By the time voters have their say, the damage would have been done and still fading fast to where it runs OUT completely.
For the umpteenth time it seems, the government is being warned that its two biggest and most popular benefit programs -- Social Security and Medicare -- are going under unless something is done soon.
Trustees for the programs are not crying "Wolf!" The problem does indeed get worse every year it's not dealt with. Social Security resources will be wiped out by 2041; Medicare a lot sooner, in 2019.
However, the financial pressures will be felt long before those dates. They start when the programs begin paying out more in benefits each year than they collect in payroll taxes. For Social Security that will be 2017, which still leaves a little wiggle room.
But Medicare isn't so fortunate. It will spend more than it will take in this year, thanks to the 78 million baby boomers who are starting to retire and draw benefits.
One of the programs' trustees, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, correctly notes that "Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues and threaten America's future prosperity."
In other words, if steps aren't taken to deal with the pending calamity, Medicare and Social Security costs will eventually drive out all other federal programs, including defense, law-enforcement, environmental, safety and welfare programs.
With stakes that high, one would think the presidential candidates would be addressing the issue. Isn't that what campaigns are for? No way.
Any proposals to bring sanity to Social Security and Medicare will almost certainly involve some pain -- higher taxes, benefit cuts, raising retirement age to 70 or 72, or perhaps a combination thereof.
But candidates won't discuss anything that would cause some pain to the public. To the contrary, instead of dealing with this very difficult issue, two of the presidential wannabes -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- are promising expensive, new federal health care programs while the government they seek to lead is going broke trying to pay for the ones we've already got.
That's not just irresponsible, it's insane. They need to get a grip -- and if they don't, then hopefully the voters will.
Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain is looking at plans to make health care more competitive, and hopefully more efficient and less costly, by putting consumers in charge of health care instead of third parties, such as Uncle Sam and insurance companies. He's at least on the right track, but he still has a lot of gaps to fill before voters will understand, much less buy, his program.
The point is, voters should not take seriously any candidates who promise pie-in-the-sky benefits without explaining how to pay for them -- and the ones we've already got.
Comments
By the time voters have their say, the damage would have been done and still fading fast to where it runs OUT completely.
The last sentence in this editorial is pure poop. Of course voters will take seriously a pie-in-the-sky promise if it involves benefits. Both Hillary and B.O. have explained how they intend to "soak the rich" to pay for their various spending packages. Half of the nation believes every word of these silly promises.
I agree with your post justus4, but shouldn't we try to improve while we're changing? I don't think B.O. offers that.
Social Security has historically taken in more money than it has paid out, and the government (ALL administrations) have "borrowed" this surplus with IOU's (in the form of bonds). The government has operated this way for years, "borrowing" from the surplus that would have kept SS and Medicare afloat for years. That is why SS and Medicare is in such trouble. Want to motivate Congress to fix it, make them participate in it!!! Congressional members do not contribute to nor draw from Social Security, so they do not have any motivation to fix a problem that does not affect them.
War, unfortunately, is a necessary evil that is a given. It happens every 30 or so years that is fact. The other fact is that terrorism requires the vigilance and strength to combat this new war or we will succumb just like all other nations around the world, which I believe we already have to some degree. The crisis this country faces is one that was put into motion decades ago when the government began rewarding people for doing nothing. Many baby boomers who have worked hard all their lives are coming to realize that the monies due them have been drained to the point of non-existance. Aid given out to generations that have provided nothing to an economy has effectively brought this nation down to it's knees. Something drastic has to happen but it does not need to include the demise of our armed forces or police forces. Bring jobs back into this country, cut the welfare prorams, bring back the CCC camps and if that will not induce people to work for their monies then detention camps should be errected. Oh and for heavens sake people stop listening to all the pretty speeches that promise wonderous "somethings for nothing".
christian..Good post, but much too logical for the masses. It is not that they don't hear, it's that they don't want to hear.
why isnt norway at war? or finland or sweden or mexico or chile or germany or japan or china? could it be they do not have an empire they cannot afford or a military industrial complex that sucks trillions out of us and needs war to justify their existence?
militarism is a wing of a fascist economy. so is govt intervention into retirement and healthcare. collapse is inevitable. the govt prints money and gives it away to keep the consumerism afloat.
that is gives it away to all but those that pay the taxes. the feds either move to total dictatorship or collapse..............
Since both Obama and Clinton are both rich, I guess they'll be soaping themselves when they "soap the rich". Wonderful idea.
If that is the case, I do not believe that too many in the CSRA have anything to worry about. Maybe a Billy Morris or two.
Some of the few programs that are paid for by taxpayers are Social Security and Medicare, yet they are the programs that will be cut or go bankrupt. For the 43 years that I have worked in this country SS was automatically deducted from each paycheck and it was a hefty chunk. Now that I am eligible for a small return on that major and lengthy investment I am told of its imminent demise. Medicare payments are automatically deducted from SS income. So, I have paid and am paying for both programs yet they're going belly up. I guess that makes sense???????
RJH, you are mistaken. Congress DOES contribute to Social Security. What you are talking about is an internet/email myth.
I stand corrected. After some research, Congress brought lawmakers into the Social Security plan in 1983, how about we split the difference :-)
You could take all the money freom every "rich" person in the US and still not cover the cost of some of these proposals.
mgroothand I made my first payment into the SS fund in 1955 and with the exception of 1961-1966 when I worked for NASA I usually paid the max amount until I retired in 2003. Since Medicare began in 1966 I paid into it until retirement. At the time of my retirement my employers and I had paid approximately $82000 each into SS since 1955, and we both paid about $19000 into Medicare. Since I worked up to age 65 exactly I now get max benefit. I have already been paid close to $100,000 in annual benefits since 2003, and Medicare has been a blessing. I consider my benefits more than just a "small return," and my 401K and IRAs are still intact and untouched (however, I'm near my RMD.) During my working years I paid my share and accepted it for what it was and few people, if any heard me griping. A cynical colleague of mine back in the 70s took every opportunity to say such as, "This is money I'll never see again, etc." He left for Az. in '79 and not long ago he told me his SS benefits, which he was now receiving was money he thought he would never see.
IMHO it is not the people who paid into SS and Medicare who are sucking the money supply dry. I believe it is the people who have never paid into the system yet receive SSI and/or Medicaid !
Warning to full-time moms. Even if you worked 16 years before you got married, had children, and decided to stay home full-time to raise them for over 10 years, lotsa luck trying to get your benefits. Apparently all the years of work before that 10 years are irrelevant. Or someone was pulling a con job on me.
Retired army what is your problem? When I said that war is a necessary I was being factual not necessarily jumping up and down with glee. As far as you attacking my Christianity or my church you are way off base. I have never attacked you personally so why you deem it necessary to attack my character is beyond me. Tend to your own backyard, so to speak, before you drop in on mine. Furthermore I do not know you and do not care what you say or think about me. Now you go your way and I will continue to voice my opinion.:-)
_NO LONGER AMAZED you are oh so right! I paid into Social Security for 44 years. Get this....I don't qualify for Medicaid because I made too much money!!
For me, no food stamps, no free dental no paying 100% of my hospital bills. Why? Because I made too much money. If I just sat on my backside and did nothing the government would have taken care of me!
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
