They are all Nero
Why?
As the debt and deficit explode, the real fear is that with interest rates on the rise the number one budget item will be servicing the debt. More than defense, more than Social Security, more than Medicare. Of course, debt being number one does not detract from the desperate need for reforms of the two headed hydra, Social Security and Medicare. Why?
The obligation to those two programs isn't factored into the debt. For years these programs took in more than they spent. While that money was allegedly put into a "Lock Box" somewhere in a building in West Virginia (no doubt named for Robert Byrd, former Democrat Senator and Klansman), what was really put into that lock box were special government securities for that purpose. The government then put the money into the general fund to offset the annual deficit (which was how they said they balanced the budget) or to make it not look as bad as it was. All the while things were great, money was rolling in, and no one cared about the future.
They were fiddling instead of putting the fire out.
I am no fan of W Bush, but he tried to do something about Social Security. No one else has, and no one will, until it is too late. He was burned trying to put out the fire, because certain Congressmen were handing him buckets of gasoline while he was tossing them on the fire. Medicare is a completely different issue. For years, Congress has had to pass the "doc fix" into their annual spending for it. Why? Because Medicare was structured with a payment schedule, part of that rationing that any government care program has. The payment schedule is such that doctors would not take Medicare patients, and would drop the ones they have without the fix. Here is the secret of Medicare:
Medicare patients are living longer, and have long since used more than they ever put in, on average. Medicare has become an entitlement. Seniors demand that their care is provided, and usually a simple knee replacement or similar procedure would go through all the money that they had ever put in. I am not advocating, by the way, that they be cut off, but my question is the same for all entitlements: What happens next?
Next? When there is no money for Medicare, or Social Security? People really do not get this. As we have seen with the spending for the past year, with a GOP controlled Congress, and a GOP president, this is a bipartisan problem. GOP wants their military spending and business bennies. Dems want their plantation revenue, known as entitlements that keep people dependent on government. And so the GOP cuts a deal with the Dems, where they forget all that fiscal stuff they campaigned on, in exchange for the Dems not fighting their military spending, and guess what? They pass trillions of dollars in deficit spending, and toast themselves. Better would have been to expose the Democrats by cutting (smartly) defense spending, and then have the Dems fight the budget by justifying entitlement spending in a de facto zero unemployment environment. They didn't.
All the while, interest rates creep up, and debt service increases. They are like kids with their daddy's loaded gun, not knowing what to do with it. Or rather, more like Russian roulette, knowing the result, but still playing because they don't know what else to do. Again, bipartisan.
The questions that every candidate should be asked are these:
What are YOUR proposals to solve the problem of Social Security? Vague answers are unacceptable. Now. It was estimated that for every day Social Security isn't fixed, the cost to fix it increases by 660 MILLION dollars. EVERY DAY!
What are you willing to do to fix it? This requires legislation that cannot pass in a partisan manner. It requires 60 votes in the Senate for something to get through. This question is especially important for Senatorial candidates. Are they willing to work for the good of the nation rather than good of themselves? Even if it makes them a one term candidate?
Are they willing to address the hydra of entitlement and military spending? We shouldn't be spending any where near the amount we are on DEFENSE, and we certainly shouldn't be keeping millions dependent on welfare. During the recession, they kept extending unemployment benefits, even knowing that the best way to get people to get a job was to cut them off. By the way, it is estimated that there are billions of dollars in fraud in Medicare and Social Security Disability. Actually at least a hundred billion in Medicare fraud alone. They know this, and do nothing to stop it. What happens when the money is no longer available?
Are they willing to address the massive government structure the Federal government has become? The problem with so many laws and regulations is that there is a need for so many judges to adjudicate them. The government needs to be stripped down. NOW, while there is money to do something besides the debt and entitlements.
Now, a question for each party's Senatorial Candidates:
GOP. When judges are nominated, are you willing to go against your party if the judge may lean too much on supporting surveillance of Americans domestically and abroad? I would love for the Kavanaugh hearings to have been about that. What about relying too much on unelected bureaucrats' decision making when it comes to regulation?
Democrats. Are you willing to rate a judge not on willingness to support your religion (Roe vs Wade) but on whether the judge is qualified? Republicans overwhelming supported your pre-fillibuster nominees of Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and Breyer. It wasn't until you played dirty that nominees eeked through the Senate. What did you think of the mob tactics your party used to smear a judge?
If you aren't asking questions, they aren't going on the record. I guarantee that they don't want to go on the record about serious entitlement reform, but if they don't, we are all screwed. Yes, all of us, because entitlements are those goodies that we think we deserve or earn, guess what? Congress can say nope with a vote. You DON'T have a Social Security account holding what you paid in. Congress can change benefits at any time. And as servicing the debt increases, as does how much Social Security takes out of the general fund (they have been doing that for several years, cashing in those securities) something will have to give. If you are a high earner, or maybe have a pension, you are the early target. They will make an income scale. The more you earn, the less you receive. The same will go for Medicare too. But that is a whole issue in and of itself.
And then what? By then, we will all be dead, is the Keynesian answer. But that doesn't help your kids or grand kids, does it?
As the debt and deficit explode, the real fear is that with interest rates on the rise the number one budget item will be servicing the debt. More than defense, more than Social Security, more than Medicare. Of course, debt being number one does not detract from the desperate need for reforms of the two headed hydra, Social Security and Medicare. Why?
The obligation to those two programs isn't factored into the debt. For years these programs took in more than they spent. While that money was allegedly put into a "Lock Box" somewhere in a building in West Virginia (no doubt named for Robert Byrd, former Democrat Senator and Klansman), what was really put into that lock box were special government securities for that purpose. The government then put the money into the general fund to offset the annual deficit (which was how they said they balanced the budget) or to make it not look as bad as it was. All the while things were great, money was rolling in, and no one cared about the future.
They were fiddling instead of putting the fire out.
I am no fan of W Bush, but he tried to do something about Social Security. No one else has, and no one will, until it is too late. He was burned trying to put out the fire, because certain Congressmen were handing him buckets of gasoline while he was tossing them on the fire. Medicare is a completely different issue. For years, Congress has had to pass the "doc fix" into their annual spending for it. Why? Because Medicare was structured with a payment schedule, part of that rationing that any government care program has. The payment schedule is such that doctors would not take Medicare patients, and would drop the ones they have without the fix. Here is the secret of Medicare:
Medicare patients are living longer, and have long since used more than they ever put in, on average. Medicare has become an entitlement. Seniors demand that their care is provided, and usually a simple knee replacement or similar procedure would go through all the money that they had ever put in. I am not advocating, by the way, that they be cut off, but my question is the same for all entitlements: What happens next?
Next? When there is no money for Medicare, or Social Security? People really do not get this. As we have seen with the spending for the past year, with a GOP controlled Congress, and a GOP president, this is a bipartisan problem. GOP wants their military spending and business bennies. Dems want their plantation revenue, known as entitlements that keep people dependent on government. And so the GOP cuts a deal with the Dems, where they forget all that fiscal stuff they campaigned on, in exchange for the Dems not fighting their military spending, and guess what? They pass trillions of dollars in deficit spending, and toast themselves. Better would have been to expose the Democrats by cutting (smartly) defense spending, and then have the Dems fight the budget by justifying entitlement spending in a de facto zero unemployment environment. They didn't.
All the while, interest rates creep up, and debt service increases. They are like kids with their daddy's loaded gun, not knowing what to do with it. Or rather, more like Russian roulette, knowing the result, but still playing because they don't know what else to do. Again, bipartisan.
The questions that every candidate should be asked are these:
What are YOUR proposals to solve the problem of Social Security? Vague answers are unacceptable. Now. It was estimated that for every day Social Security isn't fixed, the cost to fix it increases by 660 MILLION dollars. EVERY DAY!
What are you willing to do to fix it? This requires legislation that cannot pass in a partisan manner. It requires 60 votes in the Senate for something to get through. This question is especially important for Senatorial candidates. Are they willing to work for the good of the nation rather than good of themselves? Even if it makes them a one term candidate?
Are they willing to address the hydra of entitlement and military spending? We shouldn't be spending any where near the amount we are on DEFENSE, and we certainly shouldn't be keeping millions dependent on welfare. During the recession, they kept extending unemployment benefits, even knowing that the best way to get people to get a job was to cut them off. By the way, it is estimated that there are billions of dollars in fraud in Medicare and Social Security Disability. Actually at least a hundred billion in Medicare fraud alone. They know this, and do nothing to stop it. What happens when the money is no longer available?
Are they willing to address the massive government structure the Federal government has become? The problem with so many laws and regulations is that there is a need for so many judges to adjudicate them. The government needs to be stripped down. NOW, while there is money to do something besides the debt and entitlements.
Now, a question for each party's Senatorial Candidates:
GOP. When judges are nominated, are you willing to go against your party if the judge may lean too much on supporting surveillance of Americans domestically and abroad? I would love for the Kavanaugh hearings to have been about that. What about relying too much on unelected bureaucrats' decision making when it comes to regulation?
Democrats. Are you willing to rate a judge not on willingness to support your religion (Roe vs Wade) but on whether the judge is qualified? Republicans overwhelming supported your pre-fillibuster nominees of Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and Breyer. It wasn't until you played dirty that nominees eeked through the Senate. What did you think of the mob tactics your party used to smear a judge?
If you aren't asking questions, they aren't going on the record. I guarantee that they don't want to go on the record about serious entitlement reform, but if they don't, we are all screwed. Yes, all of us, because entitlements are those goodies that we think we deserve or earn, guess what? Congress can say nope with a vote. You DON'T have a Social Security account holding what you paid in. Congress can change benefits at any time. And as servicing the debt increases, as does how much Social Security takes out of the general fund (they have been doing that for several years, cashing in those securities) something will have to give. If you are a high earner, or maybe have a pension, you are the early target. They will make an income scale. The more you earn, the less you receive. The same will go for Medicare too. But that is a whole issue in and of itself.
And then what? By then, we will all be dead, is the Keynesian answer. But that doesn't help your kids or grand kids, does it?
Comments
Post a Comment