Here is an Email I received just today, telling me how the rich justify stealing our Social Security:


The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security will hold a hearing tomorrow on the solvency of the Social Security program where Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration and Keith Hall, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, will testify.

In light of this hearing, I wanted to share a new paper from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Sizing Up Social Security’s Solvency Challenge, which explains the significant differences between CBO and the Social Security Trustees.

While both estimators warn that Social Security faces serious financial challenges and is on the fast track to insolvency, CBO has concluded that the problem is much worse and the date of trust fund depletion much sooner than the Trustees believe.

The full paper is available on our website, and for your convenience I’ve also pasted it below.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
Marc Goldwein
Senior Vice President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

We’ve written about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget before.  They are the folks who want you to believe that the federal government can run out of its own sovereign currency and so can become insolvent.

The fact that for almost two and a half centuries of existence, through wars, recessions, depressions, inflations, and stagflations, the U.S. government never has run out of dollars, and indeed cannot run out of dollars — that fact never is revealed by the CRFB

To the CRFB, any federal deficit is a looming disaster and any federal debt is a ticking time bomb. They are prime disseminators of The Big Lie.

Here are excerpts from their paper:

Social Security faces a large shortfall between scheduled benefits and dedicated revenue, and the program is currently on a path toward insolvency. However, official estimators disagree on the extent of the program’s financial woes.

The Social Security Trustees project the program’s trust funds face a 75-year gap equal to 2.7 percent of payroll (1.0 percent of GDP) and will be depleted by 2034, on a (theoretical) combined basis. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a trust fund gap equal to 4.7 percent of payroll (1.6 percent of GDP) and a depletion date of 2029.

The path to insolvency is a gigantic con job, based on deceiving math and factual error.

But fear not. The CRFB offers us a solution:

To avoid these cuts, policymakers should enact a thoughtful mix of revenue and benefit changes that begin soon, phase in slowly, strengthen retirement security for those who rely on benefits, promote economic growth, and secure Social Security’s long-term finances.

This “thoughtful mix of revenue and benefit changes” is the CRFB’s sneaky way of telling us our taxes will be increased and our benefits will be decreased.

But of course, they don’t want to come right out and say it, because we might object to being screwed.  The CRFB hopes we’ll be too stupid to realize what is being done to us, so long as we’re told it’s “thoughtful,” and these are just “changes,” not cuts.

“Why?” you may ask, “does the CRFB publish such tripe, and why does Congress go along with it?”

Follow the link below to see the CRFB Board Members. Notice anything special about them?

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Board Members

They all are highly paid and they all are white.  These are people of privilege, white society people who enjoy the lush benefits of a wide and ever-widening Gap between the rich and the rest.

No middle- or lower-class people allowed, no minorities need attend.

To bolster their phony argument, the CRFB must, of course, supply statistics.

The above chart supposedly shows you the onrushing insolvency of Social Security. After all, projected Revenue is less than projected Spending, so that means disaster, doesn’t it?

But wait. Couldn’t that graph also refer to the White House?  No FICA, or any other taxes, support the White House, so clearly, projected Revenue is far less than projected Spending.

With zero dedicated revenue, the minute Mrs. Obama throws a party for an ambassador, won’t the White House be insolvent?

And couldn’t the graph also refer to Congress?  No FICA taxes, no dedicated revenue, support Congress, so the instant a Senator goes on an investigative winter tour of the Virgin Islands, Congress will be insolvent. Right?

And what about the Supreme Court? No FICA there either. Have just one of those black robes cleaned, and already Spending exceeds Revenue. Hello, insolvency.

The same is true for the FBI, CIA, FAA, the Army, the Navy, and all the other 1000 agencies of the federal government. No dedicated revenue.

But yet, here we are, running along without insolvency. Why? How?

The federal government, absolutely, positively cannot run short of U.S. dollars. It created the original laws that created the original dollars — as many laws and as many dollars as they wished.

So why do we hear repeated cries of “Insolvency! Insolvency! when discussing the Social Security and Medicare federal agencies?

Because those are the two agencies most responsible for closing the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The rich run America and they love the Gap.  

Without the Gap, no one would be rich. (We all would be the same.) And the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

So the rich fund organizations like CRFB to sell us The Big Lie. That way, when Congress decides to take dollars from our pockets by raising our taxes and cutting our benefits, we’ll agree without making a fuss.

And the rich fund Congress, now in unlimited amounts thanks to a right-wing Supreme Court.  So Congress is only too happy to go along.

And us, like docile little puppies, we’ll eat the crap they feed us, and even wag our tails in appreciation.

Now repeat after me: “Bow wow, thank you, master. Please cut my Social Security, again.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.