Posted on 08/04/2002 9:58:39 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
WHY TRUST GOVERNMENT?
WHEN THEY SHOULD BE IN JAIL
By: Ed Henry
Can someone please explain how the Social Security Trust Funds, now standing at $1.315 trillion, became twenty-one point four percent (21.4%) of the national debt? Debt is debt folks, it's not an asset.
Can someone please explain how we got this horrendous debt? Is there some reason other than the fact that we bought it? Paid good money for it by giving the government extra/surplus payroll taxes that Social Security didn't need. The government stole this money (they call it "borrowing") and spent it elsewhere. Then, trying to make us believe that they can both spend and save the same money, they put "special obligation" nonmarketable junk Treasury bonds, developed specifically for the occasion, in a debit black hole account that they deceptively labeled as a "trust fund." Now, we're stuck with debt. Have you got some other reason? If so, I would like to hear it.
Can someone please explain why the Social Security surplus is recorded on one set of books as a liability and on the nation's closing statement it appears as an asset? Isn't that fraud and what we are punishing Enron, WorldCom, and corporate executives for doing—double bookkeeping and hiding debt?
If "the era of reporting false profits is over" how do you explain the government's final balance sheet from last year where $160.7 billion from entitlements like Social Security ($98.7 billion from Social Security and $62 billion from 18 others) was counted both as an increase to the national debt (a liability) and here as an asset and the only thing accounting for the supposed second largest surplus in U.S. history. How's that for crooking the books to show "false profits?"
We're not talking about WorldCom's mere $3.9 billion here, are we?
Can someone please explain why borrowing from investors is considered a "deficit" and borrowing/stealing entitlement money is not—while they both add to the national debt?
Can someone please explain how entitlement trust funds differ from what WorldCom did? When President Bill Clinton claimed that "Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing" isn't this the same as pushing expenses into the future? The same thing the Justice Department and the Security and Exchange Commission is accusing Scott Sullivan of doing? How many years in jail do we give Clinton, Bush, Rubin and O'Neill, the government's CEOs and CFOs?
Can someone please explain why Paul O'Neill, our Secretary of the Treasury, head of the nation's bank, was lauded for telling the truth on June 19, 2001, when he said there were no viable assets in the Social Security Trust Fund, only debt, and that he didn't have any bags of money buried in the back yard? Now, the same man is telling us that "Social Security money is used only for Social Security" and that "every cent of Social Security's money goes into its trust fund." What did they do to this man? Was he threatened? Was he bullied into repeating the pirate's line? Was he convinced that telling the truth only confuses people? Has he decided to emulate Enron and WorldCom CEOs and go with the flow? (see: List of statements from other authorities)
Can someone please explain the above about-face by our Treasurer when his own Monthly Treasury Reports show the Social Security Trust Funds increasing continually and steadily in debt without any sign of any real cash transfer?
Can someone please explain why, at the close of fiscal 1997, the Social Security Trust Funds (Federal Old Age & Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance) were 11.7 percent of the national debt and two months short of four years later have increased 83 percent, and may almost double by the end of this fiscal year?
Can someone please explain what politicians mean by "raiding" a trust fund that holds nothing but debt? And how can they make this sound like an "occasional" occurrence when the real money seems to disappear as fast as it comes in? Debt bonds are not awarded until after the surplus entitlement money is borrowed/stolen.
Can someone please explain the difference between "pay-as-you-go" and the way most individuals, households, and small companies operate? Who, except politicians, can afford to sit on their laurels and not worry about the next paycheck, keeping customers, and hoping you're not snuffed out or without income for very long? Having a 16 percent profit margin seems pretty good for a performance based organization (PBO) like Social Security. Did you know that Social Security's overhead is less than one percent of their budget while maintaining offices in every major city in the nation?
Can someone please explain why the scare story of "76 million baby-boomers" Clinton warned us about do not show up in the basic census figures? Heck, there aren't even that many people added to the population in a thirty year period, immigrants included, much less the twenty year period between 1946 and 1965, the child bearing years for 16 million lusty servicemen and their soul-mates returning from World War II, where these boomers are supposed to have come from. Oh well, who looks at the base figures of the U.S. Census, the only source of population data? And Clinton wouldn't lie to us, would he?
Can someone please explain why most of the younger generations, almost anyone under forty, believe that Social Security will not be there for them when the supplemental retirement system produced a $98.7 billion excess/profit last year alone? Is it simply that these people have learned not to trust a government that steals money which should instead be working for them?
Can someone please explain why one political party accuses the other of "raiding" Social Security money when the most nonpartisan agreement in Washington is to take all of this excess money all of the time?
Can someone please explain how any Congress person could not be aware of this when they've had House and Senate Budget Committees, Finance Committees, Ways & Means Committees, Appropriations Committees, Tax Committees, and so forth, working years ahead of time and using estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Office of Management & Budgets (OMB) to help them decide exactly where this "off budget" revenue will be spent? As the nation's bank, the U.S. Treasury just writes the checks and keeps track of where the money comes from and goes.
Can someone please explain why 92 percent of the "Intragovernmental Holdings" belong to twenty entitlement funds including Social Security, Medicare, Highways, Airports & Airways, Unemployment, and others? Shouldn't this more properly be called the "Entitlement" side of the national debt?
Can someone please explain why the other 8 percent of the "Intragovernmental Holdings" belong to 118 trusts that are perks for federal employees, gift accounts for departments like the CIA, and a few philanthropic accounts from those foolish enough to donate money to the government? Simply name a trust, throw in some bogus bonds, and withdraw real money from the Treasury's general account as needed. Is this hush money for potential whistleblowers?
Can someone please explain what every economist called upon meant when they chimed in unison that if and when it ever becomes necessary to draw upon the Social Security Trust Fund the poor dears in Washington will be faced with the "tough decision" to either (1) raise taxes (2) borrow enormous sums from investors in the public's name (3) cut benefits, or any combination thereof.
Can someone please explain how this differs from the government's normal means of raising and managing money whether there's a trust fund or not? Isn't it the same thing facing the government all of the time—standard operating procedure? What good are the trust fund "holdings" except to be a form of double taxation with interest added? Wouldn't America's workers be better off if this debit black hole account didn't exist? And isn't it fraud to pretend that these trusts are anything worthwhile to anyone except the bureaucrats that put special obligation nonmarketable bonds there. At best, their only value is that it saves Congress the grief of passing legislation to raise taxes? They can claim that the trust fund made them do it.
Can someone please explain why we don't just get rid of this fraudulent Entitlement "Intragovernmental" side of the national debt, immediately reducing the debt by some $2.5 trillion. It won't hurt anyone. We would have been better off if the government had simply taken the money and run in the first place instead of playing this phony borrowing game.
Can anyone explain why the government has 14 real trust funds holding real assets, that are not part of the national debt, and the Thrift Savings Account for federal employees is the largest with nearly $40 billion in real marketable and negotiable assets?
Can anyone explain why Social Security's excess wasn't put in a similar authentic trust fund? Even if the money just sat there without being invested anywhere, we would be much, much better off than having to repay the same amounts, plus interest. We wouldn't be in the hole with payback facing us.
And now for questions even more crucial.
Can someone please explain how the American people can trust the same dishonest and corrupt government to protect them, not only from conniving corporations, but from terrorists? Was the horrible attack of 9/11 really an attack on our values, symbols, and way of life? Or was it an attack on the government and the New World Order that has its empire building tentacles spread all over the world? And couldn't this same New World Odor be dependent on international banking and based on the premise that if you can screw Americans, then you can screw the world?
It was the center of international banking that the "evildoers" attacked on September 11th you know. And if that's true, then what's the sense in spending billions to safeguard the public—except the fact that our elected officials in government probably fear their own citizens almost as much as they fear outsiders. You can't lie to the American public forever without risk.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
I, for one, am completely outraged at this and would like someone to explain to me why what is going on with Social Security, among others, is different than what happened at Enron or WorldCom?
Federal Reserve notes were originally backed by gold; now they're just paper, not backed up by tangible assets. Because things are set up this way, all our money represents debt, and we can never pay it off because the more money we have, the more debt we have. Our tax dollars go to the Fed, but they're not really an asset since they're repayment of debt created when the the government buys its own money at interest.
The Federal Reserve was created by Woodrow Wilson in 1913 and stripped congress of the control of our money. From the name, people think it's part of the government. It isn't. It's a corporation of banks and it's completely unconstitutional.
If you feel like spending Sunday with your hair standing on end, keep reading about this.
Congressman McFadden's Remarks to Congress, 1934
links to lots of articles pro and con
links to Ron Paul's speeches about the Fed, the economy and monetery policy
To my knowledge just one, Ron Paul.
Where do you think these corporate types got their inventive accounting from?
Regardless, as time marches on, more and more Americans will start feeling the same way as I do today. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but some day. I just hope I'm around to see it happen so I can p*ss on their graves.
If there is one congressman who is clean, I'd say it would be Ron Paul, although I have my doubts about that.
I wonder how many would admit that they did it for the best of themselves. IMO, neither the country nor the party are the benefactors of most of their actions.
D
I agree, there are too many irons in the fire to keep on top of. The house of cards has to "tumble"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.