Paul Ryan "OMG"

[avonjax]

It's nice that a 43 year old RICH Lifelong politician wants to completely obliterate safeguards for the elderly. After Bush helped destroy the economy and put many seniors in danger of poverty, now another Republican wants to put the nail in the coffin of protecting seniors by GROSSLY altering a system that wouldn't need help if these same guys would stop raiding it. Remember these rich guys who run the place NEVER have to worry about healthcare or retirement. They will never be personally effected. Go read about the Ryan budget and you will be thankful if you are born before 1956. Because his proposal would put you on a voucher program that will only be adjusted for general inflation not healthcare inflation which is tremendously higher.  You will then be able to buy insurance from a private company. One I am sure will be deregulated up the you know what.
The plan is call "The Road to Prosperity."  (For the Rich.)
Economists are already assuring us the vouchers will be devastating for Seniors.
The ridiculous tax cuts and economically decimating wars are the reason we are in trouble not the poor and the elderly.

[mtraininjax]

The ridiculous tax cuts and economically decimating wars are the reason we are in trouble not the poor and the elderly.

We could continue to do nothing and watch the program eventually go away.....that is what we have been doing for many years, kicking the can down the road. At least with Ryan, and I don't agree 100% with him, he is putting some ideas on the table. People live longer than when the program was initially created. The 65 age was the median life expectancy at the time of creation, but with seniors now living past the century mark, that has hurt the program and here come the boomers.

We can stick our heads in the sand and all become ostriches or we can work on some solutions to keep the programs around for generations to come. I agree on the tax cuts, we've had them for 10 years, we need to end them, bite the bullet and restore some fiscal responsibility!

[ChriswUfGator]

Where was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?

If we'd spent a fraction of what we've spent in Iraq on replenishing the social security trust, there wouldn't be any problem to complain about. I'm sick of this falsely bifurcated debate, suck it up, issue more debt, and replenish the fund instead of invading some foreign country this time.

Really it's not that hard.

[mtraininjax]

Where was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?

Which Time? 1st Gulf war or 2nd Gulf war? 

[ben says]

Where was this view when it was time to spend trillions invading Iraq for no reason?

If we'd spent a fraction of what we've spent in Iraq on replenishing the social security trust, there wouldn't be any problem to complain about. I'm sick of this falsely bifurcated debate, suck it up, issue more debt, and replenish the fund instead of invading some foreign country this time.

Really it's not that hard.

+1

[ronchamblin]

Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines.  There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc.  The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.

The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop.  I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful.  None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.

Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning?  How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy.  Is all well in this country?  Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks?  Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country.  Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.     

[avonjax]

Please introduce me to the Seniors who have passed 100. There are a little over 70,000 I think. And they are probably in better health than we are if they made it that long. So I don't think they are the ones stressing the system. Not EVERY Senior puts a burden on Medicare.

[avonjax]

Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines.  There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc.  The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.

The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop.  I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful.  None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.

Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning?  How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy.  Is all well in this country?  Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks?  Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country.  Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.     

Beautifully stated!!!

[NotNow]

The SS Trust Fund is "replenished" though FICA taxes.  The same FICA taxes that we just had a huge debate over restoring a few months ago.  The can was kicked down the road by the Democrats and now their "tax cut" has hastened the date that the SS Trust Fund will not be able to pay at 100% of benefits.  (Of course, there is not really any money in the "trust fund", just IOU's.  That is why the current budget crisis will make refunding those "IOU's" an issue even before the date that the fund will run out of money.)

The only way to "replenish" the fund is to raise the FICA tax rate and/or reduce benefits. (And isolate the fund from the general fund.)  Now, you can blame President Johnson, Carter, Reagan, or either Bush...but SOMEONE better start DOING something or the SS system will not be paying full benefits or even paying at all sooner rather than later.   Like Ryan's plan or not, at least it is a legitimate proposal.  I have not heard any grown up debate or proposal from the other side yet.

By the way, it will come as no surprise that I like the Ryan pick.  More responsible politicians like him (from both parties) might actually save this country.

[ChriswUfGator]

Hogwash, they can (and ultimately will, after what will be a poisonous debate) just dump general revenue into the fund to top it up. They're not going to have a choice, the drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.

[mtraininjax]

Please introduce me to the Seniors who have passed 100. There are a little over 70,000 I think. And they are probably in better health than we are if they made it that long. So I don't think they are the ones stressing the system. Not EVERY Senior puts a burden on Medicare.

Please pick a program and stick to that argument, do you want to argue about Social Security or Medicare? There are many more ways to collect Medicare than SS, which is easiest when you reach a certain age, but there are people with back aches who collect Medicare, at much younger ages, another flaw in the system with the Disability afforded with Medicare.

SS was never designed to support people for 20 and 30+ years, let alone past 100, and as we advance in medicine, we will see people living far into their 100s, in my lifetime, I expect to live forever, so you better come up with a solution for the people like me who will bankrupt the system! 

the drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.

Agreed, FICA does not even cover the expenses, and it is going to get worse as Boomers retire and without enough Gen X, Y and Z employed, the government cannot kick this can down the road.

[NotNow]

Hogwash, they can (and ultimately will, after what will be a poisonous debate) just dump general revenue into the fund to top it up. They're not going to have a choice, the drawdown has gone on so long that FICA won't cover what's needed, they need a lump sum at this point. Why not just suck it up and get it over with already.

I assume you are familiar with the Constitutional gymnastics that occurred to initiate this "social insurance" program.  I would be interested in hearing your professional opinion of how general funds (as if there were any available) could be used to replenish the SS fund within the historical Constitutional limits.

[civil42806]

Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines.  There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc.  The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.

The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop.  I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful.  None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.

Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning?  How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy.  Is all well in this country?  Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks?  Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country.  Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.     

Why is it that people who talk like this are apparently folks that my 14 year old granddaughter could take in a bar fight.  Revolutions always eat there own just check out the jacobians

[NotNow]

I did a little research and I am wrong.  Apparently, Congress has made appropriation of general funds part of the tax cut bill that was passed.  I don't see anyone offering a Constitutional argument against this practice, so I stand corrected on that issue.  However, I stand by my statements on the seriousness of the financial problem as stated in the SS Trustees Report Summary below:

A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:
Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2012 Annual Reports.

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP. Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP. Thereafter, the primary factors will be population aging caused by increasing longevity and health care cost growth somewhat more rapid than GDP growth.

Social Security

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow rapidly from 11.3 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17.4 percent in 2035, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and the Trustees project these costs will increase gradually to 6.4 percent of GDP in 2035 before declining to about 6.1 percent of GDP by 2050 and then remaining at about that level.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.22 percent projected in last year's report. This is the largest actuarial deficit reported since prior to the 1983 Social Security amendments, and the largest single-year deterioration in the actuarial deficit since the 1994 Trustees Report. This deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost. The 0.44 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit and the three-year advance in the exhaustion date for the combined trust funds reflect many factors. The most significant factor is lower average real earnings levels over the next 75 years than were projected last year, principally due to: 1) a surge in energy prices in 2011 that lowered real earnings in 2011 and is expected to be sustained, and 2) slower assumed growth in average hours worked per week after the economy has recovered. An additional significant factor is the one-year advance of the valuation period from 2011-85 to 2012-86.

While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than ten years, through 2027.

However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.

Medicare

The Medicare HI Trust Fund faces depletion earlier than the combined Social Security Trust Funds, though not as soon as the Disability Insurance Trust Fund when separately considered. The projected HI Trust Fund's long-term actuarial imbalance is smaller than that of the combined Social Security Trust Funds under the assumptions employed in this report.

The Trustees project that Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow substantially from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, and will increase gradually thereafter to about 6.7 percent of GDP by 2086.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 1.35 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.79 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund again fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets are already below one year's projected expenditures and are expected to continue declining. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years, as it has since 2008. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, the same date projected in last year's report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 87 percent of HI costs. The Trustees project that the share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 67 percent in 2045, and then rise slowly until it reaches 69 percent in 2086. The HI 75-year actuarial imbalance amounts to 36 percent of tax receipts or 26 percent of program cost.

The worsening of HI long-term finances is principally due to the adoption of short-range assumptions and long-range cost projection methods recommended by the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Review Panel. Use of those methods increases the projected long-range annual growth rate for Medicare's costs by 0.3 percentage points. The new assumptions increased projected short-range costs, but those increases are about offset, temporarily, by a roughly 2 percent reduction in 2013-21 Medicare outlays required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The Trustees project that Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow rapidly from 2.0 percent of GDP in 2011 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2035, and then more slowly to 4.0 percent of GDP by 2086. General revenues will finance roughly three quarters of these costs, and premiums paid by beneficiaries almost all of the remaining quarter. SMI also receives a small amount of financing from special payments by States and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs.

Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Affordable Care Act" or ACA). Most of the ACA-related cost saving is attributable to a reduction in the annual payment updates for most Medicare services (other than physicians’ services and drugs) by total economy multifactor productivity growth, which the Trustees project will average 1.1 percent per year. The report notes that sustaining these payment reductions indefinitely will require unprecedented efficiency-enhancing innovations in health care payment and delivery systems that are by no means certain. In addition, the Trustees assume an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013 as required by current law, which is also highly uncertain.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenuesâ€"primarily general revenuesâ€"are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010.

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

By the Trustees:




Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee



Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee



Charles P. Blahous III,
Trustee

Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee



Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee



Robert D. Reischauer,
Trustee


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressman Ryan's proposal is STILL the only plan offered by either party.  Funding the projected shortfalls from general funds, especially with current and projected deficits, will be impossible.

[ChriswUfGator]

Personally, I think it's a living document, and we did what we had to do to avoid a potential revolution in the 1930s and early 40s. You can't just have half the country starving. Every time that happens, history shows us they don't go home and starve quietly, they revolt. There's a false sense of security with the military, they'll fire on civilians once or twice, but that only has the effect of polarizing the portion of the population that hadn't yet joined the revolution, snowballing things further. And by and large most soldiers won't go to war with members of their own society and race on home soil, regardless of what nationality we're talking about. Plenty of examples of all this happening all through history, and also lately, all over the world.

To answer what I know your question to be though, I guess this comes back to our old friend the general welfare clause, and you and I have hashed that out pretty thoroughly before. I suppose at the end of the day there is support for both of our viewpoints, it just depends on which founding father you want to quote and how literally you interpret their writings. The decision is what we want to do in the present, and living by a rigid literal interpretation of 300 year old document is probably not going to work out in the long-term. Those have been rather a flexible set of ideals from the beginning anyway, the founding fathers themselves didn't even practice their own preaching, the author of "all men created equal..." in the declaration of independence was a slave owner at the time he wrote it. If Hamilton's own 1st Bank of the United States was constitutional, then surely social security is.