Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.
These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.
But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.
Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.
So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.
This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.
Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.
Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys — not to mention a new medical entitlement — the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar.
Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.
Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.
As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."
Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.
The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.
The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.
De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."
Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
If you go to www.usdebtclock.org/ the unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security and Medicare are indicated to be: Social Security = $14.2 trillion, Medicare = $79.4 trillion, and Medicare Part D = $18.8 trillion. Not that I want a bad problem to be even worse, but can anyone explain why these numbers are so much larger than the ones reported in your article? What are the true facts?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Cliff Hickman
Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:56 AM
There are over 20 million, more like 40 million citizens who are increasingly fed up with the obvious take over by the Obama Administration of our liberty, and our financial futures.
Well, he SAID what he wanted to do, and folks voted for him anyway. In Dreams of My Father he clearly stated he made sure he got to know leftist and Marxist Professors as his mentors..... So, why the surprise on how he is moving the agenda domestically, as well in foreign policy. The Palistinians love the guy..... Say what??!! Too many now feel "entitled", have not learned a thing on why our nation was founded and in the way it was structured, and have no clue on the sacrifices made in these past 70 years from citizens across the racial spectrum, from those who fought at Normandy, The Tuskeege Airmen, Jackie Robinson, winning the Cold War ( yes we DID WIN and no apologies needed...).
The momentum is growing fo,r and can you say, " man the barricades....". Sad to say, but I am privy to some moves by our military and other civil agencies who are establishing programs and material to confront the potential of civil unrest which could materialize. No Wacko here John, but we are definitely at the point and time of ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! IF the mid term elections do not eliminate at least 50% of the incumbents, then for all intents and purposes our Republic is done. If 85% or more get returned to office, as is normal, we are again, DONE.
My nephews and son have and are serving in the military and see the waste in that sector as well. America may not be able to forestall the inevitable because of or wrong headed policies overseas and here domestically, but there are a large number of folks, Patriots, who are moving in a direction that a fight, a real fight, must take place to displace those in power and as stated in the Declaration of Independence, throw off a government that has turned from the people in order to maintain a government, By the People, and For the People......
Comment: #2
Posted by: Terrence Tuthill
Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:35 AM
I agree with “more politicians like George Washington”. The only self-sacrifice most of the politicians make now days is to forgo their conscious to stay in power. Plus, George Washington wanted to be remembered as a farmer. At least a farmer's manure has value.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Amy
Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:37 AM
Re: David Henrick - Compound interest doesn't explain differences of this magnitude - e.g., $14.2 vs. $8 trillion for Social Security, or $74.9 vs. $36 trillion for Medicare (exclusive of Part D) - unless John Stossel used some extremely old figures in his article, which I doubt.
While I certainly agree this is a major mess with no hope of a good solution, I am getting very tired of baby boomers being blamed. We are not the fault, we are the victims.
Baby boomers have put billions, if not trillions, into SS/Medicare. We allowed the 1984 agreement that DOUBLED the taxes on SS/Med with the PROMISE that the additional percentages would not be touched and be there. This was done by congress, made up mostly of WWII and Silent Generations. They are the ones who have stolen the money, followed by the baby boomers, gen x'ers who are now stealing the money in congress.
Boomers are not the cause of the problem. We are the ones who have been ripped off for 30 or 40 years, taking care of the previous generations and now if you want us to take it on the chin, fine, just don't blame us for the problem. We stepped up and took care of the previous generations, we invented all those personal computers, cell phones, cable, brought the internet to the masses, texting, and a host of medical solutions.
What has Gen X and Gen Y done? Brought us Barak Obama. The only thing boomers can be blamed for is having and raising a bunch of whining kids who think they deserve all the goods things without having to work for it and now are complaining about having to step up and take care of the older generations.
Why is it that every discussion of Social Security's so-called problems begins and ends with the baby boomer onslaught? The sad fact is that we will eventually die off, and be followed by the 'baby bust' generation, at which time there should be plenty of money to pay benefits. Therefore, IF there is any problem, it will be only a temporary one.
I say "IF" because SS is acknowledged by all to be solvent for the next 27 years. I challenge you to name one other entity, public or private, that can truthfully make that same statement.
People who work and pay taxes should love Social Security because it is one of the very few ways that we actually get to recieve anything back from our enormous tax burden. Somebody gets back more than they paid in? Great! If you think that is wrong then consider all the income taxes you paid and that were spent on things you abhor, and you might feel a little better. You will feel a whole lot better if you further ruminate on all the people who pay nothing at all and enjoy a full marketbasket of 'services' provided by you.
Its funny but it seems that the people who complain the loudest about Social Security are the ones who have plenty of money. They call it a Ponzi scheme, which is absolutely a distortion. What about the tens of millions of elderly who have been able to live in dignity with their own roof over their heads and decent food to eat? Were you aware that before Social Security, more than 90% of the elderly in this country lived in poverty? Have you ever been to a nursing home and looked at those people living there and thought about the fact that every one of them would be in an unimaginably cruel hell without Social Security? The fact is that SS is NOT the national retirement account - it is Social Insurance that covers not only retirees but survivors of wage earners and disabled workers as well. There has never been a more successful government program.
I just saw Shawn Hannity say Social Security is bankrupt. That is a bald faced lie and he should know that.
Lets conclude with this thought. "They" have trillions for the banks. "They" have trillions for senseless unending wars. "They" have $8 billion to give to Pakistan last January, $30 billion a year for Israel, $3 billion for Haiti, and God knows how much more to other countries in some totally one-sided 'alliances'. BUT, when it comes time for the average citizen in this country to get a check, that he has paid for all his life, its "Oh no, this is not sustainable! We've got to balance our budgets...." Well, that is just not gonna cut it guys......
Comment: #9
Posted by: James N.
Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:48 PM
It is so maddening to hear the mis-information coming from the right. Our deficits were run up by 33% under the Bush administration. Obama is responsible for about 7% of our current deficit. That was the result of the stimulus which according to most economists helped stave off a depression. It is simply irresponsible to say otherwise. Moving forward, however, the question remains. What to do about these deficits which are now President Obama's responsibility.
Many of you like to quote our forefathers. I enjoy visiting the Jefferson Memorial because I live outside of DC. When I was there last month, these words by Thomas Jefferson stayed with me. And I paraphrase: "Although I do not like to make changes to our constitution or laws, it is necessary to do so at times, because we must change with the times, become enlightened, developed, or else we are just like our barbaric ancestors." I take much from those words. America was a different country in 1776. We are no longer fighting the King of England. New challenges have emerged that required us to dig deep and look at our enlightened selves. We abolished slavery but then it took another 100 years before civil rights became law for black Americans. You can argue that entitlement programs hurt our bottom line. But we need to think hard about what our bottom line is for. What exactly is liberty and justice for all when millions of Americans are living below the poverty line? Jefferson also said that unregulated banks are close to evil. We saw what happened to an unregulated financial industry in the name of liberty and freedom. I do not have the answers to many of these difficult questions and problems but I do know that we must be able to have constructive dialogue and look at our enlightened selves. It is there where we might begin to find some answers.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Jane
Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:07 PM
John... I should start by telling you I'm a real fan of your works and reporting.
HOWEVER, I think your central theme tonight was Soooooo Off Base that it's almost criminal. Even the students, especially the young gentleman, knew this IS NOT and Should Not become "Generational Warfare". YOU are trying to pit the Young Against the Old - Shame on you. The young have NOTHING to do with the CAUSE of this problem. ( Honestly....showing BABIES on your show, with the Older taking away from the Younger. )
YOU should be trying to Organize and Motivate ALL people of Voting Age - from 18 through 81 - to fight this problem Legally, in the Only way they can - by Writing Letters and Voting. If Congress is Unwilling to FIX this Social Security and Medicare problem Once and For ALL, they should ALL be THROWN OUT on their ears.
The single Best, Most Effective and Obvious step that could have a Definite IMMEDIATE Positive Effect would be to Eliminate the CAP on Earnings that are subject to Social Security and Medicare Withholding Taxes. This has been a HUGE Windfall for the Upper Middle Class all the way to the Extremely Rich.... for DECADES. It's time for EVERYONE to carry the burden, NOT just those that make below $100,000 annually. The same Tax Rate that's deducted today for those making below $100,000 should be Extended up to incomes of $200,000. AND in light of the current Social Security and Medicare plight, the Rate for EVERYONE making Over $200,000 should have an Additional percent or two deducted. This should be done IMMEDIATELY - while there is still More Than Three Workers for every Retired person. Just imagine the shape Social Security and Medicare would be in today, if EVERYONE had been paying in the past, instead of only those making below $100,000 -- AND Congress had Not been STEALING from us ALL.
Let's unite to FIX this problem vs. pitting the Young Against the Old. What do you say ?????
Sincerely, HB
Sometimes, you have let something break before you can fix it. Our countries finances are broken. Our knowledge of our history and what made this a great country is broken. Leadership in our country is broken. As this episode of Stossel clearly demonstrates, we are in for a crash the likes of which we have never seen. Our great hope rests with our young people. Thank you for giving them a voice on the show. What isn't broken is the spirit of our people. The United States of America was born of a broken political relationship. The new American revolution is at hand. Enjoy the ride.
H. Bowman, your comments were good and thought-provoking. However, everyone needs to understand that Social Security Benefit amounts are based upon how much each person pays in. Therefore, if you raise the earnings cap upon which Social Security taxes are withheld, such that someone making, say, $300,000, pays the SS tax on all their earnings, their eventual Social Security benefit will rise accordingly. Right now, with the earnings caps in place, someone making the maximum amount for Social Security tax purposes will receive a monthly SS benefit of about $2500. Using my 300K example, a person fully taxed for Social Security on that income will draw a monthly Social Security check of about $7500. Are you prepared to accept that outcome in return for taxing those people more, or do you think we should just tax those people more for nothing in return and leave the max payment at $2500? Would you feel you were being treated fairly if you were one of them? The fact is that there are painless changes such as eliminating the ridiculous $255 lump sum death payment, ceasing certain divorced widows benefits, offsetting benefits against the earnings of people who resume work after beginning to draw benefits (they're called retirement benefits, aren't they?), and adjusting certain other spouse and widow benefits that would greatly enhance the system's solvency. I swear to you that the aforementioned changes are no-brainers but people just want to meat-axe the program rather than drilling down to changes that actually make sense. Just like health care, some people want to make massive changes of the system, when small incremental changes could go a long way toward solving the problem.
Comment: #13
Posted by: James N.
Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:39 PM
One of the best accounts of financial power—and its relationship to other forms of power—comes in the writing of retired professor James Petras. He has penned series of books starkly exposing “the Zionist Power Configuration” that includes Jewish dominance in Western finance.
In particular, his book, Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, focuses on this, but he also addresses it in The Power of Israel in the United States, Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, and Global Depression and Regional Wars: The United States, Latin America and the Middle East.
Here are some of the observations Petras makes: “Jewish families are among the wealthiest families in the United States” and nearly a third of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish. He also points to similar wealth in Canada, where “over 30 percent of the Canadian Stock Market” is in Jewish hands. Alan Greenspan's tenure as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is also linked to Zionist power, since Greenspan was “a long time crony of Wall Street financial interests and promoter of major pro-Israeli investment houses.” (Greenspan was succeeded by coreligionist Ben Shalom Bernanke.)
Debunking the “high school textbook version of American politics,” Petras argues that “the people in key positions in financial, corporate and other business institutions establish the parameters within which the politicians, parties and media discuss ideas. These people constitute a ruling class.” Of the two groups cited by Petras—those in control of financial capital and Zioncons—both are so heavily Jewish as to constitute a single “cabal,” a word which Petras uses liberally throughout both books.
Wall Street supplies many of the “tried and experienced top leaders” who rotate in and out of Washington. At the top of the hierarchy, he finds the big private equity banks and hedge funds. Thus, political leadership descends from Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, the Carlyle Group and others. Goldman Sachs is a historically Jewish firm, Stephen A. Schwarzman is co-founder and current head of the Blackstone Group, while David Rubenstein is co-founder of the Carlyle Group and served in the Carter administration as a domestic policy adviser.
To get just a minor sense of the interconnectedness of Wall Street and Washington Petras is discussing—and to see its heavily Jewish ethnic nexus—note that during the second Clinton Administration, Robert Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and was succeeded by Larry Summers (also Jewish). Rubin worked his way to Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs prior to becoming the Secretary of the Treasury, and later became the Chairman of Citigroup. He is currently co-chairman of the board of directors on the Council on Foreign Relations.
Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Though relegated to an endnote, he names Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs as those involved. What is relevant here is the ethnic connections going to the top of American society that validate Petras's emphasis on the combined power of Zionism, media and financial control.
Petras's endnote shows that Harvard paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with Harvard professors. As Steve Sailer illustrates, however, it is the Jewishaspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew, Harvard President Lawrence Summers (who had just finished a stint as Secretary of the Treasury). The upshot of the scandal was that the “reform” of the Russian economy “turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in all history, and the Harvard boys weren't all merely naive theoreticians.”
Let me tell you about Social Security....
My grandpa thought Social Security was a bogus rip off when it started up in the 1930's, and he refused to enroll and get a SS card and pay. He was self-employed and wanted to keep every cent from his business. He was about 34 years old when he made this decision.
Around 1960, when he was old enough to start collecting, he couldn't because he never paid into it. He was seriously screwed. He had been too ill to run the family business for several years, and wound up trying to take the business back from my dad when his (grandpa's) savings were exhausted. His maneuver nearly bankrupted my parents and the strain of the fight gave Grandpa his 3rd-and final-heart attack. He died broke, but Grandma had signed up for SS, so she had a paid-for house and a small pension.
Both of my parents are, or were, on SS, and it's been good to them, too. Nobody can put away enough money from their day job to completely fund their retirement. If people don't retire, there are no openings for young people to enter the work force. Consequently, we have a dilemma that can be solved in only 3 ways:
1) We create a "Logan's Run" (Michael York Sci-Fi movie from the 1970's) type of society where we throw a big party for people when they are 65 and then quietly take them to an execution chamber.
2) We require people to voluntarily work until they are literally suffering from their terminal illness. If old, feeble people quit working, we put them into a sort of forced labor camp where they make commercially salable products, or perhaps manufacture goods and services as vendors to the government. They would stay at the camp until they got a "real" job or died. Young people? Screw 'em. They can go to a 3rd world country as illegals and make athletic shoes for 15 cents/hour.
3) Increase worker and employer contributions, tax corporate profits and stock dividends to the extent needed to fully fund Social Security at a level above subsistence. Also, Congress must figure out a way to repay the funds it has "liberated" from SS in the past and Social Security Funds must be absolutely, no exceptions, immune from being used by Congress either by seizure, as collateral, or as direct loans.
Politics be damned. If we don't take care of the elderly as a society, we will have to take care of them the old fashioned way-your parents move in with you when your kids move out and they stay with you at your expense until they die.
Now that's a reality that transcends Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian/Socialist economic theory!!
PS: Mr. Stossel, you are wrong about taxes. Taxes don't take money from businesses and give it to politicians. Taxes take money from everybody and redistribute it to businesses via public works and social welfare. Poor people take their tax-funded food stamps and spend them at the grocery store. The money goes back into the community instead of the offshore accounts of the wealthy tax loophole users.
Re: James N.
If someone makes over $300,000 a year, for year after year, there is a limit as to how much of it they can constructively spend for their daily upkeep. If their incomes are not capped for social security taxation, so what? They *will* put millions into bank accounts and investments and wind up at age 65 with a fabulous nest egg that probably includes one, or more, paid-for homes. If they get only $2500/mo from SS, so what? Their retirement portfolios will cough up much more than that every month, and there will still be funds in there when they die.
Tax 'em!
Re: Barkley Pontree
THANK YOU!!! I am SO SICK of being blamed for everything from the deficit to the price of beans in China that I could VOMIT!! John Stossel is a weinie who doesnt know his backside from a hole in the ground and I for one RESENT the baby boomer bashing that has become so fashionable of late. I would like to tout facts and figures but you have covered it all quite nicely. Again, THANK YOU!!!!!
Comment: #17
Posted by: Tina
Thu May 20, 2010 5:51 PM
Re: Cliff Hickman, "What are the true facts?"
The true fact is there is a $2.8 TRILLION dollar SURPLUS in the Entitlements funds.
These programs produce a SURPLUS on a monthly basis, and have since inception.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Rodney Hytonen
Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:55 AM
You say social security is not funded but people like me who funded it for fifty years each had our money stolen by Congress for years. Just like post office money those devils in congress remove or better yet they embezzle funds so no wonder there is no money. If insurances embezzled the premiums collected would you say they were unfunded?
John Petri
Redford, Michigan
Comment: #19
Posted by: John Petri
Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:12 AM