Responsible Federal Budget
-Here is a debt clock that shows how excessively our debt is growing from unfunded liabilities, mostly in our healthcare system. Healthcare is the only thing that can potentially bankrupt the country if it's not reformed.
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
-Here is a link that discusses the wisdom in providing affordable universal coverage to people from a moral and fiscally conservative way of approaching it, as every other developed country does while saving what would be trillions if we ran our healthcare system like any of them. This link also addresses the common misconception that our payroll taxes pay for Medicare and Social Security, when in fact they both will contribute to our debt if not reformed, particularly from Medicare and other healthcare.
affordableuniversalcareinformation.weebly.com
-The idea of a runaway welfare state in the federal government is mostly a myth given most people's desire for providing a basic social safety net. Not much more than ten percent of our budget goes towards helping the poor. With a trillion dollar deficit out of a four trillion dollar budget, the idea that you will even balance the budget on the backs of the poor is misguided. Of course, there's always wisdom in keeping people from unhealthy dependence on government but all it would amount to is tinkering around the edges. As a federal matter, the only thing guaranteed in every state is that a person can get food stamps and education, but only if they have access to little money. In some states that expanded Medicaid to the poor, there is also that. Obamacare exchanges simply help keep the costs of healthcare down and isn't exactly for the 'poor'. Assistance in paying rent is limited to less than a fraction of a percent of the population, prioritizing the most vulnerable.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor/
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
-The second link above also illustrates that our fiscal problem is limited to 'entitlements' like Medicare and Social Security, defense, and interest on the debt. These account for over ninety percent of our budget, which gives another example where politicians give examples of reigning in our budget but on small fries that would never come close to bridging the necessary gaps.
-The best way to manage our debt responsibly is to keep growth of the government in check compared to growth of the economy. "Balancing the budget" as is often talked about doesn't allow the government to borrow money when it needs it during recessions or when the debt isn't getting out of hand. A better approach is keeping our debt to GDP within historical parameters.
-A balanced budget amendment could be: keep our spending at the historical average of 18% of GDP, plus maybe a certain percent for stimulus spending during recessionary periods that adds to the debt. This would keep our debt to GDP at decent levels as well. Social security and medicare would need to be exempt from the limits on government revenue spending, but not exempt from not adding to the debt as they currently will- this will force politicians to reform these programs, hopefully in a progressive kind of way.
-every politician should be required to take this budget quiz. it gives quick and dirty options in how to keep our debt manageable, shooting for our historical debt to GDP, 40%. it's a bit oversimplified, but it's a way that way we can see not only their approach to the debt, but also what they value, and how much they value it.
http://www.crfb.org/debtfixer/
-Here is a true fiscal conservative, arguing that the dirty secret in Washington is that our debt is getting out of control and no one wants to do anything about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGqkctDwkMo
-"How to balance the budget? Hold the growth of government spending to 2 percent per year. That's it. If Washington did only that, the federal budget would be balanced within six years. Hold the growth of government spending to just 3 percent per year, and balancing the budget would take slightly longer: nine years."
https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/07/how-to-balance-the-budget-in-one-easy-st
Some common sense principles in reforming Social Security:
- 'king of the hill' strategy. a way for a group like congress to overcome gridlock. an array of bills are presented and the one with the most votes gets passed. if all the budget bills had the premise of reigning in spending, we could get a bill that no one completely likes but has most support. this could be used on all kinds of issues in gridlock, and i got the idea from charlie dent, in one of the following links, who referenced the idea while talking about immigration and gun control. of course, there will always be those who value the status quo and gridlock over what most others view as progress.
http://politicaldictionary.com/words/king-of-the-hill/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fH6LmqDfxE
-Trump's choosing what not to spend on. recission.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/rescissions-how-do-they-work
-Line item veto.
-this article mentions two polls where there is about unanimity on the idea that tax cuts add to debt among expert economists.... substantially adding debt is usual with these measures. (you can wiki search the 'laffer curve' but almost all economists say we are at a point where tax cuts add to debt, not lessen it)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/22/37-of-38-economists-said-the-gop-tax-plans-would-grow-the-debt-the-38th-misread-the-question/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2af74eccf6da
-some reasons why printing money can be good and a gold standard not the greatest idea
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/06/why-do-we-print-money/
How to Reform Social Security
- social security is often said to be going to run out of money in a little less than twenty years.... to the tune of only being able to cover seventy some percent of its benefits. it does need reformed. everyone should have some skin in the game in reforming it, but it can definitely be reformed. not that i advocate putting all on the backs of the rich, but to illustrate the point that it can in fact be reformed indefinitely, lifting the payroll cap on social security like we have with medicare would extend the program for at least seventy years. if we started means testing it against the rich or folks like trump and bill gates and warren buffet and the very well off, and made it more insurance oriented, it could last much longer and indefinitely. but again, everyone should have skin in the game. i sorta liked bush jr's idea of allowing it partially privatized in something like an ira, and definitely liked paul ryan's ideas of guaranteeing a basic minimum but also doing what bush jr wanted. the idea of the people being part owners of the corporate and business world is appealing. i wouldn't trust someone like ryan as president when it's reformed, but he's an ideas man and has some good ideas.
even they dont like the idea of full privatization because it would lead the poor and less well off without an adequate way to retire with dignity, given the returns for the less well off would never match what they get from social security the way it's currently set up.
a problem that will occur is that the social security act guarantees full payment, but there's a anti defiicit act that would try to limit payment. it's a conflict of laws. it looks like the anti deficit law would trump, but it's hard to say. this just illustrates that the program needs reformed and the sooner the less painful reform will be.
-
-"If a trust fund became depleted, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.""
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33514.pdf
Is the natinoal debt and deficit bad?
Nowhere do these CRFB folks define what the National DEBT is.
They don't know.
Yet, they screed about it as if they do.
Our national debt is comprised of Treasury securities purchased by individuals firms and governments domestic and foreign who wish to preserve the value of their dollars.
Ergo, the transfer their non-interest bearing dollars from checking accounts to purchase interest-bearing Treasury securities.
The dollars used to buy the T-securities go into reserve accounts at the Federal Reserve and the T-securities are kept in security accounts at the Federal Reserve.
In no way can these purchases (exactly like your purchase of a CD) be construed as debt.
Interest is credited to T-security accounts by debiting the aforementioned Reserve accounts. No tax dollars are ever involved in paying interest on these SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
The DEBT CLOCK on 6th Ave, NYC is pure fraud. It does, however, record all the dollars that have been spent by the Federal government since 1778 and not yet taxed. The $20 trillion-plus represents our National Savings.
Government debt is a private asset. You and I do not OWE government debt, we OWN it. Indeed, the only source of net dollar-denominated financial wealth is Federal government T-securities.
Here's a solution. Once the federal T-security sales reach $21.1 trillion, the Treasury would be prohibited from selling any more bonds. Treasury would continue to spend by crediting bank accounts of recipients, and reserve accounts of their banks. Banks would offer excess reserves in overnight markets, but would find no takers—hence would have to be content holding reserves and earning whatever rate the Fed wants to pay. But as Chairman Bernanke told Congress, this is no problem because the Fed spends simply by crediting bank accounts. (L. Randall Wray) https://goo.gl/m9hdQW
https://goo.gl/NCKV1E
https://goo.gl/nTxJRH
https://goo.gl/FQanLC
As for the Federal Deficit, they WRONGLY believe the Federal deficit is a bad thing.
They are completely unaware of the fact that wherever there's a deficit there's a surplus ... balance sheets must balance. A sovereign government deficit is nothing to fear. It is simply the mirror image of the non-government sector's saving. As the US private sector retrenched to rebuild its balance sheet, the government's balance moved toward deficit. There is an unrecognized identity at work. Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Government Balance + Foreign Balance = 0.
In the case of the Federal budget deficit, it is equal to the penny to net financial surpluses in the non-government sector.
That's money in our checking accounts.
When the gov spends that becomes income to individuals and firms in the private sector. It's the new money that enters the economy interest-free and is essential in its contribution to economic growth. https://goo.gl/Fq9fKD
-Here is a debt clock that shows how excessively our debt is growing from unfunded liabilities, mostly in our healthcare system. Healthcare is the only thing that can potentially bankrupt the country if it's not reformed.
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
-Here is a link that discusses the wisdom in providing affordable universal coverage to people from a moral and fiscally conservative way of approaching it, as every other developed country does while saving what would be trillions if we ran our healthcare system like any of them. This link also addresses the common misconception that our payroll taxes pay for Medicare and Social Security, when in fact they both will contribute to our debt if not reformed, particularly from Medicare and other healthcare.
affordableuniversalcareinformation.weebly.com
-The idea of a runaway welfare state in the federal government is mostly a myth given most people's desire for providing a basic social safety net. Not much more than ten percent of our budget goes towards helping the poor. With a trillion dollar deficit out of a four trillion dollar budget, the idea that you will even balance the budget on the backs of the poor is misguided. Of course, there's always wisdom in keeping people from unhealthy dependence on government but all it would amount to is tinkering around the edges. As a federal matter, the only thing guaranteed in every state is that a person can get food stamps and education, but only if they have access to little money. In some states that expanded Medicaid to the poor, there is also that. Obamacare exchanges simply help keep the costs of healthcare down and isn't exactly for the 'poor'. Assistance in paying rent is limited to less than a fraction of a percent of the population, prioritizing the most vulnerable.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor/
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
-The second link above also illustrates that our fiscal problem is limited to 'entitlements' like Medicare and Social Security, defense, and interest on the debt. These account for over ninety percent of our budget, which gives another example where politicians give examples of reigning in our budget but on small fries that would never come close to bridging the necessary gaps.
-The best way to manage our debt responsibly is to keep growth of the government in check compared to growth of the economy. "Balancing the budget" as is often talked about doesn't allow the government to borrow money when it needs it during recessions or when the debt isn't getting out of hand. A better approach is keeping our debt to GDP within historical parameters.
-A balanced budget amendment could be: keep our spending at the historical average of 18% of GDP, plus maybe a certain percent for stimulus spending during recessionary periods that adds to the debt. This would keep our debt to GDP at decent levels as well. Social security and medicare would need to be exempt from the limits on government revenue spending, but not exempt from not adding to the debt as they currently will- this will force politicians to reform these programs, hopefully in a progressive kind of way.
-every politician should be required to take this budget quiz. it gives quick and dirty options in how to keep our debt manageable, shooting for our historical debt to GDP, 40%. it's a bit oversimplified, but it's a way that way we can see not only their approach to the debt, but also what they value, and how much they value it.
http://www.crfb.org/debtfixer/
-Here is a true fiscal conservative, arguing that the dirty secret in Washington is that our debt is getting out of control and no one wants to do anything about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGqkctDwkMo
-"How to balance the budget? Hold the growth of government spending to 2 percent per year. That's it. If Washington did only that, the federal budget would be balanced within six years. Hold the growth of government spending to just 3 percent per year, and balancing the budget would take slightly longer: nine years."
https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/07/how-to-balance-the-budget-in-one-easy-st
Some common sense principles in reforming Social Security:
- 'king of the hill' strategy. a way for a group like congress to overcome gridlock. an array of bills are presented and the one with the most votes gets passed. if all the budget bills had the premise of reigning in spending, we could get a bill that no one completely likes but has most support. this could be used on all kinds of issues in gridlock, and i got the idea from charlie dent, in one of the following links, who referenced the idea while talking about immigration and gun control. of course, there will always be those who value the status quo and gridlock over what most others view as progress.
http://politicaldictionary.com/words/king-of-the-hill/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fH6LmqDfxE
-Trump's choosing what not to spend on. recission.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/rescissions-how-do-they-work
-Line item veto.
-this article mentions two polls where there is about unanimity on the idea that tax cuts add to debt among expert economists.... substantially adding debt is usual with these measures. (you can wiki search the 'laffer curve' but almost all economists say we are at a point where tax cuts add to debt, not lessen it)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/22/37-of-38-economists-said-the-gop-tax-plans-would-grow-the-debt-the-38th-misread-the-question/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2af74eccf6da
-some reasons why printing money can be good and a gold standard not the greatest idea
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/06/why-do-we-print-money/
How to Reform Social Security
- social security is often said to be going to run out of money in a little less than twenty years.... to the tune of only being able to cover seventy some percent of its benefits. it does need reformed. everyone should have some skin in the game in reforming it, but it can definitely be reformed. not that i advocate putting all on the backs of the rich, but to illustrate the point that it can in fact be reformed indefinitely, lifting the payroll cap on social security like we have with medicare would extend the program for at least seventy years. if we started means testing it against the rich or folks like trump and bill gates and warren buffet and the very well off, and made it more insurance oriented, it could last much longer and indefinitely. but again, everyone should have skin in the game. i sorta liked bush jr's idea of allowing it partially privatized in something like an ira, and definitely liked paul ryan's ideas of guaranteeing a basic minimum but also doing what bush jr wanted. the idea of the people being part owners of the corporate and business world is appealing. i wouldn't trust someone like ryan as president when it's reformed, but he's an ideas man and has some good ideas.
even they dont like the idea of full privatization because it would lead the poor and less well off without an adequate way to retire with dignity, given the returns for the less well off would never match what they get from social security the way it's currently set up.
a problem that will occur is that the social security act guarantees full payment, but there's a anti defiicit act that would try to limit payment. it's a conflict of laws. it looks like the anti deficit law would trump, but it's hard to say. this just illustrates that the program needs reformed and the sooner the less painful reform will be.
-
-"If a trust fund became depleted, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.""
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33514.pdf
Is the natinoal debt and deficit bad?
Nowhere do these CRFB folks define what the National DEBT is.
They don't know.
Yet, they screed about it as if they do.
Our national debt is comprised of Treasury securities purchased by individuals firms and governments domestic and foreign who wish to preserve the value of their dollars.
Ergo, the transfer their non-interest bearing dollars from checking accounts to purchase interest-bearing Treasury securities.
The dollars used to buy the T-securities go into reserve accounts at the Federal Reserve and the T-securities are kept in security accounts at the Federal Reserve.
In no way can these purchases (exactly like your purchase of a CD) be construed as debt.
Interest is credited to T-security accounts by debiting the aforementioned Reserve accounts. No tax dollars are ever involved in paying interest on these SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
The DEBT CLOCK on 6th Ave, NYC is pure fraud. It does, however, record all the dollars that have been spent by the Federal government since 1778 and not yet taxed. The $20 trillion-plus represents our National Savings.
Government debt is a private asset. You and I do not OWE government debt, we OWN it. Indeed, the only source of net dollar-denominated financial wealth is Federal government T-securities.
Here's a solution. Once the federal T-security sales reach $21.1 trillion, the Treasury would be prohibited from selling any more bonds. Treasury would continue to spend by crediting bank accounts of recipients, and reserve accounts of their banks. Banks would offer excess reserves in overnight markets, but would find no takers—hence would have to be content holding reserves and earning whatever rate the Fed wants to pay. But as Chairman Bernanke told Congress, this is no problem because the Fed spends simply by crediting bank accounts. (L. Randall Wray) https://goo.gl/m9hdQW
https://goo.gl/NCKV1E
https://goo.gl/nTxJRH
https://goo.gl/FQanLC
As for the Federal Deficit, they WRONGLY believe the Federal deficit is a bad thing.
They are completely unaware of the fact that wherever there's a deficit there's a surplus ... balance sheets must balance. A sovereign government deficit is nothing to fear. It is simply the mirror image of the non-government sector's saving. As the US private sector retrenched to rebuild its balance sheet, the government's balance moved toward deficit. There is an unrecognized identity at work. Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Government Balance + Foreign Balance = 0.
In the case of the Federal budget deficit, it is equal to the penny to net financial surpluses in the non-government sector.
That's money in our checking accounts.
When the gov spends that becomes income to individuals and firms in the private sector. It's the new money that enters the economy interest-free and is essential in its contribution to economic growth. https://goo.gl/Fq9fKD