I am a disaffected Democrat, and one of the main reasons for that is the party's position on Social Security. They can't seem to admit that Social Security has a major problem. Just ignoring the Social Security liability (or denying its existence) is not an option.
The $12 Trillion in accumulated surpluses (the "Trust Fund") is not cash (nor could it be - that is practically the US GDP). It is a collection of US treasury bonds. When 2018 comes around, the Social Security Administration will go to the Treasury Department and ask them them to pay up (The US government is both the holder and the creditor of these bonds - this could be a problem).$12 trillion is the equivalent of about 5 federal budgets. To this should be added the liabilities of Medicare (also trillions of dollars of liabilities).
Whanever I see Democratic leaders confronted by these facts, their response is say that Social Security is "fully funded until 2156 or something" and they never expect anyone to ask a follow up question: "fully funded" by what?
The party needs ideas here, not denial. Where are they?
· Blanche Lincoln's website supports public option (desmoinesdem)
· Big Coal's PR Spending Spree (desmoinesdem)
· IA-03: Former college wrestling coach to challenge Boswell (desmoinesdem)
· Tea Baggers Target Gore... (Cliff Schecter)
· Stimulus Watch (Jerome Armstrong)
· CREW seeks ethics inquiry of Bachmann (desmoinesdem)
· Did IRC help? (MN Campaign Report)
· 5 Worst cities for urban youth (desmoinesdem)
· "The Bishops' Huge Financial Stake in Stupak-Pitts" (desmoinesdem)
· Conservative group wants FEC to override state laws on robocalls (desmoinesdem)
· URGENT: Call these House Ds Saturday to oppose Stupak amendment (desmoinesdem)
· WI-08: Wingnut plans to run as "conservative independent" (desmoinesdem)
