The national debt is growing. We are currently running a deficit, spending more than we take in in taxes from our people. To some, this is a cause for alarm. To others, it is an acceptable situation, given the current recession, and, as long as it proves temporary, a good thing for the government to do.
Everyone has their favorite villain: The two wars, The growth of social welfare (including medical spending), The financial industry, China. Of course, it is actually a combination of all of them that contributes to our current deficit: We would need to get all under control to balance the budget, if that were a worthy goal (again, it's not clear that it needs to be balanced at the Federal level.)
But there is one sector of the current budget that is balanced, that hasn't, ever, contributed to the deficit. One sector that does not need to be tampered, changed, realigned, etc. One sector that has its own, dedicated income stream, a stream that has always exceeded the payments made on its behalf.
You would think that fact alone would prevent every honest politician from including it in a list of items to be adjusted to balance the budget. That it would prevent any special interest group from attacking it under the rubric of balancing the budget. That it would assure our citizens of the viability of the program, and remove concerns about its ties to our deficit.
But, that's not what we see. Every time the subject of the budget comes up, this program heads the list of those that need adjustment or cutting. Every conversation about congressional spendthrifts includes mention of this program. It has become so ingrained in our consciences that reference is made in seemingly unrelated articles.
Why should that be? Why would a solvent, money making program get included when the subject of the budget comes up? Why would it be disparagingly referred to as a cause of our woes when in fact is does not?
My guess is two-fold. First, not every citizen is aware of this fact. They haven't seen the numbers, they don't know that the program is, in fact, solvent. But, it is: In 2009, income was $899 billion, expenditures were $678 billion. That's a pretty good surplus.
Second is the propaganda machine that continually couples this program with the deficit and the debt, that has so infiltrated our thinking that the program is mentioned, to the exclusion of all others, when government growth is the topic.
But, whence this propaganda machine? Who's behind it? For what purpose?
I have to admit that I don't know. But I can take a guess. Remember oweno.com? They include this program in their list of items that need to be cut back to balance the budget. Who is oweno.com? Why, it's none other than the Peter G Peterson Foundation, run by investment banker Peter G Peterson.
And the program? Social Security.
And the purpose? Conflict of Interest.
Social Security is a retirement vehicle, run by the US Government. It doesn't have great returns, but it does have guaranteed returns. And, it is big: $900 billion in 2009 alone.
Investment Banking is a retirement vehicle run by banks and Wall Street. They sometimes have great returns, but there are no guarantees. Think about how they must be salivating to get their hands on the $900 billion collected by the US Government each year to fund Social Security? A significant portion of that $900 billion would go to line their pockets, rather than finding its way into the hands of our retirees.
So, who cares if Social Security contributes to the deficit? Since worry about the deficit is on people's minds, it can be used to whip up concern of a solvent program for the very purpose of moving that money into private hands to increase private empires.
But only if we listen. Only if we follow the faulty reasoning that it somehow is tied to the debt.
And only if we are silent. We have an obligation, on behalf of the 3.5 million people who will retire this year, and similar numbers for the next several years, to tell everyone we meet that Social Security is solvent, that it doesn't contribute to the debt, and that it has proven itself a societal good.
We have an obligation to pressure our law makers, and the president, to stand down from tampering with it in their pursuit of 'fiscal accountability'.
And, we have an obligation to remain informed about matters fiscal, so that we aren't easily led into believing we need to fix problems that don't need fixing (which are presented by those who just want to get their hands on the money!)
No comments:
Post a Comment