Two independent discoveries.
First, several months ago I received an email from my mother regarding Tea Parties. She does not pay much attention to politics and wanted to know what they were because she was receiving emails about them from co-workers…and she is employed by the public school district (K-8) in her town.
Second, I work for the State of Georgia at a public university. I recently discovered that a co-worker is a self-described huge fan of all things Teabagging.
It's difficult to shock me these days, as my view of human nature and the intellectual capacities of my fellow Americans can scarcely be any bleaker. But I could spend a decade meditating with monks in the mountains of Tibet and still not be able to wrap my head around the idea of people who work for the government jumping on this ridiculous bandwagon.
I could expend thousands of words explaining all of the things wrong with this picture or I could do no work at all, simply linking to Teabagger writing about how much they hate government employees ("The Recession's Fat Cats: Government Employees"). Instead I will choose a path between the two. Let's keep this simple: is your primary source of income a paycheck containing any of the following phrases?
If so, only a superhuman amount of self-complacency can get you within 100 yards of a Tea Party event. The idea that I have co-workers (as does my mother, apparently) who cannot connect the very large, close dots between government tax collection and their own salary, benefits, retirement plan, and life savings is mind boggling. Can anyone be that dumb? Yes. Of course they can.
How? Well, it takes some mental gymnastics to turn that kind of display of raw ignorance into (what one believes to be) a consistent worldview, but it boils down to a case of fiscal NIMBYism. They see the money the government spends on their salary and benefits as good/justified/appropriate, as is the entire annual budget of whatever government agency happens to employ them.
It's all that other money the government spends that is wasteful. So Mary the Public School Secretary wants lower taxes, less spending, and a smaller deficit, all of which should be accomplished by leaving the Public School budget untouched and cutting elsewhere – usually something nonspecific and illogical like "earmarks" or "pork" or "welfare.
" You know, shit that amounts to peanuts in comparison to A) the budget as a whole and B) the money spent employing public servants, bureaucrats, and other people receiving government paychecks.
"Pork" and "waste" are just code words for "Government spending that does not benefit me directly.
" Every member of Congress sees the projects in her district as necessary – nay, indispensable – examples of appropriate government spending whereas the other 434 districts are cesspools of waste. The average American sees every tax dollar or government service that benefits them as Good Spending and everything that does not as Bad.
In other words, most of us stopped maturing when we turned 10 and we're oblivious to how selfish we are – not to mention how little sense our political worldviews make.
Crazy for Urban Planning says:
Spot on Ed. I know a retired Federal Employee who endlessly rants about how awful government is. It baffles me. Are you going to refuse to take retirement? No. Are you going to refuse your swell federal government sponsored health insurance? No. Are you going to even concede you are part of the supposed problem? No, its not me, its the welfare that makes people lazy, dependent on the government, and damns them to an eternity of more welfare. Ever hear of Welfare Reform? No. NO NO NO…
Steve from Canada says:
I used to love to pay tax. Now, I'm not so crazy about it, because I live in the US, so most of my tax dollars go toward killing Iraquis and bailing out shitbag bankers. But when I lived in Canada, man, I was paying for healthcare and sanitation and whatnot, and I liked it. The last thing I want to do is have to go and hire people to take care of that kind of thing.
I always find it amusing when people get so irate about the "big chunk" that's "stolen" from their paychecks every two weeks. As if they would get any paycheck at all if there were no government, and as if there would be any government without taxation. Most of us would be passing through the digestive systems of wolves or serving as sex slaves to ruthless warlords if we had to rely on ourselves instead of paying the government to take care of us.
Sure, they could do a lot better job of it here than they currently do, but they still keep most of us from killing each other most of the time, and I assume that if my apartment building caught on fire, a firetruck would eventually show up.
party with tina says:
I'm not suggesting we do this, but suppose I wanted to be a teacher, the majority of those jobs are public. One must eat, but can hope to oneself that the government sells all of it's schools to private investors. Who'll Run them for "PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR."
beau says:
@Steve – I'm Australian, and love paying taxes too. Coincidentally enough, I was talking about tax with a Kiwi today, who said (imagine Flight of the Concords / Beached Az accent) "Aw, we dont care. We pay heaps more tax than you guys, but that's OK – we love our country."
She probably said bro in there somewhere, too. But the point is, surely one of the most profound acts of patriotism is just paying tax and shutting the fuck up about it.
Matthew says:
Really? Nothing from G&T on any of the elections today? Nothing at all. Boo, I say, boo.
ZenPoseur says:
Seriously. I'm getting so tired of this entitlement mentality. A large fraction of the country expects the government to fix every damn problem they have (up to and including providing them with a livelihood,) but don't think they should have to pay for it.
Hell, given Tea Party demographics, I bet it takes two or three working taxpayers to support each Teabagger, on average. Maybe we should start matching taxpayers to Teabaggers, and write them letters: "Hi, this is Debbie and Chris. Together, we pay for your Medicare. Hope you enjoy it! XOXOXO P.S. Nice hat."
Related, and equally annoying, is the "the government screws up everything it does" attitude. I hear this all the time from a guy who went through the UC system on student loans and now works at a company that wouldn't be in business without government grants, patent protection, NIH research, and the FDA. It boggles the mind.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Not to mention the amount of military personnel who bitch about Obama and taxes, despite the fact that they suck the most tax dollars after Social Security(which is something necessary). And no, they are NOT "defending America". The US military hasn't been defending America since WWII. Social Security is justified, the military is just a thief.
Bugboy says:
I HEAR YA BROTHA!! My lab mate is such a tortured soul, along with his Fox News watchin' wife who is an uppity-up administrator in the public school system. The disconnect is so mind numbing to me it strikes me as a mental defect.
Hazy Davy says:
I suspect you're right.
At the same time, I think it's possible for someone to oppose something from which that person benefits.
I could, for example, oppose mandated public prayer in schools, and be a priest. (Well, *I* couldn't, but someone could.)
Or I could be opposed to pornographic movies, but work at a video store (historically, when there were such things as video stores).
Some people see that there's a market opportunity in something they personally aren't interested in, or see the evil in something that can be profitable for themselves. It's possible to support "anti-government" crusading, even if your own success would mean the end of your job. (Some people's drive for integrity is not as great as their need for impulsive expression.)
———
On a side note, it seems that tea partiers are especially upset with President Obama, more so than, say, former-president Bush.
Those around me have loudly expressed dissatisfaction with how he's handled the whole BP oil disaster. I find a greater cognitive dissonance, there. "The government should be smaller, and should do less. But the oil leak is more the President's problem, than BP's."
bb in GA says:
Could be the folks who approach it that way know that the game is close to being over.
I am a boomer SS recipient (started at 62) It has really made the difference w/ the Great Recession since work is scarce. However, I realize that the present system is unsustainable. In any half way decent private pension plan, my wife and I would reap about 300K dollars.
My politiicans (both R & D) over the decades have made a friggin' Christmas tree out of the SS system for votes (by spending all the "trust fund" dollars – started under LBJ as I remember) although the Ds have used it better ("Hey old farts, those eeeevil Rs gonna cut your SS unless you re-elect/elect us Ds.")
Quite simply, the Congress Critters must cut our benefits. If they do right by y'all (most everybody here is much younger than I am) they will. I expect it and it is the right thing to do.
Besides, y'all will revolt over the tax rate required to sustain the system which will destroy the economy or worse you might come after me. (horribly selfish of me…so sorry)
It sucks, but so what. Most everybody responsible is dead 'cept for Bobby Byrd (and he's 3/4 gone)
//bb
P.S.
Even w/o Obama care, we have to do the same thing w/ Medicare
HoosierPoli says:
You've made this point a lot, Ed, and so have others; people want spending cuts, but they don't want any actual SPENDING cut.
If ANYONE claims to be legitimately concerned about the federal deficit, ask them what they think should be done about defense spending. If they don't say it should be cut significantly, they have identified themselves as hypocrites.
The path to black ink lies through the Pentagon, and everyone knows it. But like you said in an earlier post, "Solve the Budget Deficit, but raise taxes and you're dead. Cut defense, and you're dead. Touch SS or Medicare, and you're dead. Cut grants to states, and you're dead. Touch anyone's pet projects, and you're dead."
It's a fundamentally insoluable problem, but shallow thinkers don't believe in those, so they'll keep harping on and on about how soveriegn debt is like credit card debt and if we keep "printing money" we'll end up like Zimbabwe.
ladiesbane says:
It's more than a logic failure. Most Americans can't balance their own checkbooks or plan their own retirements; how are they even going to figure out which candidate can best do it for them?
Also: U.S. spending buys more than military and Medicare and meat inspection; it buys goodwill or ill-will in terms of voting support. I am happy to pay for useful things, but I don't know about the logrolling.
A few years ago, I worked at an agency filled with very conservative guys who thought Bush was the second coming. When I asked these (much older) men how they figured cutting taxes on top of a huge, costly war was brilliant thinking, they got as far as "war is always right and cutting taxes is always right." Way to go, Greatest Generation!
glf says:
I moved to my current location from out of state about 10 months ago. The first thing I did after I signed the lease was take a drive around to familiarize myself with the area. Within a few minutes of driving around in this high middle class town, I found myself waiting at a light where a group of white people who looked to be in their 60s & 70s were protesting healthcare reform & government interference. I thought: what the heck?! I bet the majority of you are using medicare and collecting social security. I wished I had a sign with me that said "Down with Medicare". I'm sure that would have gone over well.
Jimcat says:
Hazy Davy typed: "On a side note, it seems that tea partiers are especially upset with President Obama, more so than, say, former-president Bush."
I've run into a good number of hard-line fiscal conservatives (many of whom stay far, far away from anything labeling itself "Tea Party") who are quite willing to criticize Bush today. "Absolutely, Bush screwed us over," they'll say. "But he's out of office now and Obama is continuing to spend recklessly, so he's the problem we need to solve now."
Quite convenient how they're willing to close the barn door after the horse is out.
JohnR says:
"..most of us stopped maturing when we turned 10 and we're oblivious to how selfish we are.."
And there, in a nutshell, is human history. Congratulations! You have just written the World's Shortest Textbook, Ed.
bb in GA says:
Here's the 2010 Defense Budget
Defense 895.0
[+] Military defense 719.2
[+] Veterans 124.7
[+] Foreign military aid 9.9
[+] Foreign economic aid 41.2
How much and where would you like to cut?
The overhang from SS and Medicare is about 100 Trillion let's say over the next 40 years. That's be about 2.5 trillion per year on the average ( I realize that 2.5 trill needed 40 years from now is heavily discounted for its PV.)
I don't think we can skin it that way. Do you?
//bb
Barbed Wire says:
Barbed Wire says:
Sorry…dunno know what happened above.
Being employed by a municipal government for going on 25 yrs as a firefighter, this subject and similar posts now leave me literally speechless when I hear fellow firefighters going off on a teabag rant. It's just as well to remain speechless because they don't want to hear anything else anyway, much less consider the implications of that position. I. Just. Don't. Get. It.
Three examples: Teabagging came home to roost in the last budget and resulted in a pay cut for most city employees – except department heads who robbed the cookie jar and got theirs before the bottom fell out of the city's coffers – causing… a lot of grumbling by the same firefighters high-fiving the teabaggers? Hey brother, we cut taxes!?
Oddly, the mayor appeared and spoke at a local tea bag rally on wisely managing the city's revenues and lowering taxes… then came out on local media in support of a hospital bond to raise taxes? At least the city lowered 'em?
My tax program indicated that my effective tax rate for the year was 8.15%… more than reasonable I thought, for everything it does, leaving aside for now any argument on how that money is spent. Interestingly, that's less than the sales tax on all the beer firefighters drink?
SeaTea says:
@bb – I'd start with the 719 for "military defense" that's not defending us against anything and is, in fact, stirring up a generation of terrorists who are going to hate our country and teach their children to hate us. Let's start there.
justme says:
stopped maturing when we turned 10
You're very generous. I generally say five.
Chupacabra says:
I swear, the next time I hear "Medicare/Social Security/Pensions/etc. aren't sustainable" I'm going to beat that person to death with a fucking pipe.
How is it that pensions are sustainable everywhere else in the developed world? Why is health care considered a right in any place except our ridiculous nation of imbeciles?
When did we decide that what our parents and grandparents had was good for them but we don't really deserve anything. Fuck that. It's time to raise taxes to the point they were when the greatest generation was in charge and it's time to bring back some actual rights for workers again. No more free overtime, mandatory vacations for all, and a government run pension instead of this 401K gambling vehicle.
The American worker has been dealing with austerity their entire lives. It's time to demand basic worker rights and an adequate safety net.
Nunya says:
This is pretty much the universal sentiment among military and law enforcement. There's something with working in a command and control structure that requires a conservative thought process simply to make sense of the jobs.
That being said, I've lost a few friends when I explain to them that all police forces are socialist in nature and that they are, essentially, agents of socialism.
Watching the short circuit in their brains was worth it though.
Pamela says:
"And no, they are NOT "defending America". The US military hasn't been defending America since WWII."
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I get so tired of the old argument that we're safer because of what the military is doing overseas. I can give credit to the men and women in the military for doing a very hard job and making a lot of sacrifices to do it. However, I can't buy into the argument that we are safer because of what they're doing. I think Seatea's post about us "stirring up a generation of terrorists who are going to hate our country and teach their children to hate us" is much more accurate.
Sasha says:
I did some temp work for a federal firefighting effort at the Great Dismal Swamp. The individuals who work the fire come from a variety of federal agencies but they all work for the Federal Govt. Yet to here these, mostly, good ole boys talk, you'd think they worked for Blackwater or something. Their favorite sneer line was "we're from the govt and we're here to help." And no, they did not see the irony in that.
bb in GA says:
I posted the Military Budget. I sang no praises (but certainly could), but various people went apeshi-ite. Waving the cape in front of El Toro…just the damn budget.
They hate us mostly cause we're not Muslim and drink liquor and have nearly nekid women in public and dirty movies and are kind to Jews.
No really, I'm just imbeciling around the farm here and noticing that the freakin' socialist heroes in Europe are suckin wind bad over their entitlements.
Ratonalize the numbers here, don't just yell. I posted up the 100 trillion we're liable for. Those are government numbers, not T Tard figgers.
Our whole budget is about 3+ trillion and pretty soon (a few years – 5 ?) We are going to need extra trillions just to pay for us EXISTING OLD FARTS.
Forget about YOU. I don't think you're going to get that out of the DOD's hide and YOU are not going to sit still for the taxes to pay for ME.
There doesn't appear to be any there there.
Seems that benefits will have to be reduced and rationed with or w/o Obama care.
If the gov numbers are close to correct it is TEOLAWKI for SS and Medicare.
//bb
Ed says:
I'll bite.
First, the DoD needs to stop prepping to fight the Cold War. The heavy armor the Army has right now – which is already the best in the world – can stand pat.
The Air Force can stop developing hyper-expensive fighters when the rest of the world still hasn't caught up with the ones we developed in 1980. Why do we need to pour tens of billions into 6th-generation fighters when Russia and China are just mastering 3rd gen? Canceling F-22 was a start. Even F-35 is probably unnecessary. It's like spending billions to improve a machine gun when the rest of the world is still using spears.
Third, all of that Future Force Warrior shit needs to be canceled yesterday. It's a lame idea to begin with and totally infeasible. Even if the technology is perfected, there is no way that the DoD is going to be sending each individual out into the field wearing $500,000 worth of gear.
Why is the Navy building new aircraft carriers? There are a total of 22 of them in the world, most of them obsolete, tiny WW2 surplus. 11 are American. I think we have that market cornered.
The point is, we could easily halve the DoD budget without reducing defense and readiness. The problem is that Congressmen live on defense contracts. That's the only reason we're still arming ourselves to fight the Battle of the Bulge again, a superpower conflict that will never come.
Jimcat says:
"They hate us mostly cause we're not Muslim and drink liquor and have nearly nekid women in public and dirty movies and are kind to Jews."
I hope you're being sarcastic or joking. "They", meaning most of the young angry Muslims in the world hate us because they have no money and no job prospects, and they see rich Westerners on TV and want a piece of it. And demagogues like Bin Laden tell them that he can help them take it by force, and they believe him because what else do they have to believe? And they hate rich Arabs as much as they hate rich Americans. Bin Laden's original goal was to overthrow the Saudi royal family, not to destroy America.
Yes, this is a bit off-topic, but now that I think of it, it shows that our enemies are just as short-sighted and oblivious as we are, only in different ways.
J. A. Baker says:
Or to borrow a line from my favorite philosopher, "Have you noticed that their fiscally responsible spending is pork and your pork is fiscally responsible spending?"
DSchrute in CO says:
Ed, posts like this are why I make this blog a daily read. Love it.
@bb in GA
I respectfully disagree. They don't mostly hate us in the Islamic world because we're not Muslim. We have a huge Muslim population in this country and other western, industrialized nations that don't really care that most of the other citizens aren't Muslim. They dislike us in those countries for more mundane reasons like we're rich and they're poor and we're always meddling in their internal affairs and taking advantage of them for our own strategic purposes.
Tim says:
I also marvel at the crowd who gripe about the 'big chunk stolen out of my paycheck' in taxes, and who boast about the superior ability of private enterprise to perform all the functions of government. Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's imagine a world in which we get rid of all tax suddenly, say next paycheck. So now everyone gets the full, nominal amount of their wage/salary. What employer would not immediately go looking for employees to replace each of us at our previous take-home wage/salary after tax? Up until last payday, it was PROVEN that each of us could survive on that previously-taxed wage/salary–we were doing it. What in the world would motivate employers to pay that previously-deducted tax to us employees? No, the wonderful free market would adjust our wage/salary to its 'natural' level, pocket the 'tax' and still wait for someone else to perform the 'commons' that tax had previously paid for.
In other words, we can look at taxes as profits foregone by our employers just as easily as we can look at them as wages foregone by the individual employee. Just as easily as we can look at them as higher prices paid by the customers of our employers to purchase their products/services (in order to pay our tax-inflated wages to produce those goods). Who pays taxes? The market pays taxes. They just happen to be explicitly listed on individual employee's pay stubs. [This example has focused on income tax, but similar arguments can be made for other types. Let the economists among you start yelling–I know next to nothing about economics.]
All of which serves as proof that taxes are a societally-paid fee tacked onto our wages/salaries/costs/capital that flow through products/services to the government to perform the 'commons' tasks of public safety, provision of infrastructure, waste disposal, etc. Yeah, there are expenditures any of us might disagree with, but that's why we have elections.
Rob says:
Fact-checking is peachy: PolitiFact Georgia
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jun/07/fact-checking-peachy-introducing-politifact-georgi/
ladiesbane says:
bb, I am curious if your use of the word "rationing" was part of the vernacular display, or if you honestly believe that is an accurate term for what must come. The best solution I've seen (the original version of the Oregon Health Plan) didn't cover every single treatment for all possible conditions, but the extreme and high-end stuff was specially managed in a separate risk pool. It worked, it was economically feasible, and it's downfall was the usual Let's Have a Fit And Vote It Into Law moment voters had a few years later. But it is possible to have universal (not unlimited) health care that does not result in economic suicide.
And hey, before you lump all Europeans together, or Socialists, consider that England does tell people "You have the sniffles; go back to work!" (without charging $100 to the insurance) — unlike France, who says, "Oh, you have the heavy legs? Stay home for a few days."
Also consider that the Japanese have universal health care (or did when my ex-husband lived there) and it was cheap to run, since the Japanese feel responsible for their own health, and don't think they buy it at the doctor's office; nor do they assume that surgery answers every question drugs can't. We could learn from this.
bb in GA says:
LB,
Rationing is shorthand. I hope and pray (for very selfish reasons) that the process will be rational and humane as possible.
We are talking about two different issues here. One is "What is our way forward for health care for younger people?" and the other is "How do we handle the colossal over promise to old people – both Medicare & SS?"
They are related because the younger people by and large have to pay for both.
"Rationing" has to be an essential ingredient in unwinding this mess.
//bb
bb in GA says:
Ed:
I am not defending stupid defense appropriations stuff which you have illustrated in detail. In fact, the DOD has actually said "No mas!" on various programs, but the involved Congress Critters have responded with a hearty "The Hell you say!" and the spending continues.
Let's use your number of about 400 billion and kick it back to the pot. If we are going to stand for 2 – 3 Trillion per year in SS and Medicare overhang, that's a nice contribution, but no cigar.
How many tax payers do we have? 100 million?
If we are short 2 trillion, then we have to tax those 100 million people an extra $20,000 per year on the average.
I don't think there are enough rich people to off load that burden.
//bb
bb in GA says:
Yeah I was being a smart ass about the Muslims.
How is it that the 19 "heroes" of 9-11 were all mid – upper class arabs and mostly college educated? The poor downtrodden model wasn't working there. Even the recent SUV bomber Nosehair Shazam was an IT geek. How come? Oh, I forgot, our Christmas bomber was a big dog's son in Mother Africa, No?
What was the excuse back in the day when President Jefferson sent the Marines to the Med to get those Muslim Barbary Pirates? Did they watch us on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous – 1799" hmmm?
//bb
ZenPoseur says:
Dear bb,
To address the social security issue:
I don't know where this 100 trillion figure comes from. The actual projected shortfall in SS over the next 75 years is 5.3 trillion dollars, or about 70 billion per year, amortized. That's not nickles and dimes, but it's not a lot compared to the total federal budget. For example: simply removing the cap on SS taxes would close it entirely.
To address the medicare issue:
The calculus here is quite simple. We pay more than anyone else in the world for healthcare that's mediocre at best. That is why medicare is in crisis. The answer is not to cut back on our absurdly expensive care. The answer is to bring the pricetag into line with the cost of healthcare elsewhere in the developed world. Indeed, the cost of healthcare is increasing faster than inflation, which means that any cuts are eventually going to prove insufficient. Cuts are both futile and deadly.
To address the military issue:
The United States spends as much on defense as the entire rest of the world combined. Reread that sentence until it starts sinking in. Regardless of one's thoughts on the sorts of craaaaazy murderous people inhabiting those furrin, swarthy-type countries, we do not need to spend as much on weapons as THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. This is especially true of weapons systems that are of little or no utility in performing vital tasks on the modern battlefield, such as slaughtering people at wedding parties.
Incidentally, the medicare shortfall over the next 75 years is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 trillion dollars (again, I don't know where the hell you're getting your numbers, but they're wrong) which means that saving 400 billion from defense would cover most of it.
Consider yourself educated. You're welcome.
Also, you're a fucking racist.
ZenPoseur says:
P.S. Nice hat.
beau says:
Ah, ZenPoseur…
Your signoff above was fucking funny, but you had me at "Hi, this is Debbie and Chris. Together, we pay for your Medicare. Hope you enjoy it! XOXOXO P.S. Nice hat."
Beautiful.
Nunya says:
bb in Ga,
I know you're trying to keep up but you're what is referred to a a "low information voter." You think you're informed but you obviously are not.
Try to keep an open mind and be sincerely mistrustful of numbers you heard on AM radio or on Fox.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
To be accurate, the Russians and Chinese have already managed to develop fighters and missiles which either match up to or surpass the performance of the latest American fighters. What is worse- they are doing it for less money. The Pentagon wastes money because they'll pretty much approve research into all kinds of ridiculous projects, often involving focused beams of light known as "laaaaazers."
Actually cutting the defense budget and making America safer is a simple process.
1. Disband standing Army and replace with national guard. Close overseas bases.
2. Stop overthrowing governments, either by force or by "color revolutions", stop funding terrorist groups and dictatorships, as well as Israel.
tinamou says:
I have a new co worker who spends about 40% of his time on the government clock complaining about taxes and wasteful spending.
We don't exactly provide a vital service; we're paid on NSF grants to dick around in a lab in the hopes that someone will eventually need something we happen to stumble on. I mean, i think research funding pays off in a big picture, monkies-with-typewriters way. But if there were a bad enough budget crisis, I'd want myself laid off before teachers, fire fighters or trash collectors, y'know?
Nunya says:
Tinamou,
You may be one of the last people ding pure research. I'm in no hurry to lay you off (but your gub-mint hating co-worker is suspect.
Keep up the good work. Happy accidents are the stuff that moves the world forward.
bb in GA says:
The combined SS and Medicare (including the 38 T or 40 as you quoted) shortfall numbers that have been published on the usual sources are $103T
Oh, and why does Sheik Yo Money Maker come here for his [Life threatening and complicated] medical treatment and not go to Cuba? Mediocre, at best?
And I'm a racist for pointing out that most of the Muslim terrorists that have struck our country do not fit the Liberal template of the poverty stricken and uneducated lashing out at the oppressor.
I'm working on the misinformed part. Thank you one and all.
//bb
bb in GA says:
I just googled "unfunded liabilities federal government" and came up with a couple items right off the top. I didn't select them for ideology:
“Adding up all unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Government sponsored pension funds gives us a figure slightly in excess of $100 trillion.” Pete Morin, American Thinker, June 10, 2010
“The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.” Pamela Villarreal, June 09, 2009, NCPA
Y'all are probably gonna blow off the AT item. They're right wingers, aren't they?
The item that is most pertinent is that 2009 SS and Medicare Trustees Report. That's our government's numbers, right? Unless Pam is twisting the numbers somehow…
Guess I can try to get back to the source material on that one.
//bb
Aslan Maskhadov says:
BB, did you ever consider that while the Islamic terrorist who have successfully attacked American soil(and some who failed) were not dirt poor, the MAJORITY of Islamic insurgents ARE poor? Obviously one needs some connections to be able to work and live in the US.
Keifus says:
And here I thought they hated us because we're killing their neighbors and sons, or because we've spent the last 70 years supporting awful governments where they live, when we're not overthrowing governments of their choice, or doing general-purpose meddling for one reason or another. (If we didn't interfere, they'd probably still hate us for keeping their horrible petrol states in power economically, but that's a moot point–we are guilty of those other thigns.) When you actually live somewhere else, you don't really have any investment in America's rationalizations about spreading freedom or selectively opposing some philosophy or other, and you're more free to judge things by what you see. Anyway, it's just a crazy theory, and sure, their own opportunists are more than willing to capitalize on those sentimetns.
Regarding social security (at least), one thing going for it is that it's been historically solvent, and should remain so for thirty years or so until the surplus (mandated in '83 to handle the population bulge everyone is now sweating about) is worked off. Meanwhile, the military budget is causing a deficit now. So that's one thing. Hell, even though I'm struggling at R&D, I'm a defense contractor 99% of the time. I think my job should be at risk here, so I also disagree with you on that one small point Ed, although given my druthers, I'd rather have the privatized supply chain of the active service, not to mention whatever we pay our mercenaries, fizzle out for lack of need.
SS and Medicare get line items in the budget and your paycheck, and people generally know what they get for it. (Which is a better sell than abstracts and unmeasurables like protected freedom.) I get that they're a big piece of the pie, but that's not terribly relevant. Keep in mind is that it's stuff we would (actually "do") pay for anyway, in a similar form, but that some people think would work best when the government administer them. Given health care costs and benefits in other countries that use government-run systems in various forms, it's pretty clear that this is in fact true. (It's insurance–works better when there's a bigger risk pool, a check on the priesthood of power, and when the administrators have less incentive to avoid paying claims.) We're talking savings to the tune of half the cost per capita, which is compelling, and you'd think it'd appeal to the self-named fiscal pragmatists.
K
LucyTooners says:
Freaking clueless is the only explaination. Just yesterday one of our new Electricians was asking about the rate he was being paid on the scale job (government) we have him on. When we told him he was thrilled because getting these jobs will help him catch up on his bills and "If Uncle Sam doesn't take it all". With that statement you can imagine his outlook. My office mate and I both commented well where do you think that scale wage job comes from? Stimulus money of course.
My parents are both conservative RW Repugs and get all of their income from the govt in the forms of retirement from the military, civil service job and SS. My sister and I always snicker at the fact that without the govt they would not have any income. To my dad he earned it but somehow no one else does. Hypocrite to the max!
ZenPoseur says:
BB,
After looking around at the reports from which your data seems to come from, I now see how the figures you cite were generated. Here's why they're wrong:
The total unfunded liability (reported as 107 trillion dollars and derived from government-generated data, as you accurately state) is a highly misleading figure. This figure is arrived at by calculating the funding gap over an infinite horizon, and then working out how much we'd have to set aside now to cover it from now until the end of time. It's scary for the same reason it'd be scary to figure out how much you'd have to set aside now to pay the college costs of all your future descendants.
It's also inappropriate methodology, because social security and medicare will no longer be necessary after all physical matter in the universe has decayed, approximately ten duodecillion years from now. The remnants of humanity existing at that time will of necessity be creatures of pure energy who no longer require medical care or pensions.
To paraphrase Al Franken, paying off an unfunded 107 trillion dollar liability over that timeframe is easy. You just pay one dollar per year (continually adjusted for both interest and inflation, of course) for the first 107 trillion years, and then after that you're free and clear.
Furthermore, any economic calculation that has to make such sweeping assumptions about cosmology and astrophysics is immediately suspect. Economists are not qualified to evaluate the validity of the solid state model of the universe.
To put it in more succinct terms, it's inappropriate to insist that a liability calculated from now until infinity be payed off over any arbitrary time frame. If we insist on paying off infinity within the next 40 years, of course the yearly pricetag is going to be scary. It's much more appropriate to pay off the next 75 years or so over the next 75 years or so.
This is not to say that Medicare is not in crisis. It is. (Social security, on the other hand, is manifestly not in crisis.) We need changes to healthcare delivery and we need to start making them now. Indeed, it would have been preferable to start making them thirty years ago.
But these sorts of deceitful histrionics don't get us anywhere. These are scare figures composed by people who want to dismantle the social safety net that we've spent the better part of a century building, and who know they can't do it without scaring the shit out of us.
ZenPoseur says:
Oh, and regarding healthcare, and world leaders coming to America for their care: You know, people who vacation in Thailand enjoy luxurious surroundings. You would be wrong to assume from this that residents of Thailand all live in five star resorts.
The care that world leaders get when they come to America is not the same kind of care that the rest of us get. In fact, rated by overall outcomes and satisfaction, US healthcare really does rate just a little above Cuba's.
bb in GA says:
ZenPoseur:
Thanks for taking your time w/ that detailed explanation. I didn't understand that we were doing one of those summation from n= 1 –> inf problems. I thought that this was the "pig in the snake" digestion problem for SS and Medicare to get thru us boomers.
Do you have any thoughts on why the SS and Medicare Trustees would have a particular POV that they would want to push? Are these politicos or academics or ?
//bb
Nunya says:
Zen Poseur,
You are awesome. Thanks.
John says:
Well, it boils down to the same old Republican Paradox:
"The Gub'mint™ corrupts and destroys everything it touches!"
"How DARE you criticize our glorious and perfect military/police?!"
These two statements are not compatible. They cannot both come from the mouth of a person with a consistent worldview that makes sense. The military and police, being arms of the government, are subject to the same conditions as the rest of that government. They are not magical pieces of government that are somehow completely disconnected from all of the corruption and shady dealings.
All the teabaggers have done is take this paradox and extend it to taxes.
"The Gub'mint™ steals from the people and wastes every tax dollar it spends, we are Taxed Enough Already!"
"My Gub'mint™ tax-funded job/benefits are wholesome and necessary!"
See also: Republicans and their flock of sheep shitting bricks about potential cuts to Medicare or Social Security since 2008, both of which are part of the "Democrat welfare queen entitlement culture" that they keep telling us needs to be dismantled.
That the people that listen to/watch/read this spew from "conservatives" and don't immediately question these obvious holes in the logic is simply that special brand of American idiocy I've come to expect from our electorate.
ZenPoseur says:
Many thanks for the thanks and accolades. I'm gonna make sure to mention you guys in my book (if I ever have a book.)
I'm not sure whether the trustees are a political body or academic or what, but I skimmed through the 2009 trustees report (https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf) and most of the data they present is reported over a 10 year window or a 75 year window. A smaller set of data is presented over 10, 25, 50, and 75 year windows. Initially, I couldn't find any mention of infinite horizon data.
But searching for "infinite" brings up a few scattered pages with figures calculated from the infinite horizon. Interestingly, I still couldn't find the $104 trillion figure (what we'd have to set aside) for the medicare shortfall, only a smaller "present value" (which I think means the infinite shortfall adjusted to 2009 dollars and discounted) figure of $36.4 trillion. I suspect that either the $104 trillion figure is buried deep in the data, or someone with an agenda back-calculated it from the $36.4 trillion number.
The trustees don't bother to explain why they include practically useless infinite horizon data in the first place, but I found a clue buried deeper into the report than anyone is ever likely to read (on page 7.) It seems that the infinite horizon data is a relatively new feature of the trustees report. It was only added starting in the 2004 report. Shortly after that report was published, President Bush started using the infinite horizon shortfall as ammunition in the social security privatization debate. (Because, you know, whenever I have a shortfall in my budget, I feel that the best thing to do is take what money I have left and head to the dog tracks.)
So, is that timing a weird coincidence or executive branch tomfoolery?
Bugboy says:
@ZenPoseur: There is no such thing as coincidence…but seriously now you have about 300 billion more people to educate. :P
Bugboy says:
Make that about 300 million…either way it sure seems hopeless…
Robert says:
Well, I went to public schools in San Leandro CA, went to UC Berkeley, then spent twenty four years working at the VA Hospital in San Francisco. Now I'm retired on medical disability/SSDI (my AIDS finally got the better of me).
So I've spent my entire adult life on the public dime. And you know what? I don't feel at all bad about that. I served our country's disabled veterans at the hospital, and did a good job. If I hadn't gotten sick, I'd have stayed there until retirement.
That said, I do think means testing Social Security is a good idea. If I were making, say, US$100K/year without it, I would have no problem having it cut off. I also know that any elected official saying that out loud will be defenestrated by enraged Boomers.
bb in GA says:
Robert:
Thank you for your life of service.
Now that we know that the SS sky is not falling…
Means testing SS might help and is possible (Congressional action assuming no Veto) but it would be a colossal bait and switch. SS has been run as a contributory retirement supplement provided by your employment costs (your part directly, the employer's part is yours to)
Means testing turns it into a tax for those who get tested out of the program. If you knew that up front, it sucks, but life is like that sometimes and you might plan appropriately.
Doing that late in the game is still dishonorable. IMO Bill Gates and Rush should get their SS (assuming they are part of the system) no matter their net worth.
//bb