The Catfood Commission and its sister, AmericaSpeaks, never talk about the Social Security Trust Fund, which currently holds about $2.54 trillion in Treasury bonds. That’s because they don’t want to pay those bonds. They can’t publicly admit they want the Treasury to default, so they resort to word trickery. Here’s Alan Simpson, co-chair of the Catfood Commission (aka the “deficit commission,” and, officially, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform), explaining away the bonds in the Trust Fund:
LAWSON: But what about the $180 billion in surplus that it brings in every year?
SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs.
LAWSON: That’s what I wanted to actually get at.
SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It’s 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been set up.
Simpson thinks those bonds are just worthless pieces of paper. Let’s ask Miss Manners about this point of view:
[Miss Manners] also asks that you not bore her with explaining the comparative quality of marital and nonmarital relationships, especially when using the term “honesty” or asking the nonsensical question of what difference a piece of paper makes. Miss Manners has a safe-deposit box full of papers that make a difference. – “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” by Judith Martin.
Thank you, Miss Manners. Simpson’s position is indeed nonsense. Here’s his explanation of how the bonds in the Trust Fund get repaid:
SIMPSON: Let me say things in a way so your fans will understand this, so you can go and be a hero. There is not enough in the system by the month to pay in, to pay out what comes in. In other words, there is more going out, than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.
So, what do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, ‘We need the IOUs out of it.’ And they say, ‘You can have them, but you have to pay for them.’ So you’re taking a double hit on your own government. Makes no sense. The government goes and says, ‘Hey, here’s that 2.5 trillion IOUs, now we need some money out of that system because we haven’t got enough to pay this month.’ And they say, ‘Great.’ So the government gets a double hit.
Nonsense.* I’m guessing that hidden in that fusillade of words, Simpson is saying that the Treasury can’t pay those bonds until it finds a new source of money. If we can’t find a new source of money, we have to default on the bonds in the Trust Fund.
My evidence? [cont'd.]Take a look at this McClatchy article. The only reason given for concerns about the national debt is that the ratio of publicly held debt to the GDP might reach 90 percent in 2020. No one is worried about the ratio of the total national debt to GDP. Total national debt is the sum of publicly held and intragovernmental debt. The Trust Fund bonds are the latter. Total debt is currently about 90 percent of GDP, so if Trust Fund debt mattered, we would already be in a disastrous situation. The only way it doesn’t matter is if no one thinks we have to repay the Trust Fund Bonds, either because we are going to default, or because annual revenues will always exceed expenses. And by no one, I mean the bond market and its fabulously wealthy players.
Simpson’s explanation for repayment of Trust Fund bonds is nonsense. The bonds could be repaid by issuing new Treasury bonds, and canceling Trust Fund bonds. That won’t affect deficits, because borrowed money isn’t part of the deficit calculation.
It won’t affect the total national debt either. If we issue new public debt, all we do is change the composition of the total debt, decreasing intragovernmental holdings and increasing publicly held debt by the same amount.
Or, as Jamie Galbraith and several excellent commenters here suggest, the Treasury could just pay Social Security benefits and reduce the Trust Fund bonds by a like amount, without issuing new debt. That would reduce the total national debt.
In any case, the bonds are obligations of the Treasury, and refusing to pay them is a sovereign default, which means a default on its debt by a sovereign nation. That would be a financial disaster.
Simpson can’t just say he wants to default. Instead, he cloaks default by increasing taxes and cutting benefits so that between the two, the Trust Fund will continue to run surpluses every year. The Trust Fund won’t ever call the bonds because FICA taxes will be enough every year to pay benefits. That way the Cat Foodies can pretend that there isn’t a default. The surplus can be used to fund wars or bank bailouts, with no possibility that it will ever be paid off.
And where does Simpson propose to find this new money? He won’t tax the rich. Instead, he increases taxes on the very same people who have been paying excess money into the system so it would be available today. We get to pay twice: once to fill up the Trust Fund, and once more so we don’t have to draw down the Trust Fund. That isn’t nonsense. It’s fraud. And it’s a sovereign default by the US against its own citizens.
______
*Social Security is funded by taxes created by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Those taxes are deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund. All payments of Social Security benefits come from the Trust Fund. The excess of FICA taxes over benefits is invested in special Treasury bonds. That works in the same way that you buy Treasury notes for your IRA. Those bonds pay interest, and the interest is deposited into the Trust Fund. Since 1983, working Americans have paid extra FICA taxes and built up the Trust Fund so that we could fund Social Security benefits as the Baby Boomers retire. That worked. There is plenty of money to fund Social Security for years.



46 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Just a bunch of damn pieces of paper in a filing cabinet, right Simpson you ****?
He said, “Bullshi*t!” Alert the media!
Well, if Bush can claim the Constitution is ‘just a piece of paper’ and NO ONE in the CMM calls him out on it and demand an apology/clarification, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the same doesn’t happen when Simpson spouts his disingenuous remarks.
Here, read this and see if you see what I see:
Is Simpson implying that the “bunch of IOUs” are worthless and need to be eliminated?
Because it looks to me like he’s violating Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
Isn’t there a crime buried in Simpson’s behavior?
Like lying in the furtherance of a criminal conspiracy or something?
Isn’t there some sort of pre-emptive legal action we can take?
I mean, we know the bastards want to steal our retirement insurance funds, we see them approaching the booty with malice of aforethought, but we can’t [Edited by Moderator] or anything?
Just a few short months ago weren’t conservatives worried that healthcare reform, pitiful as it was, would “pull the plug on grandma”? Do they have any fucking clue what destroying social security would do to grandma (and grandpa)?
How magnanimous of these sorry bastards to have grandma (and grandpa) starve in the streets.
My take on it is that SS has already been looted and pillaged by the banksters and they’re now trying to come up with a plausible excuse as to why the money’s not there…
He’s sure violating something, and when we figure out what it is, I think we should put him behind bars.
A guy can dream can’t he?
Rich and corporate tax cuts forced US to borrow from Social Security Trust Fund
Rich do not want to pay the money back – because those borrowings for the tax cut for the rich would paid back via higher taxes on the rich.
So rich declare all borrowings of the government will be paid back – except those borrowings that came from the SS Trust Fund.
Solution, have Congress allow the Trust Fund to sell the government bonds it owns – the IOUs – to the public – and then invest in gold or perhaps non-government bonds that will be paid back.
After doing the above the public – meaning China – will own the formerly in the SS Trust Fund bonds and like magic there is no longer a “double hit”.
“And where does Simpson propose to find this new money? He won’t tax the rich. Instead, he increases taxes on the very same people who have been paying excess money into the system so it would be available today. We get to pay twice: once to fill up the Trust Fund, and once more so we don’t have to draw down the Trust Fund.”
So when Simpson says “So the government takes a double hit.” he is really projecting what the Commission wants to do to those who pay in to the Social Security fund. Oh my. How Orwellian!
Good job! I’ve been wondering what the hell that ‘double hit’ thing was supposed to mean. I think you hit it right on the head, it’s a freudian slip.
Excellent!
I guess that makes the catfood commission a death panel.
Liars, Cheaters, Fools and Frauds Catfood Commission!
Not exactly, and that is the point.
They haven’t completed stealing it yet, they simply intend not to pay back the debt, but need to pass some laws enabling them to do that.
The fact that you or I may have spent the money that the bank has loaned us has no impact on the fact that we are expected to pay it back, but these crooks expect us to forgive the SS trust fund money that has been loaned to the government over the last few decades because they find it inconvenient to provide a plan for repaying it.
If you take into account the things they’ve done with the money we loaned them, like tax-cuts for rich people and illegal wars, the crime they clearly intend to perpetrate becomes even more heinous.
Did you see transparait’s comment to “No time for hawks“?
And it’s not just the US of A but also those countries affected by CDSs while telling their taxpaying class that they have to take austerity measures …
I wonder if Simpson knows all financial assets are “a bunch of IOUs.”
A new funding source? How about not wasting .75 cents of every American dollar spent on fucking gasoline. How about legalizing Hemp and taxing it like alcohol. How about corporate America giving Amerrrrricans greater value for the dollars spent and actually competing rather than seeking to protect markets. How about saying Fuck you to corporate servitude and yes to liberty! One problem like the slaveowners back then it is called corporations today. As Jefferson feared servitude to corporations enabled under the color of law bought and paid for by contributions from corporations just like the slaveowners?
So we are broke? Then we must bring the troops home post haste.
wow.
I am barely literate wrt econ/Fin. – but it was glaringly obvious Peterson et al were proposing Sovereign Default. In discussing this with my husband just yesterday, neither of us could figure out how they planned to sell it as something other than a Sov. Def. and how they would implement their designs on our money without causing a major collapse
now we know – thank you masaccio and thank you commenters !
Excellent! I vote that the US default on the T-bills held by Alan Simpson and all other present and former members of Congress first. Then all T-bills held by hedge funds.
Yes just like all the other corps that use federal bankruptcy law to deny retired people/former workers compensation they earned during employment, Pensions. A classic example of how the corporate shell deprives people of life and liberty under the color of law while the corporate officers rape and pillage?
I just watched that whole video. Wow. I’m so pleased that the questioner was willing to challenge Simpson. We so rarely see that. Did you notice all the tricks Simpson used to discount his comments.
1) Calling his concerns, “flash words” as if that dismisses them
2) Calling his concern about age raising “Just one of 15″ like the way the Bush admin dismissed a critical phrase as, “It’s just 16 words.”
3) When confronted with a difference of view pull out some “knowledge” that may or may not be applicable. “57 years was when they thought people were going to die.” Is that a real story or just an anecdote. So I looked it up. One number I find is 63. Not 57. 6 years makes a big difference. But since the reporter didn’t know that he let it slide.
4) Calling out information that he hasn’t read and then saying, “After you have read the bill come see me.” You can’t challenge unreceived information. This is why, “Read the bill” was a great RW talking point. They knew that they could say, “You haven’t read it, so how do you know I’m wrong and you are right?” This delays the discussion and they “win” the point.
5) Dismissing actual math as not real. What about the “interest payments”. Oh, well that might change things a bit, but..
6) Debating definition of terms. What are IOUs? Does or doesn’t the government has one big pot of money?
Digby today has a link to an article in the Globe about a study that shows that facts that are contrary to people’s beliefs don’t necessary convince them to change their mind. In some cases it makes them stick to the old “facts” more. Check it out.
They’ve already stolen the funds. With the deficit at its present levels, there’s no money to pay the bonds except run the printing presses faster. We’ve already promised China we’re saving that for them.
Look at how facile Simpson is in this “discussion” and how the reporter also feels he has to complement him and suck up to him to keep the conversation going. You see why the reporter does it, maintain the conversation. Simpson also expects respect, but the Senator doesn’t show respect back. He treats him like an ignorant kid time after time, someone who needs to be educated in the truth. When the “kid” isn’t easily pushed around he starts calling his information bulls**t.
Most journalists would never have a conversation like this for a few reasons.
1) They really don’t like conflict.
2) They don’t feel it is their job to call them out, they go to another group and then ask them to call him out.
3) They might not have the subject matter depth to instantly hear a lie and then question it. If they do, they are up against someone who might play sophistry games. (I thought it was some nice projection on Simpson’s part to all the reporter’s comments sophistry.)
4) Real time processing problems.
This is something that a lot of people don’t know about because they have never been in a high pressure interview situation. When the journalist is asking questions his attention is focused on lots of things: Getting answers, thinking ahead to the next question, and trying to figure out if he should challenge the question “is this true”"
Sometimes just listening to the response takes all the processing power.
And if you are not ready to stop the conversation in real time and say, “Wait, I don’t know if that is true or not, before we go further let me go look that up on Google or talk to an expert. Wait here.” That doesn’t happen. That is why subject matter beat reporters can be so tough. They know when they are given bs. But also they have to KEEP talking to these people and they don’t like to be rude. Politicians often actually like to talk to general purpose reporters who can’t call them out in real time on their BS The general purpose reporters go back transcribe and then call their experts and ask, “What is this about?” and then they have to call back the first person. Sometimes the first person gets the final say.
One of the reason that the republicans often “win the day” is that they make the accusation. The press go to the democrats and get a reaction. The republicans then comment on the democrats reaction. If you are always in a defensive position you don’t get the double opportunity to comment.
can’t do that!
On the odd occasion when I listen to Beck or someone like him he will make a statement that I know is a lie. But I don’t have the source to refute it on hand. It is particularly galling when I am having an argument with someone who has bought into wingnut fantasyland. Usually, I will find the valid information and source and give the other person the info.
It’s only some sovereign debt Mr. Simpson wants the US to default on: the amounts Congress borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. The way to do that is to dramatically cut SS’s obligations, enriching the wealthy and further impoverishing those the government made promises to decades ago.
I wonder what Mr. Simpson would say if the bank holding his mortgage misplaced all his payments and evicted him, or if his broker said that all those corporate bonds he invested in aren’t worth diddly, because the corporations’ boards had better things to spend their money on than repaying their debts to Mr. Simpson.
I suspect then we’d here real rather than feigned outrage from Mr. Simpson. My outrage I’ll reserve for the fool who put him on this commission to do exactly what he’s doing.
Thank you, mz!
The last step of the con.
“The last step of the con is to raise taxes on the productive peasantry to provide the revenues needed to pay the Plutocracy its interest on Treasuries. If the “Bush tax cuts” are repealed, the actual effective rates paid on unearned income will remain half (20%) of the rates on earned income (wages, salaries, profits earned from small business, etc.) which are roughly 40% at higher income levels.
The financial Plutocracy will champion the need to rein in Federal debt, now that they have raised the debt via plundering the public coffers and extended ownership over that debt.
Now the con boils down to insuring the peasantry pay enough taxes to pay the interest on the Federal debt–interest which is sure to rise considerably. The 1% T-Bill rates were just part of the con to convince the peasantry that trillions of dollars could be borrowed “with no consequences.” Those rates will steadily rise once the financial Power Elites own enough of the Treasury debt. Then the game plan will be to lock in handsome returns on long-term Treasuries, and command the toady politicos to support “austerity.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/financial-con-decade-explained-so-simply-even-congressman-will-get-it
The same thing happens with me. A relative uses this technique all the time. On one hand it is good because it forces me to find the BS, on the other hand it’s just a debate trick that makes it look like they are “winning” the conversation.
BTW Mary, I understand you are down in the Gulf now. If you are interested in doing any “Oil disaster” reporting, please drop me a line, I’d like to see if you can get a photo/video of a EPA inland shore monitoring location.
Why can’t the demorats explain and address fully America’s servitude to huge monopolisitc energy corporations?
Why have we wasted so much money on inefficient energy use??????
Why are Americans now under fear of tax penalty required to enter into a “health insurance contract” which they still cannot afford because they have a LIFE? Backdoor servitude?
Why do so many politicians seem to have a Scarlet “T” for Taliban carved in their foreheads when dealing with matters of individual choice while being hypocritical assholes, and get away with it?
Why is government subject to the undue influence of corporations?
Why are Americans in a state of servitude to corporations???
Just a few questions you would like to ask once you took your foot off the throat!
Will Holder arrest him or will Obama praise him? My guess would be the later combined with Pelosi sneaky dealings working to be sure the Constitution is violated by Congress.
The major problem here is this gets so little airtime and is never explained in depth. I just visited my parents who are on Social Security and tried to tell them about this Commission. Their response was, “we watch the news every night and there is no such thing or we would have heard about it.” Then a friend today, same age as me said, “well, I guess we are going to have to work till were 70?” Not as in upset or mad but as in it is a done deal and there is nothing we can do about it. So really the older people are being kept clueless and the younger ones are they will do what they want. This is a momentous moment in our history as a nation to undo a great program that we have “paid for” yet we are willing to let the politicians steal. I don’t have an answer anymore. We are fast becoming a country I no longer recognize. How sad.
“Why can’t the demorats explain and address fully America’s servitude to huge monopolisitc energy corporations?”
Because Obama thinks that is actually a good thing:
“BP is a strong and viable company, and it is in all of our interests that it remain so.” (he’s said it over and over again how he wants BP to remain strong)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7857981/BP-oil-spill-Barack-Obama-and-David-Cameron-agree-BP-must-not-collapse.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/16/obama-bp-agree-20-billion-spill-fund/
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he wanted BP to remain strong so that it could pay for it’s malfeasance. If it goes bankrupt, restoration of the Gulf may be left to the taxpayers. I don’t necessarily think everything he says has a hidden, darker meaning though.
Yur absolutely right. Go ahead and [Edited by Moderator. Let's not go any further down this path].
I don’t think he’s reading any darker meaning into that, just assuming BHO means what he says-that it’s in the public’s interest that a corrupt corporation that takes outrageous risks with public resources in order to maximize profit remains profitable. Because, you know, we need corporations, not the other way around. Now that I think of it, it’s pretty paternalistic as well as corporatist.
Dean Baker asked this very same quesiton in the HuffPost back in January.
Does Congress Want to Default on the National Debt?
Certain parties have no interest in recognizing nor honoring the 4.55 Trillion trust fund debt, ( it is not just 2.8 Trillion in Social Security ).
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
As reported earlier, the AEI and Brookings economists and staffers of the Fiscal Responsibility Commission in their public documents are only tracking public US debt. They are not including trust fund debt.
The Federal Reserve Board has stopped even reporting statistics on the intergovernmental debt. The FRB only reports US “public debt”.
The IMF at least reports both “public “and gross aka “total public debt” US debt.
Certainly foreign holders of 3.4 Trillion of the “public debt”, including China and Japan, would prefer to get paid in full and let the trust fund debt default.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/shl2009r.pdf
That leaves another 5.2 Trillion debt holding reasons for the commission to recommend default.
That’s why Obama kept it “behind closed doors” so that by the time anyone found it out, it would nearly be too late…as if we have any power in this country anymore…..
A libertarian friend of mine opines he will never get SS anyway ( he also thinks he will never grow old or get sick)So, most gave up years ago. This isn’t a problem for them.
So, somebody like Simpson can lie all he wants and, for the “good of future generations” we must give up the things which have kept many of their parents and them from starving to death…make sense to you? it sure doesn’t to me.
If they’re so damned worried about the kids, get a climate bill thru so they will have a planet to live on.
Another friend, who said he’s “in despair” over this, rallied and said he “still has hope” that Obama will come to the rescue.
All this tells me is that people are NOT paying attention as we are ripped off right and left and turned into a third world nation so the rich can have their slaves back.
It’s a race to the bottom and we’re nearly there.
See…. I don’t understand why my government would rather starve me out than punk China. It’s not like China will attack US.
I think this is a directive straight from the IMF
This is a great analysis of a great reporter. It has something to do with non-linear thinking.
Totally wow! A very good analysis. I will try to use this to write a letter to editor. We should all do
Wouldn’t you just love to borrow a lot of money from Simpson and give him some IOUs in exchange? Can’t imagine he’d ever ask for them to be repaid, can you? /s
One reason they’ve run up the debt it to argue there’s no money in the Treasury (as Simpson said), so don’t bother trying to set SS straight by getting money from the Treasury. Their argument logic inevitably ends with the destruction of Soc Sec.
It’s also tied to their political argument that social programs are just ways for the Dems to gain public support and it’s tied to their desire to cut any and all taxes on their Rich political campaign donors.
They are, if not honest, driven to achieve their goals — primary of which is to get back into power, so they can do whatever it is they want before they destroy the government, the economy and everybody in their way. All while keeping the Rich richer. It’s illogical that you can destroy everything and still have paper wealth, but they try for that.
Interesting point about the Fed; I’ll remember that. The Treasury reports the total debt outstanding here.
When Congress enacted the reforms of the Greenspan Commission in 1983, one of the few recommendations it didn’t enact into law was the one that would have taken Social Security out of the Unified Budget. That let Congress disguise the size of the annual deficits they were running. Hiding the Trust Funds for Social Security and other self-funding programs is another part of the effort to screw workers.
All together now! ah 1, ah ,2 ah 1 2 3 4…
“I want tuna, I want chicken, Meow Mix flavors keep me lickin.” “I like chicken, I like liver, Meow Mix Meow Mix please deliver!”
“Tastes so good, DEMOcRats ask for it by name.”