Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$700 billion bailout? You ain't seen nothin'
The Heritage Foundation ^ | September 29, 2008 | Brian M. Riedl

Posted on 10/03/2008 8:13:17 PM PDT by 1rudeboy

Think $700 billion to bail out Wall Street is expensive? Just wait. The mortgage meltdown is cheap compared with the coming fiscal firestorm fanned by unfunded Social Security and Medicare costs.

Together, these programs hold unfunded obligations totaling $41 trillion - 60 times larger than the proposed Wall Street bailout. And even this understates the difference, because $41 trillion is the current net value of the unfunded obligations over 75 years. The actual cumulative yearly deficits these programs face over the next 75 years are several magnitudes larger than $41 trillion.

Imagine a taxpayer bailout even larger than what's proposed for Wall Street. Now imagine it recurring every year in perpetuity. That's our fiscal future unless we fundamentally reform these unsustainable entitlement programs.

Certainly, there are some differences between the two situations. Unlike entitlement spending, the Wall Street bailout would actually give the government assets it could later sell to recoup much of the costs. On the other hand, by issuing federal debt, the Wall Street bailout would add to the government's explicit obligations - unlike Social Security and Medicare's implicit obligations that, legally, could be cut anytime by Congress.

The entitlement problem is simple to understand. In the 1960s, five workers paid the taxes for each retiree's Social Security and Medicare benefits. Today that ratio is just 3-to-1. The coming retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers will drive that ratio down to 2-to-1 by 2030. That means every two children born this year and who marry in 2030 will have to support themselves, their children - and the Social Security and Medicare benefits of their very own retiree. The cost will be staggering.

While both programs face rising costs due to demographics, the added problem of steeply rising health care costs puts Medicare in even worse shape than Social Security.

Absent reform, paying all promised retiree benefits would require either: A) doubling all tax rates; B) eliminating every other federal program, including defense and education; or C) running massive budget deficits that would eventually collapse the economy. And every year of delay raises the final cost of reform by trillions of dollars.

Yet delay is all we get from Congress. Lawmakers know these program costs are completely unsustainable, but they see reform as expensive and politically risky. And so, they kick the can down the road, putting the future stability of our entire economy at risk.

The impending retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers is not theoretical. It can't be dismissed or wished away. And when the inevitable Social Security and Medicare costs come, taxpayers will demand to know why lawmakers ignored the warnings.

They will discover that in January 2008, Moody's warned that the United States' triple-A credit rating would be reduced within a decade unless Congress reformed these programs.

And Congress just shrugged.

Shortly thereafter, the Medicare trustees warned that payroll taxes and user premiums will soon cover barely half of the program's cost, forcing a record 45 percent of its budget to be subsidized out of general tax revenues. Even though the warning triggered a law requiring an examination of Medicare reforms, Congress again just shrugged.

Next, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 2008 federal budget deficit of $407 billion, driven mostly by escalating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs. The data showed that these three programs - comprising nearly half of federal spending - are set to push the deficit to nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, and higher thereafter.

Again, Congress just shrugged. And when a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate offered legislation to create a commission to fix these programs before they bankrupt the nation, congressional leadership refused to allow a vote on it.

Every day that Congress wastes naming post offices and allocating pork projects is a day that the Baby Boomers move closer to retirement, and the eventual costs of an entitlement bailout increase further.

Reform will take time, but lawmakers can begin by publicly disclosing the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare in the federal budget. They can also take these programs off autopilot and place them on a long-term budget.

Today we are grappling with a very real financial crisis. While we cannot go back in time and fix it, we can start acting now to prevent the next, clearly visible crisis. It promises to be 60 times bigger than the Wall Street debacle. Is Congress paying attention?

Brian M. Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; bailout
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
Some good economic news. $700 billion of our money is nothing.
1 posted on 10/03/2008 8:13:18 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

$700 billion is nothing....

Indeed, our Gov’t will soon make the dollar worth nothing. In Zimbabwe, the average man on the street walks around with $700 billion in his pocket....


2 posted on 10/03/2008 8:15:11 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPyouth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2097185/posts


3 posted on 10/03/2008 8:17:17 PM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Hey, there is no problem here. After years of paying taxes to supply benefits to current retirees, the Baby Boomers will just be told there is nothing left. We are the group holding the empty bag of promises at the end of the Ponzi scheme.

In the future, Medicare will be $100 worth of pills so anyone who is sick and elderly can commit suicide. This is already happening in OR to seriously ill patients.


4 posted on 10/03/2008 8:21:08 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

That’s my biggest concern for the future. Congress and the federal gov’t can print more money to pay off these future obligations.

We know that the root cause of inflation is the increase of money in circulation. So future Congresses and Presidents could increae the money supply and pay for these future obligations by reducing the buying power of all of our existing money.

This could be a path of least resistance. It sure beats fighting for tax increases/benefit cuts to balance the future federal budgets.

If I had to guess, I would guess that inflation will be part of the solution in the future for Medicare and Soc. Security. My 2nd guess would be that we will see increases in the retirement age, and/or means testing for payment of benefits.


5 posted on 10/03/2008 8:22:20 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
And Congress just shrugged.

An interesting choice of words. Next I guess we can expect Atlas to shrug and expose the mess for what it really is.

6 posted on 10/03/2008 8:26:33 PM PDT by USMA '71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
For being the "Greatest Generation" they sure screwed the rest of us, didn't they? How many times have I had to correct my 78-year-old mother on the crimes and stupidity of the FDR administration, even though she is a conservative Republican.

The Baby Boomers didn't help with all their stupid regulations and enviro-weenieness either.

7 posted on 10/03/2008 8:26:37 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Love the Heritage Foundation, but this is getting stupid.

As much as people may complain, a fundamental reality applies. RAISE THE AGE LIMIT FOR RETIREMENT AND/OR PAYOUT. That change alone will solve a HUGE part of the problem.

Nothing else should be discussed or considered. RAISE THE AGE LIMIT.

The logic is hard to miss. When SS was enacted, recipients were not expected to live more than five years past retirement. Plus many who had paid into the system died before seeing any benefits. So, there was no problem with funding SS.

Now, Instead of 5 years, the average recipient is living 15-20 years past retirement (i.e., payout age). In fact, you have an increasing number of cases where both parents AND their children are on SS. The parents are in their 90s, the children in their 60s. This is NOT what SS planners envisioned many decades ago.

Timid discussions of going to 68 are inadequate. Pushing it to 70 or 75 is the solution.


8 posted on 10/03/2008 8:28:23 PM PDT by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The HF should use some facts. It was a 850 Billion dollar bail out not 700.

Last week without discussion they passed a 653 billion bill.

It might get expensive some day.


9 posted on 10/03/2008 8:29:52 PM PDT by edcoil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
The HF should use some facts. It was a 850 Billion dollar bail out not 700.

Like maybe Heritage should've hopped in the time machine to review the final package? ;)

10 posted on 10/03/2008 8:30:59 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
This is NOT what SS planners envisioned many decades ago.

You are absolutely correct. What they envisioned, looking at the actuarial tables they had then, was that only 1/4 of the people paying into the system, would actually make it to being 65 years old; meaning that 75% of the population would pay a tax on something they would never benefit from.

SS has always been about theft and control, never about responsible financial planning.

11 posted on 10/03/2008 8:32:59 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

I don’t have any numbers to back me up, but my gut instinct tells me that raising the retirement age to 70 or 75 (apart from being politically unfeasible) will not cover all of the unfunded liabilities.


12 posted on 10/03/2008 8:34:45 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
In the future, Medicare will be $100 worth of pills so anyone who is sick and elderly can commit suicide. This is already happening in OR to seriously ill patients.

I think you are right. I believe the idea of forced euthanasia for the senile, severely disabled or otherwise incapacitated persons will become a movement in this country within 20 years because it will be seen as a method for relieving the entitlement burden that this country has so foolishly put on itself for the last 75-80 years.

You know what the scariest part is? Large numbers of the people on this forum will go along with it because they'll be told that it's "good for the country" and as long as someone chants "USA, USA, USA!" while the bill is being signed, they'll feel good and patriotic about voting for those leaders who make it law again and again.

13 posted on 10/03/2008 8:39:55 PM PDT by MarcoPolo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

This 700 billion is just a measure to stop the panic behavior triggered by the CRA/ACORN Ponzi crisis. When applied it should put us back on the course of pretending. After all, our government has been working on the power of pretension and non-real numbers since Johnson’s “Great Society” legalized robbery in the spirit of Robin Hood. Jimmy and Bill (and Obama) each accelerated the pace until it became too obvious.

What we need is a currency backed by real assets and representatives with the nads to cut until we get there. Unfortunately too many Americans are simultaneously dependent on handouts while automatically voting for Democrats. Those of us who work for a living already disgruntled supporting these idlers are now asked to pony up our grandchildrens’ legacy.

Enough with this BS!


14 posted on 10/03/2008 8:42:21 PM PDT by NewRomeTacitus (Palin just took Biden's wee testicles for her trophy room)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

No worries, by the time this is all over the real cost will be $700 Trillion, plus our souls.


15 posted on 10/03/2008 8:43:50 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (May God save the Republic and her citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

China barrel

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

---Ludwig Von Mises

“Several brokerage houses tumbled; blue-sky investment companies formed during the happy bull market days went to smash, disclosing miserable tales of rascality; over a thousand banks caved in during 1930, as a result of marking down both of real estate and of securities; and in December occurred the largest bank failure in American financial history, the fall of the ill-named Bank of the United States in New York.”

~~"Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s" by Fredrick Lewis Allen

16 posted on 10/03/2008 8:45:30 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
A lot of people are planning to retire early. Screw the gov’t before they screw you. The rule of unintended consequences is ripe from this pork barrel nonsense passed today. You cannot get water out of a rock. Most of our representatives are clueless.
17 posted on 10/03/2008 8:47:24 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Throw the bums out who vote yes on the bail out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ikka
The Baby Boomers didn't help with all their stupid regulations and enviro-weenieness either.

The Gen-Xers didn't help with the gimmee-gimmees.

18 posted on 10/03/2008 8:56:10 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama

ping


19 posted on 10/03/2008 8:59:24 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"The U.S. deficit in manufactured goods improved from $690 billion in 2006 to $679 billion in 2007, a decline of 1.6%. Manufactured imports are responsible for the bulk of the U.S. trade deficit.

The manufacturing sector lost 3.3 million jobs between January 2001 and December 2007, including 200,000 jobs lost in 2007 alone. More than 32,000 U.S. manufacturing establishments closed between 1998 and 2005. "

20 posted on 10/03/2008 9:05:25 PM PDT by KTM rider (The solution is to stimulate the manufacture of goods in USA and impose mega tariffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson