Status of Social Security and Medicare July 2017

A reform commission in 1983, led by Alan Greenspan, assured us that Social Security would be well-financed for 75 years. But in 2016, we're already massively short.

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees reports, released last month, came and went faster than a bad sitcom. One day they were news. The next day no one remembered, a casualty of the Brexit vote.
But those reports are much more important for Americans than the Brexit vote. Retired, working or still in school, you should be concerned. Two massive, vital and successful government programs are in trouble. They are in trouble today. They will be in more trouble tomorrow.
We get mixed messages about this from politicians. Some worry. But most play the role of reassuring uncle. Those tell us that (a) everything is fine for the next 10 years, and (b) that the Social Security Trust Fund will last until 2034, just like last year. The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will last until 2028, two years shorter than last year.
That's pretty far away, so the news fades. Don't worry, be happy.
But we've got a problem, now. These reports aren't beach reading, but you can find where the rubber meets the road if you know where to look. One place is in the Medicare Trustees Report. It is called "Appendix F: Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget.”the real meat is in table V.F1. on Page 212.
This year, trust accounting shows that Social Security and Medicare have a combined surplus of $17.1 billion. Just above that, you'll see the federal budget accounting. It shows that in spite of employment taxes, taxes on Social Security benefits, trust fund interest and premiums for Medicare B and D, these programs were short $354.5 billion. Their cash shortage represented 80 percent of the entire federal deficit for 2015. All other government programs, after tax collections, operated at a loss of $83.9 billion.
Just to be clear, $354.5 billion of the money spent providing Social Security and Medicare benefits in 2015 had to be borrowed. That $354.5 billion represents 23 percent of total spending on those programs. That qualifies Social Security and Medicare as elephants in the room. Today.
In 2004, the first year that Appendix F appeared in the Medicare Trustees Report, the combined trust surplus was $163.7 billion. The federal budget shortfall was a mere $18.5 billion, even though three-fourths of the cost of Medicare insurance is paid out of general revenues.
The 75-year Social Security deficit is a big deal. The Trustees Report finds that the deficit for financing the program is 2.75 percent of payroll - if the tax increase went into effect immediately. That's a 22.2 percent increase over the current old age and disability tax for the 94 percent of all workers who earn less than the Social Security wage base maximum of $118,000 a year. This is the fastest-rising tax most Americans have paid during their working lives, so increasing it to avoid a benefits crisis won't happen easily.
More important, the 22.2 percent increase probably won't be enough. Remember, the Social Security reform commission of 1983, led by Alan (See-No-Bubbles) Greenspan, assured us that Social Security would be well financed for 75 years. Now, only 33 years later, we're already massively short.
Could the shortfall be eliminated some other way? Sure. All we need to do is die younger.
And the Medicare figures aren't real, either. The most important statement in the Medicare Trustees Report doesn't appear until the very end, on Page 260. There, Chief Actuary Paul Spitalnic offers his statement of actuarial opinion. He declares that medical costs are likely to rise faster than mandated by law. He writes:
"Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for most health services will fall increasingly short of the cost of providing such services. If this issue is not addressed by subsequent legislation, it is likely that access to, and quality of, Medicare benefits would deteriorate over time."

Rome is burning. Will the Infantile Vulgarian or the Wicked Witch talk about this before November? Not a chance. Don't worry, be happy.

Black fathers matter! All fathers matter

This is a very interesting video from a speaker I've never heard before.   The data is startling.   Alarming.  

And it's frustrating because I don't know anything I personally can do to reverse the course.  Nor do I see that anyone else is trying.   But it is significant to me that more than half of any solution to a problem, is in first realizing the causes of the problem.

Black Fathers Matter Video.   Click here to watch.

I am a veteran. Some would say I am mentally ill.

Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms." 

She said that on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.... And the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right.

Kurt Nimmo: "Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flails about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill."

Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times: 

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on Macbeth. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."

Columnist Burt Prelutsky,  Los Angeles Times

you shouldn't be doing background checks on new hires!

I read the Boston Globe everyday for the news and to give me the liberal brain-food perspective for my left-leaning/right-leaning/paradoxical mind.  I found this article interesting a few weeks ago.  Or maybe disturbing is more the emotion?

HUD, which is not known for being a bastion of operational efficiency, under any leadership for the past 20 years, and especially under Julian Castro (highly regarded as a VP prospect for this year) has come out with guidelines now, that say that as a landlord, you cannot make a requirement for no criminal record, as a condition of renting.

The HUD logic goes, that since a disproportionate share of the adult population with a criminal records are blacks or Hispanics, that to make this a condition of refusal to rent if having a criminal record, is . . in itself  . . .racial discrimination.   The continued logic is that, since more blacks or Hispanics as a % of the population, might have criminal records than whites, then, more lacks or Hispanics than whites will be denied housing.

No landlord who is receiving any government subsidized rent, can make this a condition now.    And while private landlords may still make this a condition, they will be opening themselves up for a federal lawsuit by the denied applicant, on the grounds of a civil rights violation.

I am not a landlord.   I do not have to worry about being impacted by this.  It does however, in my mind, provide an insight into how we might see hiring regulations influenced in the future.   I could easily see that this Washington logic could be extended to say that employers could no longer screen employment applicants for a criminal record, since to do so would racial discrimination.   Whether it is policy now, or not, though, I think it does not bode well for any company that currently does criminal background investigations on new hires.    The precedent has been set and the line drawn in the sand.     Checking backgrounds on an applicant for criminal records is an invitation to a civil rights law suit.

that's my ideas.    take them for what it's worth.   If you have any friends/associates who are in the rental business, you might want to forward this to them?

Bud

ps.   HUD also now has a policy that no employee of HUD can be terminated for any reason except for behavior where they were convicted criminal behavior by a court of law.   duh!   Any job performance failure must just be given a reprimand.  But no person hired by HUD can be screened for past criminal behavior.A

Love as a Verb

The following is a letter I wrote to a dear friend who was not feeling loved by someone that is close to us both.   I have deleted the people's names and substituted with *****.


Dear ******

Its a very big irritant to me that for most people the word Love is a noun or adjective or adverb and they throw around the word so freely.

But Jesus usual expression of the word was as a verb.

So bear with me a moment as i try to illustrate my heart here.

Imagine that luv (l u v) is love that we feel for a friend.

And luve (l u v e) is the feeling we feel for someone dear to us like a mate or child or close friend.

And Love is a verb TOWARD any of the above people?

I am spelling them differently for distinction in definition.

Well. Most of the time when those people above say "i love you Bud/Poppy", what they are really saying is "i luv you or i luve you and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside and i would sure be sad if something happened to you".

But a very few people in our lives don't have to express the feeling, but they LOVE us as a verb. They DO their love TO us.

Jesus gave the ultimate LOVE VERB example when He said "there is no greater Love than that a man lay down his life for another"

I don't think He was just saying that in a literal sense. But also in a figurative sense too.

I.e. " I am going to LOVE someone by making the needs of their life more important than my own"

This is difficult to do. And with most people we come in contact with impossible. But the people i describe above "could" LOVE VERB us, because they (more than most) could be in a position to know our needs and favor us.  But they don't. Because it"s 1. Time consuming 2. Inconvenient 3. Requires investment of their life into someone else's and they are simply selfish. 4. Might require follow up?

Now. My children luv me. They luve to see me.  They feel warm and fuzzy when we are together.

They would hurt and be sad if i died.

But what i need from them is for them to LOVE VERB me and let me be LOVE VERBING them.

Ditto with your *****.

50% ditto with *****  (although not 100% because he often does LOVE VERB me but he's very very very busy with 100 business responsibilities and "churchy/religious" activities.

**** LOVE VERBS me when he can fit me in with the other stuff that is important in his routine.

Nevertheless, i am very grateful for his Love when he can show it and i am very blessed that he gives me opportunities to Love him.

I try to Love ***** as often as i can. And certainly i always Luv and Luve him. But to LOVE VERB someone you really have to stay connected to them. ***** is at a place in his life where he would be happy for me to Love him all i will, but his domestic relationship is going to keep him from LOVE VERBING anyone except ******.

So frankly i don't Love him as much as i could because i need a connection that he cant give his half to? 

That "connectedness" does not require a daily or even constant or frequent occasion. It just means you find reason to be there for another when they are in need, and then to "prefer" their needs above your own

My own kids are not connected to me.  But you always find time to be.  And for that i am very very very grateful.

Thank you for feeling luv FOR

me. Thank you for feeling luve FOR me.

And most of all thank you for LOVING me.

I Luv You. I Luve You.

But greatest of these is that:

I LOVE YOU today and anytime i can

In the USA, 1 private sector employed person takes care of themselves plus 2 others

125,000,000 private sector

  50,000,000 unemployed

  38,000,000 retired

  73,000,000 aged 18 and under

  20,000,000 full time college students

    6,000,000  federal state and local government, education, and armed forces.

 

Totals  312,000,000 people.   (that's pretty close)

 

If I make some general but conservative assumptions that the 125 million private sector employed people are married to 10 million of the unemployed, and have 23 million of the kids under the age of 18 and 5 million of the kids in college that they are providing for from their take home pay, then

 

the 125,000,000 private sector employees  take care of ourselves, maybe our spouse (maybe not if she works too), and 23 million kids and 5 million kids in college.

 

That means then that we have to pay enough in taxes to pay the salaries of the 6 million gov folks,  and we have to pay benefits to take care of the 50 million unemployed, the 38 million retirees, 50 million welfare kids under age 18,

 

So . . . . 125,000,000 private sector employees and if they make enough to pay taxes,  are providing from their net pay for 163,000,000 people, including themselves, and their taxes have to take care of about 150 million other people.

 

Sheesh

A Canoe race between Toyota and GM

In a fairy tale dream, a Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River.    Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to  investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.  A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people paddling and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people paddling.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were paddling.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the paddling team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people paddling the boat greater incentive to work harder.  It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the paddlers.  There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.  The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channelled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off one paddler, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment.  The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.
The next year, try as he might, the lone designated paddler was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.

Sadly, the End.

Here's something else to think about: GM has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US.   The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while GM racks up 9 billion in losses.

GM folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...

Conrad Hilton. Man of Prayer. Man of dreams

The Greatest of Them All

1931 was a long and boring year. The stock market crash of 1929 plunged America into the depths of the Great Depression, and most businesses struggled to stay afloat. Among the struggling businessmen was a hotelier named Conrad Hilton. Americans weren’t traveling, and hotels were suffering. Hilton was borrowing money from a bellhop so he could eat.

It was during those difficult days of the Depression that Hilton came across a photograph of the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. The Waldorf was the holy grail of hotels with six kitchens, two hundred chefs, five hundred waiters, and two thousand rooms. It even had its own private hospital and railroad. In retrospect, Hilton observed that 1931 was “an outrageous time to dream.” But the economic crisis didn’t keep him from dreaming big, praying hard, or thinking long.

Hilton clipped the photograph of the Waldorf out of the magazine and wrote across it, “the greatest of them all.” Then he placed the photograph under the glass top of his desk. Every time Hilton sat down at his desk, his dream was staring him in the face.

Nearly two decades came and went. America emerged from the Great Depression and entered the Second World War. The big band era gave way to bebop. And the baby boom began. All the while, Hilton kept circling the Waldorf. Every time he walked by the Waldorf, he tipped his hat in deference to his dream.

Hilton acquired an impressive portfolio of hotels, including the Roosevelt in New York City and the Mayflower in Washington, DC, but the Queen, as he called the Waldorf, eluded him. Several attempts to purchase the hotel failed, but Hilton kept circling. Finally, on October 12, 1949, eighteen years after drawing a circle around his dream, Hilton made his move. He purchased 249,024 shares of the Waldorf Corporation and crowned his collection of hotels with the Queen.

How did he do it?

Well, Hilton certainly possessed his fair share of business acumen and negotiating prowess. He was a hardworking visionary with a lot of charisma. But the true answer is revealed in his autobiography. It’s the answer he learned from his mother who had prayed circles around her son. In Hilton’s own words, “My mother had one answer for everything. Prayer!”

When Conrad was a young boy, his horse, Chiquita, died. He was devastated and demanded an answer. His mother’s answer was the answer to everything: “Go and pray, Connie... Take all your problems to Him. He has answers when we don’t.” That lesson was not lost on him as a young boy or as an old man. For eighteen long and boring years, Hilton worked like it depended on him and prayed like it depended on God. Then his persistence paid off.

The final section of Hilton’s autobiography is titled “Pray Consistently and Confidently.” Here Hilton provides a succinct summary of his approach to business — essentially his approach to everything in life: “In the circle of successful living, prayer is the hub that holds the wheel together. Without our contact with God we are nothing. With it, we are ‘a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor.’ ”

The next time you stay in a Hilton, remember that long before it was bricks and mortar, it was a bold prayer. It was a long shot, a long thought. But if you pray like it depends on God and work like it depends on you for eighteen years, anything is possible. I particularly love the fact that Hilton tipped his hat to the Waldorf whenever he walked by. It was a gesture of humility, of respect, of confidence.

When you dream big, pray hard, and think long, you know your time will eventually come. Hilton certainly celebrated the acquisition of his big dream, but he never viewed the Queen as his greatest investment or achievement.

His greatest privilege and potential was kneeling before the King.

That’s what made the Queen possible. The Queen was always subject to the King.

Excerpted with permission from The Circle Maker by Mark Batterson, copyright Mark Batterson. Published by Zondervan