« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Entitlement Leviathan in Numbers

We need bold free-market, liberty-promoting solutions from our POTUS candidates.

Immediately prior to breaking for the August recess, Congress passed a bipartisan agreement to cut spending.  Well, sort of.

Leaders in both parties got together to do something evil and stupid; they agreed to the largest increase in the debt ceiling, without solving our debt problem.  They cut discretionary spending by $6.67 billion for FY 2012, from $1.0497 trillion to $1.043 trillion.  That’s a bit more than half a percentage point.  Worse, discretionary spending (budget authority) only accounts for roughly 28% of our projected $3.7 trillion in outlays for FY 2011.  So we cut about 0.6% of 28% of our federal budget for next year!

But, fear not; the best is yet to come.  The mandatory entitlement spending reforms will be tackled by the super committee.  The only problem is that a committee with such luminaries as John Kerry, Patty Murray, and James Clyburn – will never cut a dime from mandatory spending.

Where does this leave us?

Here is a brief overview of our giant entitlement/dependency/welfare state, which if left unreformed, will lead to insolvency, engendering public riots to the degree that we have seen in Europe this year.

Budget outlays for FY 2011 are estimated at $3.7 trillion.  That number is composed of three categories: discretionary spending including emergency appropriations and total outlays (roughly $1.39 trillion), mandatory spending for entitlements and welfare programs (roughly $2.1 trillion) and net interest on the debt ($225 billion).  Although interest payments will skyrocket as the debt increases and the historically low interest rates invariably come to an end, the mandatory spending is the real 800-pound leviathan in the room.

By far, the three major entitlements; Social Security ($727 billion), Medicare ($491 billion), and Medicaid ($275 billion), eat up the largest share of the budget.  They comprise roughly 70% of total mandatory spending, 40% of the entire budget, 67% of tax revenue, and 10% of GDP.

Even with two long-term wars, our major entitlement spending is still twice that of our defense spending.  Here is the latest chart from the Heritage Foundation comparing the two expenditures:

Keep in mind that this chart only factors in the three largest entitlements; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  If we would factor in other mandatory spending (OMS’s), such as welfare, food stamps, earned income credit, long-term unemployment benefits, child nutrition programs, and SSI, that number would be much higher, probably closer to 14% of GDP.

Here are some of the major mandatory expenditures that comprise the $615 billion in “Other Mandatory Spending:” (Source: CBO and CRS)

  • Unemployment benefits-$129 billion
  • SNAP (Food Stamps)-$78 billion
  • Earned Income and Child Tax Credits-$77 billion
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)-$ 53.4 billion
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)- $17 billion
  • Child nutrition programs (school lunch and breakfast programs & other smaller ones) $17.6 billion
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)-$8.5 billion
  • Farm and other Agriculture Assistance programs- $16 billion

$615 billion is quite a gargantuan sum of money to be labeled as “other” on the expenditure side of the federal ledger.  This has been one of the fastest growing parts of the federal budget.  Due to Democrats’ job killing and dependency stimulating policies, the number of people on welfare has skyrocketed.  There is a total of 77 anti-poverty programs and hundreds of other direct and indirect subsidy programs dispersed throughout the 15 government departments.

Unfortunately (or maybe, fortunately), welfare will be a moot point, if we don’t repeal Obamacare, institute free-market healthcare reform to achieve solvency for Medicare and Medicaid, and empower the next generation to control their own retirement.  As this chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, healthcare spending (including Obamacare) and Social Security will consume all of the tax revenue by 2049.

Sadly, we won’t have the luxury of waiting until 2049 to solve this issue.  Social Security has already begun to run annual deficits, and is on pace to face insolvency in 2036.  There is already a report out that Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) will run dry by 2017.  The exploding enrollment in SSDI is exacerbated by the fact that any enrollee is automatically eligible for Medicare after two years, irrespective of his age.  Worse yet, the trust fund for old age benefits is already nonexistent; there are only IOUs.  Consequently, even before 2036, every year that we run a deficit, we are actually adding to the debt.

The prognosis for Medicare is even worse. Even as the open-ended entitlement is slated to skyrocket over the next few decades, causing a vicious cycle of higher healthcare costs, there will be less money to fund the program. If no reforms are enacted, the program will run dry as early as 2024.

Clearly, the next president must confront these exigent issues on his/her watch.  Republican presidential candidates must formulate a bold plan to downsize most of the 77 welfare programs, including Medicaid.  Congressman Jim Jordan’s plan to impose ’95 style accountability reforms is a good start.  Concurrently, while voiding the dependency state and everything that perpetuates it, the next president will need to offer robust job opportunities through reforms in taxation, regulation, and litigation.  Most importantly, as we have long advocated in these pages, our next leader must ramp up our energy production and slay the green job-killing machine.

As for Social Security and Medicare, these programs require different reforms because they are paid for by the taxpayer.  Social Security is really very simple.  The government has completely crowded out the individual from his/her own retirement, by stealing over 12% of everyone’s salary and using it for a Ponzi scheme.  Both as a good policy and good politics, the next president must promise to fulfill the obligations to everyone who has paid into the system long enough to become reliant on it.  However, younger workers must be given some option to control their own destiny and assume ownership over the retirement account. [Pete Sessions's idea for SAFE accounts might be a good starting point]  For those who chose to stay in the current system, and desire that the government control their retirement, the retirement age should be gradually raised.  This way, we will achieve solvency of the current system, while affording more Americans the liberty to control their own destiny, thereby cutting out those bureaucrats who have been impious towards taxpayer dollars.

Medicare is obviously much more complicated.  Due to exclusive third-party payers, and the utter dearth of free markets in the healthcare system, medical care has become too expensive for retirees to divert their Medicare contributions towards personal health savings accounts.  Until we repeal Obamacare, impose free-market reforms and tort reform, there is no way to institute a private opt-out option similar to that of Social Security.  At current costs, the average person will receive almost three times more in benefits than the amount paid into the system.  Instead, the 45th president must propose a plan to work within the current system to make it more free market oriented, thereby driving down healthcare costs on the entire system.  Again, it should be made clear that those workers nearing retirement will not be affected.

It is becoming more evident every day that Obama is eminently beatable, irrespective of whether Republicans offer bold solutions to our problems.  However, for the sake of the nation, the presidential candidates cannot merely sit on the ball and run out the clock.  They must begin to champion bold solutions to our biggest public policy challenge; the entitlement state.  These bold solutions must ensure that the American people, not the federal government, are the most consequential players in issues of healthcare and retirement.

Unlike previous leaders, the next president must not seek to assume power for power’s sake.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.pointofdebate.blogspot.com psu145

    I try to maintain a positive outlook but these numbers along with just the general feeling in the culture now don’t inspire much confidence. We’ve got an imminent crisis and nobody is doing anything about it. Forty+ years of entitlement rhetoric have pretty much wrecked our ability to talk about the subject without being labeled as some kind of “hater.”

    We, as Americans, are capable of much great change. I fear however, the two political establishments have got us in a bind we can’t get out of. Not until the serious consequences hit.

    I just found redstate last week. I’ve been doing my own blog, www.pointofdebate.blogspot.com and throughly enjoy this site!

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      I haven’t been here all that long myself, but I thoroughly enjoy my time on RedState. Be forewarned: there are no Pollyanna’s here. The editors and diarists tell it like it is, and nothing gets glossed over.

      And there’s no reason to be depressed. We will pull ourselves out of this mess, even if we have to chase every liberal in the country into Canada (I thought we had actually succeeded in doing that in 2004 when W was re-elected, but the dirty rats didn’t follow through with their threats and stayed here ANYWAY!). Jimmy Carter, much as he tried, didn’t manage to destroy the country and Zerobama is not going to, either. There will always be resourceful conservatives to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.

      Hang in there.

      • napensnake

        was accomplished in the ’60′s and ’70′s. About 40,000 moved there. All we need is a war and a draft. The cowards will move and speak Canadian, eh?

    • lineholder

      I’ve been here for about three years now. I’m primarily a societal first person rather than political first, which makes me something of a minority in these parts.

      The numbers ARE somewhat intimidating. However, it could also be viewed as a door of opportunity that leads to many new challenges.

      What’s more, a greater number of people, even some Dems, are coming to the conclusion that conservatism is our best option to turn things around.

      For those who haven’t made up their minds yet, focusing on why conservatism is the best choice to make is the lion’s share of the battle we are facing. I’m hoping that we can stay focused on this between now and Nov. 2012.

  • YnotNOW

    Most of the public understand that there is a problem with the Federal Budget in general and Entitlements specifically, but they have no idea how BAD the problem is.
    Until they understand the size of the problem and the urgency of addressing it, they will avoid the “hard choices” and sacrifices required to reform – and actually save the system.

    • lastgopinillinois

      charts, graphs and videos explaining the problems with entitlements and proposed solutions that he believes will turn the tide.
      Who is watching those videos? Conservatives are. There are no liberals watching them. They are the ones who need to get the message.
      I suggest going to Freedomworks and hit the ACTION tab. They have a lot of petitions relative to the current issues. The petitions are sent to the president and your local govt representives. At least thats something.

      • californiagold

        …polls show the overwhelming majority of people oppose it. Yes, medicare needs to be reformed, but the drastic proposals within the Ryan plan would need months and months, if not years, to sell to the American people. For millions of Americans, medicare is an untouchable because those people would not be able to survive without it. If republicans are serious about entitlement reform, they will need to be very delicate when discussing the issue or face the risk of permanent minority status in congress.

        • gekster

          Of what lefty sites do you refer.

      • mirac777

        dealt with the impending insolvency of the big 3 entitlement programs very thoroughly. Ryan showed good vision in that plan. The problem with getting Ryan’s plan passed stems from the Liberal lies (medi-scare) told about it right from the get-go. fake democrats controlled the message and cowardly entrenched power-mongers in the GOP went right along with them. Let’s get it straight right now. Ryans plan kept every Seniors SS and Medicare exactly the same for everyone who is over 55 yrs of age.The lies worked, as we saw 70 year old fake protesters and assorted reading comprehension deficient Seniors spewing the same idiocy across the country. Ditto for all supposed conservatives parroting that set of lies about Ryan’s plan.
        My problem with Ryans plan was that it did not address our budgetary train wreck until decades from now, almost nothing to stop the current $1.5 T yearly deficits these moronic Liberals now have us going into hock for every year.

        It shows how dumbed down this country has become when people are not capable of sorting out the Liberal Medi-scare lies, while also denying one huge fact about Seniors new supposed pals in Liberal la-la land: They stole 500 BILLION off of their ignorant behinds from medicare to pass Obamacare.

        I believe we are in for real trouble and a hell of a lot sooner than all the “experts” are saying we are. One indicator of this is the recent fact reported about SSI disability applications. They have recently DOUBLED. Liberal Socialists are collapsing the system from so many angles that it is hard to actually see the complete picture of the damage being done to the American way of life as we know it. Class warfare is being promoted by the President himself, and then parroted by the Liberals. I give us 5 years, no matter what happens in 2012. until we see massive civil unrest in America.Here are a few of Obamas recent AA exec orders that show what hisa plans are now:
        Obama orders new plan to “diversify” federal workers

        http://news.yahoo.com/obama-orders-plan-diversify-federal-workers-210227556.html

        Obama Issues Executive Order on “Environmental Justice”

        http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22786

        I believe Obama knows he is a one-term President. I also believe that the next President is being set up to fail. We need to elect the strongest conservative possible,and the hell with the Liberals and their media puppets controlling the message and labeling them a right wing extremist and saying they are unelectable. Anything short of a true Patriotic conservative that will have the balls to take the White House with guns blazing at every single Constitution and rule of law-ignoring anti-American in our government will just gaurantee the train wreck to come within 5 years. This was all proven when we saw the lies used to knock down Ryans plan, with the addition of the cowardly inactions and lack of solid messaging by the GOP during the fake debt-ceiling “grand bargain.” We have the most corrupt Congress in U.S. history bankrupting the country while allowing the President carte blanche to promote civil unrest and class warfare. The reality of this situation really sucks if you take a look at the big picture.

        • YnotNOW

          In order to sell the required entitlement reforms to the public, because you are right that most of them believe the lies and scare-mongering.

          And that leadership must be supported at every step of the way by us conservatives that understand the severity of the issue, so that there is grass-roots counter to the liberal media establishment.

          Even then, it will be difficult to bring our country back from the brink of default. and the economic calamity that will ensue. It will take a while (10 years?), but our current path is accelerating to disaster.

        • lastgopinillinois

          This congress is not the most corrupt. The 111th congress held by demo majority ldrs pelosi and reid was the most corrupt ABSOLUTELY

  • oldbird77

    I see the gridlock and vitriol involved in the debate over entitlements, the more I believe no changes will be made until the system is insolvent and collapses utterly under it’s own weight.

    • d_lamar

      It is clearly evident by what happened with the CR and increase in debt ceiling that neither Boehner, McConnell, or anybody else in leadership is serious about reducing the actual spending.

      The only way the government will stop spending is when is has no other choice. The problem is that all that they have to do is continue printing money, and they (the political leadership) can avoid the insolvency.

      It won’t be too much longer before the most common denomination will be the $1,000.00 bill, used primarily to buy groceries.

      • danielhill2008

        Who uses money? About all I see anymore are those nice little red, white, and blue “debit” cards. I feel like some kind of sucker.

  • johnt

    I think that’s how the song goes. One must pause and reflect on the wild eyed screams of the left on these penny ante nibbles, the spitting rage and howls of desperation, the twisted name calling. Well that last is nothing new. Comparing these cuts to the reaction of leftists is a good gauge of their totalitarian lusts & habitual crazed state.
    Oh well, when I lay down on my bed of nails tonight I will comfort myself what I heard when the deal was struck,”this was the best we could do” !! From Repubs and conservatives, from Rove to Ann Coulter, this was the dying gasp, the cry of the losers that could chill the soul.
    Stock up on your canned food & other means of self preservation.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      • johnt

        Though only Mexican drug dealers get discounts.

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          NT

  • Toby Calvert-Lee

    But not only just for the economic/fiscal cost, but also the social cost. I wrote about a plan for entitlement reform here (point 3):
    http://www.redstate.com/calvtob14/2011/08/20/the-agressive-conserative-agenda/

    • YnotNOW

      The entitlement mentality, when so many suck at the government teat, not only causes inevitable fiscal decline, but eats away at the independence and self-pride of citizens.

      • Toby Calvert-Lee

        The liberty and independence that the system erodes is unnattrual and immoral, and we Conservatives should point that out, and we should make the case that unnaturally allowing people to behave like parasites is NOT compassionate,

  • lineholder

    This article addresses the issues our nation is facing right now while stating what we should be looking for in any potential candidate for President.

    Just for clarification, the numbers presented do no include Obamacare, correct? So this would be in addition to the information you’ve presented?

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      The crazy thing is that nothing includes the cost of O-care. The cost of O-care exchanges and Medicaid will skyrocket. Then again, if it’s not repealed we won’t have a healthcare system left to fund anyway.

    • ihateliberals

      While the President is the point man congress is where the legislation comes from to reform and change the way entitlements plus soc sec are handled. Soc Sec is not an entitlement as some would have you believe.

  • ihateliberals

    An entitlement program is something you did not earn or pay for, i will not live long enough to collect even half of what I paid into Soc Sec. Instead of being an entitlement this is money the government owes to me for my payments for this forced insurance program. The program does need to be reformed at best but anyone that is already retired on the program should not be penalized for it. All of you young people tht don’t understand where we are now let it be known that someday soon you too will be retired and hopefully unlike my retirement the government won’t have screwed up the investment programs and make you more dependent on Soc Sec for your retirement like they have mine.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      why we make a discrepancy between the OMS’s aka welfare and SS/Medicare. The first need to be downsized, while the latter needs to be protected for those who already payed into it, and make more private for those younger workers.

    • JSobieski

      Obviously that is not true in every case, but it is true on average. I agree that the discussion of SS needs to be measured. People were forced to “invest” in the program, and they are due some measure of return.

      Insinuating that SS recipients are mere welfare takers is wrong and inaccurate.

      Implying that SS merely pays what people put in is also wrong and inaccurate.

      • ihateliberals

        SS is an insurance program and if Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats had left it alone it would have had return on investment as most insurance policies have. I also paid the maximum amount into the system for 30+ of the more than 35 i paid into it.I Paid more every two weeks than i get on a monthly basis now and I collect the maximum benefit now.

    • gunslingr45

      and I feel the same.
      Tar and feathers are in order, but we would have to dig Lyndon Johnson up to start with because he put it up for grabs in the general fund, and he was stinky before he was dead.

    • dajeeps

      What members of gen X (40somethings) understand is that we’ve been paying into the system all our lives, will have to keep paying for the boomers, save far more than planned, will have to work until 80, and get pared way back when/if we get anything at all.

      I understand that people are going to end up ripped off because it’s nothing but a ponzi scheme that ends like all other kinds of ponzi schemes. But I think that the discussion has degenerated to how the can of woes gets tossed around to someone else as if because you are there now, first in line, you have a right to make everyone else pay for you. You feel entitled, but we are all entitled to compensation from a government that spent the money on something else and is now bankrupt. There’s no money left. Get over it.

      • earlgrey

        The older generations have been paying for this for years. They have also said nothing while the SS money has been squandered by politicans over the years.

        I understand that not every one who paid into this system has voted for liberal policies. At the same time, I wonder where were the voices of those trying to protect their investment. I check my 401k regularly to see how it is performing. Why weren’t more people out there asking about the investments they were supposedly making into Social Security.

        I have paid into it for close to 20 year, but I know I’ll get nothing for it.

        I don’t support taking away SS benefits, but I think it is a reasonable question to ask. Why did the baby boomers just sit back and trust the government with their money. Whey did they buy their promises.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          We can’t just let older Americans off with the old, “Well I paid my share” argument. All through the last thirty years any idiot could see the demographic storm that was coming.

          But the American people, and in particular older people, resisted any sort of meaningful reform.

          Well, sorry but all of your “contributions” were spent and there is no savings at all. Something will have to be done because there just is no money left.

          We will have to raise the age of availability for these programs and lower the cost of living adjustments at the very least. And probably some real cuts as well.

          • gunslingr45

            not throwing us under the bus pard. We have been kicking and screaming and voting R for more years than you have been alive I would bet.
            Tell me please how much have you tried to stop what Obumber, Reid and Pigloski have been doing?

            Red State child by Birth, Red State child by Choice!

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            simply voting R is not the same thing as trying to fight against entitlement growth. There have been a whole lot of Republicans who aided the growth of government.

            Second, I am pretty damn old myself and I am making arraignments for my own retirement because I damn well don’t trust that there will be any real help from government.

            And in the third place I don’t have to answer to you or anyone else about what I have done to fight democrats because sometimes republicans are just as bad, and because what ever I have done or not done has no bearing upon whether my argument is right or not.

            There is simply no money left, Do you understand that? None left. You can’t get enough from tax increases so there will have to be cuts, and the biggest items are the entitlements,

            There must and will be some cuts, sorry if you like that or not.

          • earlgrey

            I voted republican, and simply knew that I wasn’t going to get Soc. Security from the outset. It was well known then. I just blindly voted R as the least bad of the two evils.

            It never occurred to me to become politcally active until Obama came along.

            Frankly, I don’t care if I am destitute when my last days come. I just want a brighter future for the generations to come.

  • gunslingr45

    Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
    Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]
    An old Social Security card with the “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” message.
    Our Social Security
    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
    Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
    1.) That participation in the Program would be
    Completely voluntary,
    No longer Voluntary
    2.) That the participants would only have to pay
    1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
    Incomes into the Program,
    Now 7.65%
    on the first $90,000
    3.) That the money the participants elected to put
    into the Program would be deductible from
    their income for tax purposes each year,
    No longer tax deductible
    4.) That the money the participants put into the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
    general operating fund, and therefore, would
    only be used to fund the Social Security
    Retirement Program, and no other
    Government program, and,
    Under Johnson the money was moved to
    The General Fund and Spent
    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
    Under Clinton & Gore
    Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
    now receiving a Social Security check every month —
    and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
    the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
    away’ — you may be interested in the following:
    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
    general fund so that Congress could spend it?
    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
    controlled House and Senate.
    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
    deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
    A: The Democratic Party.
    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
    Security annuities?
    A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
    ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
    Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
    Q: Which Political Party decided to start
    giving annuity payments to immigrants?
    AND MY FAVORITE:
    A: That’s right!
    Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
    Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
    began to receive Social Security payments! The
    Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
    even though they never paid a dime into it!
    Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
    the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
    The worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it and believe that the Democrats are “for the people.”
    CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM

  • lakeworthcane

    The federal public sector, as it’s currently structured and as it currently operates, can no longer effectively serve the taxpayers.

    It’s too big.

    It’s lost its identity as a public-service organization: become a self-service organization–in short, more of a “jobs program,” which it of course was never intended to be.

    It’s too isolated from the people it’s supposed to serve.

    So, we have to fundamentally restructure it.

    I think the best way to start this procedure is to dramatically decrease the federal public sector’s income, and the best way to do that is to eliminate federal personal income tax; this will decrease the federal public sector’s income by about half.

    The idea is to disperse the federal public sector’s authority: to decentralize our federal public sector and, ultimately, redistribute it among the states.

    The voters in the individual states can then decide how they want to structure their individual public sectors: personal income tax, entitlement programs, education, et cetera, et cetera.

    Even this will not give the voters the access they need; even individual state public sectors will be large bureacracies that largely exclude voters’ interests.

    But it’s a step in the right direction; at least then–for example–elitist, left-wing theorists from Nevada, California and Illinois won’t be able to set policy for people far-removed in, say, North Dakota, Virginia and Texas; at least then, the voters in, say, Florida, will have a more direct say in how their tax money is spent.

    But the bottom line is that I don’t think in terms of how the federal public sector, as it’s now structured, can be made to run properly. I don’t think it CAN be made to run properly, as it’s currently structured. I think we have to scrap the federal public-sector system as it’s now structured because it’s become too big, too complex, grotesquely over-funded and steered by values and beliefs that prevent it from doing what it was originally and rightfully intended to do.

  • rhette

    described here, it helps clarify the need to give amnesty to 20 million illegals! We have cases of hospitals providing millions of dollars of care to border babies, when our own citizens who worked and paid into these funds all their lives may soon be out of luck. Let’s for sure entitle some illegals who are not citizens to free educations, health care, rent subsidies, and food stamps at the expense of our working and senior citizens. This could only make sense to a vote seeking, corrupt, self centered politician.

  • bheld

    Could someone please explain to me how SS has contributed to the debt if there is a surplus??

    I thought the problem w/ the debt was the spending, not SS?

    Maybe the 99 weeks of unemployment might have something to do w/ all this debt? Maybe the disability we give out so freely is part of the problem? Maybe the welfare we give illegals and others is part of the problem?? You know, the ones that are forcing our hospitals to close??

    Maybe the downturn in the economy has something to do w/ our borrowing?? Sure, SS needs tweaking, no doubt about it, but IT A’INT THE PROBLEM!!

  • Pingback: continue