Category Archives: Paul Ryan

Social Security Projections

Posted on by

The U.S. deficit continues to grow out of control, and there should have been actions taken to address the problem long before now. However, President Obama’s comments that the deficit is not a short term problem indicates to me we won’t do anything about the deficit for the next four years. Much of the problem is caused by “entitlement” commitments, and President Obama said in his inaugural address that he has no intention of doing anything about those either.

I’m baffled how the American people and the media are going along with the “don’t worry, be happy” approach. Looking at Social Security alone is frightening. A recent article by Chuck Saletta on the Motley Fool points out that each new analysis finds that the program will reach “financial unsustainability” sooner than the previous analyses. The Social Security Trustees reported in 2008 that problems would not be encountered until 2041. The date has now changed to 2033, and that is going to continue to move closer.

Money taken from employees and employers is invested in bonds, and bonds that mature must be replaced with new ones. The older bonds were yielding much more in interest than the ones currently available. The program is projected to earn $5.4 billion less in bond interest in 2012. The fact the Federal Reserve has recently said they are going to artificially keep interest rates low until the unemployment rate begins to drop means the revenue is not going to improve. Continue reading →

Dueling Presidential Candidate Gaffes

Posted on by

With less than a week until we learn who will be elected president it seems the time is right for a mention of gaffes by the two candidates. It wouldn’t be a duel if the subject referred to Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, since Mr. Biden would win on the numbers of gaffes by an overwhelming margin.

Mitt Romney stirred understandable criticism when he foolishly mentioned that he need not campaign to the 47 percent of Americans who are “dependent on government” and consider themselves “victims.” He later said that he understood that he wasn’t going to get the vote of people who expected that the government’s job is to redistribute wealth, and that “I’m not going to get them.” He added “I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay to allow people to pay taxes. I think people would like to be paying taxes.”

Mr. Obama presented a different opinion in an appearance at Loyola University in 1998 when he was an Illinois state senator. The admittedly 14 year-old video has Mr. Obama saying, “The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” Continue reading →

Joe Biden, Territorial Tax, and Social Security

Posted on by

I often refer to Vice President Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr. as the accidental comedian because of the strange things he says. He says them with such force and vigor that people often are swayed by the emotion conveyed and perhaps don’t notice the absurdity of what was said. During his convention speech he said (with great vigor) that “Governor Romney believes in this global economy it doesn’t matter where American companies invest and put their money or where they create jobs. He then went on to say that Romney was proposing “…a territorial tax, which the experts have looked at, and they acknowledge that it will create 800,000 new jobs—all of them overseas, all of them.” Joe, or his speech writers, apparently did not know that the business leaders on President Obama’s Export Council and his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness have said that the tax system Joe accused as originating with Mr. Romney would be a good idea for the U.S economy.

Those comments by Joe during his speech created a flurry of astonished articles, but it isn’t even my favorite recent “Joeism.” During the Vice Presidential debate he accused Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney of wanting to privatize Social Security and inquired where people’s retirement programs be if that idea had been accepted when George W. Bush proposed it. I did a posting in February in which I analyzed what would have happened to a worker who voluntarily put the suggested one third of their Social Security “contributions” into a S & P 500 index (which was called “privatization by Joe and others) on a dollar averaging basis. It would have been really worrisome to watch the value of the account plummet with the stock market in 2008, but the money being invested during that time would have bought more shares.

The calculations I made were based on a person earning $50,000 a year with $3100 being withheld for Social Security and matched by the employer. One third of the monthly total would have resulted in about $170 dollars a month going into the private account. There would have been about $8300 invested since the beginning of 2005, and the value would have dropped to  $5700 at the worst of the market collapse. However, the investors that took advantage of the lower market value and continued to invest would be pleased with the results. They would have invested about $15,700 by now, and, with the improved stock market, the account would be worth about $17,600.

No one knows what the stock market is going to do in the future, but history has shown it to be a good place to create value for investments. The individual with the private account would have the advantage of being able to use the money however they wished upon retirement instead of having the government calculate how much money they would receive each month. They also could designate the person or persons of their own choice to be beneficiaries who would receive the full remaining value. Social Security payments stop immediately after the death of the person.

All of that may or may not be of interest, but let’s get back to Joe. When he asked where we would be if Social Security had been “privatized,” he apparently didn’t know that the individuals who had voluntarily began the investment process would have more money. What is even more astonishing is that he apparently hasn’t noticed that the stock market has improved since Mr. Obama and he took office. Wouldn’t that be something to brag about?

Romney Pick of Paul Ryan

Posted on by

I have seen news reports of hecklers shouting at Paul Ryan in some of his first campaign speeches with accusing words such as “Why do you want to destroy Medicare?” I suppose the origin of that question is from a Democratic ad on the Internet that accuses, “Paul Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as we know it.” The anti-Ryan ads are playing frequently in places such as Florida where the votes of older residents are crucial. I wonder how long it will be before they resurrect the ad that portrays a Ryan look-alike dumping an elderly woman out of a wheelchair over a cliff.

Both ads bring to mind the observation that it is easier to tell a lie than to explain the truth. Mr. Ryan’s proposals are intended to improve the fiscal strength of Medicare. There would be no changes at all for the older people the ads are intended to scare.  People under 55 would have the option enrolling in Medicare or being given a voucher to enroll in a private insurance policy.

So let’s get this straight. The Ryan proposal would not change anything for anyone over 55 and it would give people 55 and under the option to stay on the program or shop for health care coverage. The proposal is in response to the fact that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will have insufficient funds to maintain benefits in twelve years. Apparently ending Medicare as we know it means that bankruptcy is preferable to fixing the program. My suspicion is that some politicians can’t accept the idea that people might chose to manage their own affairs instead of depending on government.

I want Mr. Ryan to respond to the hecklers “I want to save Medicare!” Politicians who refuse to do anything to fix broken entitlement programs remind me of the meek townspeople in the old Western movies who hide and watch while the hero takes his six shooters out to the street to defend the town. We need fewer politicians who hide and watch while criticizing those who take the risk of proposing changes. The Congressional Budget Office has warned Medicare will go bankrupt without changes. Is proposing changes to make the program better than hiding and watching while it goes bankrupt? I vote yes.