. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-12-18 13:42 |
| #7 This is why populist suggestions to abolish the IRS or institute a flat tax is catching on and ending the billions paid to the UN and other foreign aid that seems to end up financing terrorism would also be the place to start budget cutting rather than entitlement programs. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2007-12-18 12:24 |
| #6 My elderly mother raised us on her own after dad left and never paid child support. She worked hard at any job she could get and they didn't offer any benefits, even paying cash without putting into SS. She has arthritis from overuse and other stress related illnesses. She also raised a few grandchildren to keep them out of the system and she is not alone, as millions of grandparents are raising kids today. Politicians turning granny out into the streets isn't very popular and I'd hate to see what they would do to the billionaires who bellyache about paying their fair share. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2007-12-18 12:19 |
| #5 No one bitched louder than me re SS. I was certain my wife and I'd never recover what we put in if/when we retired. I now receive survivor benefits for my minor kids due to my wife's passing. It's a pile of $$. I can easily make ends meet without it. Now, just like my great-grandparents and my grandparents, I will get far more than I put in. Do my kids deserve the benefit? Well, legally they are entitled to it. But deserve it - I don't know about that. I don't like the feel of it but I take the $$. Interesting - I don't bitch anymore. I'm feel dirty - but I still take the benefit. Look up hypocrite definition #2 in Webster's - you'll find me. |
| Posted by: GORT 2007-12-18 11:59 |
| #4 The monoline insurers do not. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-18 11:33 |
| #3 Meanwhile private sector insurance companies, (firms that do NOT have mandetory subscriberships) enjoy record profits and economic stability. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-12-18 10:59 |
| #2 Ponzi schemes always fail. Socialism is the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-18 10:44 |
| #1 Should have privatized it long ago. I'd rather invest it as I see fit then have uncle sugar give me 3% back on the dollar if I'm lucky. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-12-18 09:44 |