SIGNS OF THE TIMES?

Brother Tom and Sister-in-law Carol (not to be confused with Brother Dan & Sister Ann) sent along an interesting E-mail today

It reveals a sign in a business window in St. Louis , Mo.:

"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAIDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER!"

Got your attention, right? Well, it seems it's a little like the brain teasers contained in a blog I
sent out a few days ago - suggesting a need to step out of the box. One described a basket containing 6 eggs and asked why if there were six eggs and six people each took one was there still one remaining in the basket?

The answer was that the last individual took the basket which still contained his egg.

Similarly, after reading the St. Louis sign you may well have asked " What kind of business would dare post such a sign?"

The answer is: A Funeral Home - proving not only that there is no truth to the conclusion morticians lack a sense of humor. It also begged us to look behind the curtain to see what is really going on - perhaps even going so far as examining what we are being told in the media.

Here's one current example. The USA Today editorial staff have been beating us to death with their conclusion that the target for both political parties who are allegedly desirous of balancing the budget is that of entitlements. They specifically list Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

When you are told repeatedly that these three programs take up 59% of the budget - even those of us who benefit from all or some of these programs have to cringe a little. That is before we
hasten to defend these programs, claim it's one more attempt by the wealthy to steal from the low to middle class beneficiaries.

This is not entirely unlike those who want to end our oil dependence but refuse to allow the drilling for oil close to our shores or for wind-farms to be created in the vicinity of our local landscapes.

We are also satisfied to join the ranks of those who decry the burgeoning prison population and accompanying cost, but would be horified to have half-way houses located anywhere close to our residence or workplace.

The inclusion of Social Security as one of the entitlements that needed to be adjusted according to the media sort of bothered me. But, perhaps not for the reasons you might imagine, seeing as how I'm a retiree drawing from this source.

I used my computer shortcut key and instead of researching the subject inquired of friend Harry
who is more knowledgable than I in these matters, "Wasn't there something that Congress did that ultimately reduced the availability of sufficient funds in our time of need?"Harry (heppie2335.blogspot.com) made reference to converting S.S funds into government securities.
(see Harrys read on the subject of Unions in his most recent blog)

Well, Tuesday when again USA Today came out with another hammering editorial on the subject of entitlement excesses an opposing reply was filed by Jacob Lew, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

What struck me with their editorial is that it finally acknowledge Congress's contribution to the problem: "In reality the (S.S..) trust fund is no more than a collection of IOU's. The money went out the door as soon as it was collected to pay for roads and bridges and aircraft carriers and food inspection and everything else the government does."

So, it's not really the fault of all the baby boomers who paid into it and now want to withdraw funds?

I seem to recall recently that a tremendous amount of money set aside for the states to "fix the economy." hasn't been spent. Would it be too much to ask the Federal Government to recoup that money and deposit it into Social Security before they complete their final tally of the amount of the problem.?

Lew's contention was two-fold. He appeared to be saying that the alleged underfunding of the Social Security obligation at 5.4 trillion dollars was not something over which we should panic
and also told us SS benefits were entirely self-financing.

Today, Friday, various letters with their own views appeared in the paper.

The first referenced is from Robert Cline of San Antonio suggesting that Lew's apparent lack of concern typified there was a clear demonstration of Washington's indifference.

Another letter was penned by a fellow Floridian, Neal Horner of Boca Raton. who wrote:

"The perspective that Social Security is contributing to the debt uses phony accounting practices that would make Bernie Madoff blush.The Social Security program is a bond-holding creditor, just like any other creditor that has lent the government money. It should not be expected to forgo the ability to cash in his bonds."

Another writer W.Lee Hammond, president of AARP seems to agree with Horner and writes,"USA's editorial mistakenly looks at Social Security through the prism of defecit reduction, fans the flames of "a program in crisis"and ignores the legal obligations of the Social Security trust funds." (Pleases note this is one lobbyist I don't seem to be attacking in my blogs.)

Hammond goes on to say "The reality is that Social Security is not in crisis, the combination of payroll tax revenue and interest earned by the Social Security trust funds will more than cover the difference between money going into the system and benefit payments going out this year.
He cements his argument by stating,: The Congressional Budget Office confirms that Social Security can pay full benefits for over 25 years , and even with no change or adjustment to the program could pay out 75% of benefits for the remainder of the century."

The final letter will address here is from Bill & Ann Laurie Moore, from Tuscon. In case you wonder why I didn't simply say Mr. & Mrs. Moore is that I simply can't conclude that is a fact. They may be daughter and son - father and daughter, cousins, etc.

That is the point of this diatribe. We are too quick with our assumptions and too slow to consider alternative answers.

Anyway, the Moores letter ( in addition to other points) suggests Lew was somewhat less than generous with his explanation when he wrote, 'When more taxes are collected than are needed . . . funds are converted to Treasury bonds - - -backed with the full faith and and credit of the U.S. Government.'

The Moores would rather that Jacob Lew clarified that "converted' meant that the excess is being spent by Congress and replaced with potentially useless bonds. (the point touched on by Harry & me in our E-mail exchange.)

Lew also said that (his) bonds are held in reserve for when the money collected is not enough to pay the revenue due. The Moores ask where the money would come from to convert the bonds into cash.

Their final comment is one that hits home, "We would request that members of Congress act in the best interests of their constituents instead of their own and stop the practice of 'borrowing' (ed.)" from the Social Security trust fund for other uses - or stop calling it a 'trust'
fund."

Let's assume you are a kid and work your butt off by taking on any spare job you can find for 5 years in order to go to college. You also understand you can not touch the monies earned until that occasion arises. When you go to draw out the first semester's tuition you discover that Mom & Dad used that money to go to Vegas - and left it there.

Do you feel cheated?

Maybe it's just a "sign of the times."