Debt Commission is just Political Theatre

September 13, 2011

Letter: There's plenty of waste to cut in the budget

To the editor:

The debt commission met last week to begin their odyssey to find $1.5 trillion in spending reductions in the federal budget.

This is typical Washington political theater designed to fool all the people some of the time. They could save their $25 million budget, by simply asking the GAO, or the Heritage Foundation, or Citizens Against Government Waste, who have been looking at this problem for years. Or they could look at the 607 wasteful programs identified by the Bush administration audit of governmental operations in 2001. Note that Congress did not even discuss the report.

If they simply reduced spending to 2008 levels the budget could be balanced by 2019 without tax increases, according to the GAO. Bear in mind that this illustrious panel, decreed by President Obama to do that which neither he nor Congress could do in the eight months prior, has the ridiculously low target of $150 billion per year in cuts. Out of a $4 trillion budget, this is a mere 3.7 percent trim.

They could almost reach this target by eliminating the $129 billion in improper payments made annually. Or they could save the $25 billion spent maintaining vacant government buildings — buildings worth $111 billion: sell them — or the $92 billion spent annually in corporate welfare (excluding TARP). How about the 22 percent of federal programs identified by the GAO in their audit that "make no impact upon the population they serve"? This is another $123 billion. How about the $2.6 million the government spends teaching Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly? What about the 47 percent of all government credit card purchases that the GAO's audit revealed as "improper, fraudulent, or embezzled", such as the $13,500 dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse that the Post Office charged. What about the $146 million spent flying government employees first class?

This very short list readily available on the Internet would save $423 billion annually by itself. And this is just some of the low hanging fruit. But the geniuses in Congress and the White House need this super panel to shield themselves from having to tell anyone their favored slush fund is cut off.

Perhaps we need a program to teach our senators, congresspeople, and president leadership and responsibility! Perhaps we need to remind these people that they occupy temporary jobs — and they work for us!

MARK ACCIARD

Atkinson

Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme

Charles Ponzi would be proud. Gov. Perry has come under fire for stating the obvious, that social security is a Ponzi Scheme. That means that it takes in money from current investors to pay out the original investors, and the money keeps circulating. It will crash when the people realize that there is not money in the "social security trust fund" to actually pay benefits. Oh, I know, the social security actuary says there is $2.7 trillion in that fund, and there is... kind of.


See, what has happened since 1968 is that every single year Congress has spent the money that is paid into social security, beyond what is paid out(the surplus), and replaced it with SPECIAL CLASS NON NEGOTIABLE TREASURY BONDS. These bonds can not be traded on the open market, and therefore have no marketable value beyond their role as place holders for the hard earned money of taxpayers that Congress squandered.


This system worked GREAT, when there was 14 workers for every beneficiary, and the surpluses were rolling in, but now when there is 2.3 workers for every beneficiary, and we are paying out more than we are taking in, the Ponzi Scheme is reaching collapse.


We, the taxpayers, entrusted to congress our money to invest for retirement. They told us they were "investing in America". ROFLMAO, what this meant was placing those bonds in place of money. If a corporation did this, it's officers would be in federal prison. a corporation has to not only fund the pension program, but has to invest it in such a way that it will pay the retirees, or else they have to make up the shortfall, but not the government, they will simply tax you more to pay for your own retirement, that you already paid them for, but they spent in a manner that would embarrass drunken sailors.


So this year marks the beginning of the baby boomers retirement. From this point on, social security will spend more than it takes in, and every year this shortfall will have to be made up with tax dollars, in addition to the 43% of what the government spends that is borrowed. This is a situation that can not continue for long, before bankruptcy is the only honorable option. But then again, personal honor has never been an electable trait.