How To Cry 'Wolf Cub' on Social Security and Medicare
by
Gary North
GaryNorth.com
Recently
by Gary North: Boehner
Has Obama by the Boondoggles
The mainstream
media never cry "wolf!" on the statistically inevitable bankruptcy
of Medicare and Social Security. Instead, they cry "wolf cub."
Robert Powell,
the resident retirement economics expert at MarketWatch, has written
a standard head-in-the-sand article on the #1 and #2 fiscal killers
in the United States: Medicare and Social Security.
It begins with
a tip-off to readers about his politics. "Congrats on your re-election!
I hope you'll forgive me for not dwelling on your victory and getting
straight to the point."
Powell knows
that Obama will never read his column. So do his readers. So, the
intro is for readers, not for Obama.
With
all due respect, it's time for you to tackle this nation's retirement
security issues, including Social Security, Medicare, and a host
of other challenges that threaten the financial well-being and standard
of living of current and future retirees.
Here is the
short list: Social Security, Medicare, retirement security, caring
for a nation of elders.
It's time for
Obama to tackle these, he says. It used to be time for Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama
in the first term to tackle these issues. But it did not happen.
They all played touch football, not tackle. So, it's time. Really.
No kidding. He means it.
These are the
politically untouchable today programs that will eventually
bankrupt the federal government if they are not abandoned. So, they
will all be abandoned. But the author refuses to admit this. His
article is designed to persuade us that they will not be abandoned.
All such mainstream articles are.
Nowhere does
he refer to Prof. Lawrence Kotlikoff's estimate of the present
value of the unfunded federal liabilities: $222
trillion.
TRUST
FUND FOR DUMMIES!
He begins with
an accurate, though irrelevant, statement.
For
the past four years, more really, politicians in this country have
been kicking the can down the road. They've not had a serious discussion
about how to fix Social Security despite years of knowing about
a problem that will affect millions of Americans in 21 short years.
What he does
not admit is that the Congress has been kicking this can down the
road ever since 1983, when the then-technically bankrupt Social
Security program was revised by Reagan and Congress: higher taxes
by way of a sliding increase in the wages subject to the FICA tax.
This was required because President Carter's 1977 reform, which
he said would hold until 2000, went bust in six years.
Perhaps
a reminder is in order? Come 2033, unless Congress acts, the Social
Security Trust Fund will be bankrupt; it will be unable to pay scheduled
benefits in full on a timely basis. In fact, come 2033, Social Security
would only collect enough tax revenue each year to pay about 75%
of benefits.
This is the
standard fakery. There is no statistically viable Trust Fund. There
is merely a pile of IOUs from the Treasury that the Trust Fund has
been cashing in for the last two fiscal years in order to keep making
payments. The whole fund is bankrolled by the government. It's just
an accounting sham to hide the nature of this
Ponzi scheme.
The program
is in red-ink mode. This may cease next year because of the expiration
of the Bush tax cuts. But the system's cash flow will again go negative
by 2016, if there is no recession between now and 2016. The year
2033 is always mentioned by the Trustees because it is so far away
politically that it has no impact on voters or Congress.
Why
is that we can mobilize armies of people and relief efforts for
Hurricane Sandy, but we can't muster up the energy and the will
to tackle the Social Security problem?
Answer: because
Sandy is chump change compared to Social Security. It's also a one-time
event. Finally, the relief efforts are mainly voluntary. The Social
Security program is political. It requires Congress to hike taxes.
Here's
my advice: Put this on your list of things to do over the next four
years. And don't just give it lip service as you did during the
campaign. Do it. Figure out a way, just as the Greenspan Commission
did back in the early 1980s, to preserve what has become
for better or worse a much-needed source of income for retirees
in this country, even those in the upper income quintile.
No one will
take his advice. This can has been kicked down the road for 30 years.
This will not change.
NIP AND
TUCK
Then comes
the standard poppycock these mainstream articles always offer as
gospel ("the good news").
Make
no mistake about this: The solutions are readily known. A nip here
and a tuck there could easily solve this problem now.
If all that
is needed is some tweaking, why has Congress avoided making these
tweaks for 30 years? Why did the system go belly up in 1983? Why
did Carter have to reform it in 1977?
Because the
system is flawed at its core. But Powell does not admit this.
For
instance, to remain solvent throughout a 75-year projection period,
the Social Security trustees recently recommended that lawmakers
could: 1) increase the combined payroll tax rate 2.61 percentage
points (from its current level of 12.40% to 15.01%); 2) reduce scheduled
benefits by 16.2%; 3) draw on alternative sources of revenue; or
4) adopt some combination of these approaches. Others have proposed
similar tactics, all of which center on increasing taxes, reducing
benefits or some combination of both. Read the Detailed Reports
On The Financial Outlook For Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors,
And Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds, by year of publication.
Nothing to
it, right? But Congress will not do any of it. Why not? Because
the proposed reforms are a form of tax hikes and/or default on payments.
ANNUAL
REMINDER: "ACT NOW!"
The longer
the "tweaks" are delayed, the larger the problem. But Social Security's
cheerleaders tell us every year, decade after decade, that there
is no big problem, "if we act now." No one acts now. But somehow
the problem remains manageable, according to next year's articles.
So, why fix it? It will be manageable next year, too. It always
is, according to mainstream media columnists like Powell.
But
the longer we wait, the more drastic the problem becomes and the
more draconian the solutions will be.
They write
this every year. No one believes them.
This is not
the boy who cried "wolf." This is the boy who cries "wolf cub, if
we act now." We don't act now. But no wolf ever shows up.
But it will.
And it will not be alone.
For
what it's worth, I don't think we should leave this problem to our
children to fix. So, for my children's sake, for your children's
sake, and for the sake of all the children of this country, fix
Social Security now.
Frankly, it's
worth nothing. No one believes him. That is because "itty, bitty
wolf cub" stories gain no traction.
MEDICARE
Then he pretends
to face Medicare's problems.
Medicare
is, of course, a problem much larger than Social Security, especially
since the solutions to fixing it aren't nearly as neat. With Social
Security there is, for instance, some degree of certainty. We know
how much money is coming into the system and how much will be going
out and for how many years.
In contrast,
as the Medicare trustees said in their most recent report, "Projections
of Medicare costs are highly uncertain, especially when looking
out more than several decades." One reason for this uncertainty
is that scientific advances will make possible new interventions,
procedures, and therapies. What's more, the financial outlook
for Medicare is also uncertain because some provisions of current
law that are designed to reduce costs may not be sustained.
No mention
yet of the $222 trillion figure of the present liability of the
unfunded liabilities.
The
clearest example of this issue, the trustees wrote, is the growth
rate formula for physician fee schedule payment levels. The projections
in the most recent Medicare trustee report, for instance, assume
that, as required by current law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services will implement a reduction in Medicare payment rates for
physician services of more than 30% at the start of 2013. "However,
it is a virtual certainty that lawmakers, cognizant of the disruptive
consequences of such a sudden, sharp reduction in payments, will
override this reduction just as they have every year since 2003,"
the trustees wrote.
So,
the flow of red ink is growing. There will be no reduction. But
if there is, some physicians will pull out of Medicare, maybe by
retiring. Eventually, rationing will come. The phrase "death panels"
comes to mind.
What's
more, Mr. President, the health-care reforms enacted so far under
your first administration are another, and even larger, source of
policy-related uncertainty.
"Given these
uncertainties, future Medicare costs could be substantially larger
than shown in the Trustees' current-law projections," the trustees
wrote. "Growth of this magnitude, if realized, would substantially
increase the strain on the nation's workers, the economy, Medicare
beneficiaries, and the federal budget."
Correct. So,
what is the solution?
But
just because Medicare is a big problem doesn't mean we shouldn't
search for ways to fix it. In fact, the trustees are urging that
reforms be considered.
No mention
yet of the $222 trillion. This is not a "big problem." This is an
unsolvable problem, except by default. So, default is coming.
Read
the rest of the article
November
14, 2012
Gary
North [send him mail]
is the author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 31-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright ©
2012 Gary North
The
Best of Gary North
|