|
Edited on Sat Sep-25-04 10:46 AM by papau
the two elephants and trillion dollar cost is bullshit - and he does know better.
Why in the world he is using this bit of lies is beyond me.
In any case there is one deficit - the health benefits/cost.
Social Security is fully funded on a pay as you go basis - and even under Pete's approach it does not have problems until 2052 - when a revenue increase - say no wage cap on the payroll tax, or move from age 67 to age 70 for "Normal" retirement which in effect is a reduction of 30% to what otherwise would be paid at age 62 to a Social Security "early retiree", will solve the problem for another 75 years.
There is no problem.
But on health, the projection of current insurance company greed means eventually all work income is sent to the insurance companies as premium - and then you have another premium increase the next year. A silly projection - but real. The GOP will keep the rip-off going as long as they can, just cutting Medicare benefits each year until they end Medicare.
The $43 trillion number is the either the very large amount of assets we need to have on hand today if we wish to avoid future taxes, or it is the same calculation reduced by the present value of the current tax rate continuing (I think it is the latter). In any case, the GOP stopped this "fully funded" approach back in 1942 with cries of "Socialism by the Backdoor" (as you noted that number is the value of all assets, meaning the gov - in the form of Soc Sec Trust Funds - would own everything - hence the socialism charge. Meyers in his book SOCIAL SECURITY comments on this. IT is funny to watch the GOP complain the we have not developed a huge fund of real assets - not government bonds - in the Social Security Trust Funds! :-) But they are really just using this "lack of logic" path to justify a cut in Medicare benefits so as to have more monies go to insurance company profits, and less monies being taken from the rich as their share of the cost of health care for the middle class and aged.
After all - we must be "fair" to the rich.
|