Government-run Ponzi schemes
To the editor:
As of Feb. 11, 2011 www.treasurydirect.gov reported a total public debt outstanding of $14,123,589,307,190.53. Furthermore it reported that $9,490,705,812,100.38 of that debt is described as Debt Held by the Public and $4,632,883,495,090.15 of it is described as Intragovernmental Holdings.
The most somber part of the debt as I see it is the Intragovernmental Holdings. All $4.632 trillion of it! The entire sum of this money is government securities that are issued by one government agency and held by another governmental agency. In simple terms, it is money that the government owes to itself. These are a special type of “non-tradeable” U.S. Government Bonds.
These Intragovernmental Holdings consist of a variety of surplus funds collected from various sources that are not required to be spent at that point in time and are items such as Social Security payroll deductions, Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, Military Retirement Fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, and many others listed onwww.treasurydirect.gov/gov/reports. The so-called “surplus funds” from all the above items are siphoned off and placed in the government’s general fund in the form of “repayable loans.” The U.S. government’s general fund appears to be a bottomless pit where nothing ever returns or is accounted for. I personally know a private practice attorney that was caught with his hand in one of his client’s Trust Funds. He was seriously punished. He spent some time incarcerated and lost his license to practice law in the U.S.A. — forever!! This has the appearance of a giant Ponzi scheme to me. Why can the government manipulate trust funds at will and Ponzi scam artists such as Bernie Madoff get a prison sentence of 150 years? I fail to see much difference in the two schemes. Both create unfunded liabilities. Really creative accounting! Some might say illegal transfer of funds.
We have all heard Congressional reps. and the President make statements to the effect that Social Security is “broke” and in trouble. Why does it not have a surplus?? I’ll tell you why. The government has siphoned off $2.6 trillion and spent it on various and sundry items that grab their fancy. They traded payroll tax dollars for pink treasury notes needed to fund items such as several questionable military police actions and wars. After all they simply MUST satisfy the (MICC) Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Was President Eisenhower totally wrong to warn us about the danger of unwarranted political influence potential in his farewell speech on national TV? I think not.
Another item in need of clarification is reference by Congress, the White House, and most media outlets where they repeatedly lump Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a group of entitlements. The implication being that they are all the same and are unfunded. Social Security and Medicare are programs established to be funded with payroll deductions as follows: Every employee has payroll deductions of 6.2 percent for S.Sec. and 1.45 percent for Medicare. Automatically deducted by the employer and the employer is required to match that amount by 100 percent. This fund has no money in it because your infinitely wise elected officials in Washington, D.C. have spent $2.6 trillion of it and substituted pink treasury notes in its place. Just try to spend one of them. This is not an entitlement it is a victim of what I refer to as “Wreckonomics.”
As to a “fix” of Social Security, perhaps we should look back to the inception of S.S. on 8/14/1935 when it was installed. Although payroll taxes were not deducted until January of 1937, I took time to research the life expectancy of citizens in 1935. This will grab your attention, for certain. In 1935 the composite life expectancy of all races, the life expectancy of males in 1935 was 59.9. For females in 1935 it was 63.9 years of age. With a partial benefit at 62 and full benefit at 65, not very many people would be alive to collect only the partial benefit. A few women. No men at all. Nobody for the full benefit. WOW!!!!!!!!!!
If we extrapolate that benefit to today, the male life expectancy is of 75.2 and female is 80.4 the reduced benefit for men would be at age 77 years and for females would be 79. This should raise a few eyebrows. It does, however, sound like a very simple solution to a non-existent problem, when considering the $2.6 trillion of “stolen” funds. What the politicians are really implying is that they see no way to replace the $2.6 trillion. Social Security is in fact sound. Put the lousy $2.6 trillion back, you jokers, and up the ages proportionately to today’s life expectancy, comparable to the 1935 ages that FDR felt appropriate. We, the taxpayers, do not need to be subjected to all of this sensless political posturing. We deserve better representation.
R.E. Workman
Cape Coral