Friday, March 18, 2011

Charles Krauthammer does it again:

What? Declare that the Social Security special bonds, which are where the surplus monies went over a 30-year period, are worthless. Interesting that he never raised the alarm throughout that period of accumulation, but only now when the bonds are set to be redeemed.

What do you call someone who witnesses an agreement - in this case the federal government promising to return money borrowed from Social Security surplus funds - and then when it's time to fulfill it, declare the agreement null and void, resulting in the loss of trillions of dollars by one party?

Krauthammer argues that the Social Security bonds are different, and that borrowing "is nothing more than a bookkeeping device that records how much one part of the U.S. government (Treasury) owes another part of the same government". By his logic they aren't really bonds, and therefore they can be defaulted on. I wonder if Krauthammer is cool with the federal government defaulting on Treasury bonds held by states, cities, and local governments and agencies.


If that's what he believes then he needs to admit that the "Greenspan compromise" of the 80s was really just a huge regressive tax hike and that it should be undone by raising taxes on the wealthy.

By Anonymous SP, at 3/18/2011 5:10 PM  

Since the money to repay the bonds is going to come from income tax, isn't that what will happen by default anyway?

By Anonymous jms, at 3/18/2011 5:46 PM  

As the OP states, defaulting on the SSTF bonds is simply theft from FICA payers 1987-now by the taxpayers of 2010 onward.

These are largely disjoint populations so the SSTF is not just an accounting gimmick.

The wealthiest 10% of the country pay the great bulk of taxes -- 70% according to the NTU, so this $2.6T is a $1.82T obligation on them.

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the conservatives pull this nearly two trillion dollar theft off.

Luckily, I only have $50,000 or so paid into the system, since I've worked at a UC and in Japan for more than half my wageslave life.

By Anonymous Troy, at 3/20/2011 11:24 AM  

The theft didn't happen in 2010. It happened from 1987 on when the money was spent instead of invested.

"investing" money in yourself and then spending it is really the same thing as just spending it, and that's exactly what the Federal Government did.

By Anonymous jms, at 3/20/2011 10:33 PM  

jms seems to bow down to Alan Greenspan. Quelle embrochure!

By Blogger Shag from Brookline, at 3/21/2011 3:00 AM  

>"investing" money in yourself

what a bizarre framing. The taxpayers of 1987-2010 are largely different from 2010-2040.

This country isn't broke, the rich are just 'playing poor' now.

By Anonymous Troy, at 3/21/2011 6:58 PM  

Post a Comment