CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Recently, I wrote a couple of blogs which I assumed would be perceived as humorous. I guess I was wrong.

The first blog entitled "Liar-Liar" (LL) was about parochial schools and their carefully considered approach as to how to avoid  telling a lie.

Unfortunately, I apparently made a mistake by closing it with a throwaway line suggesting that Democratic Senator Dick Durbin was being less than honest when he stated that Social Security was 'not' in crisis.

As a result, my pal and fellow blogger Harry - God bless him - was kind enough to clarify for me via his blog as to why Durbin's position was correct.

As always, Harry's research was solid and on point.

However, for whatever reason, I felt compelled to send off  a second blog entitled "The Money Man" (TMM). This may have been my second mistake.

The "TMM." blog was another of my feeble attempts to write good satire - a difficult task at best.

 My satirical target was the Social Security "trust" fund. It included an old and tired joke plus a fictional character by the name of Trey Surrey which I used in order to make a cautionary point on the subject of Social Security and it's alleged solvency.

As I so often do in my writings, I erroneously tend to give the first and last points of my views, the so-called bread of my sandwich, but get so caught up in my rhetoric that I fail to adequately clarify the "meat" part.

I repeated this error in both of the subject blogs. So, I'll try to clarify my thoughts here:

Going back to the first blog (LL) in which I addressed the subject of lying, I suggested there were two types of lies. Now, the old joke says the two types are simply "Lies" and "Damn Lies"; but, that's not where I was going.

What I WAS trying to say, however, was that the types I referenced were called lies of "commission." and  "lies of omission.". A person in the first example usually lies because it becomes of second nature to do so.

The second type of  lie, involving 'omission', seems to be more acceptable to most of us, particularly those of us who are asked the question, "Do you think this dress makes my rearend look big?"

I felt the answer the Priest gave to the customs agent in "Liar - Liar" was both funny and precious. I also thought it was an excellent example of what some might be tempted to categorize as "a lie by omission" - a craft practiced by most evasive politicans, whether on a Sunday news interview show - or while defending their party's position statement in the newspaper.

I won't go any further with the significance of what Father did, and why it was funny -as I have a simple rule on humor, "If you feel you  have to explain the joke, don't bother,  it probably wasn't funny.".

Let's quickly close this out with some thoughts on what constitutes "crisis", a term that was bandied about in the respective blogs of friend Harry and myself.

Recently,  in my copy of the tenth edition of  Merrian Webster's Collegiate Dictionary I read some interesting definitions of what a crisis is. Here are three:

1. "An emotional significant event or radical change of status in a persons life."

2. "The decisive moment (as in a literary plot.)

3. "An unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending .(esp:) one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome ( financial)."

In my estimation, any and all of the three definitions would seem to dispel the accepted usage of "crisis" as something that has to be immediate.

So, if one can agree the status of the SS trust fund is not really a "crisis", should we then put the issue on a shelf until the year 2036/2037, the projected time when Social Security is expected to run out of money?

I don't seriously believe any of us thinks that's the right strategy, nor has anybody including my buddy, suggested that's what we should do.

 President Obama's budget (P 465) - entitled "Analytical Perspectives" includes a chart showing that Social Security ran a deficit of $48 billion last year.

The prediction is for a shortage of  $50.7 billion this year, and in 2015 the difference between "cash in - cash out' is estimated to reach $86.6 billion.

It is my humble opinion  that "a billion here - a billion there - pretty soon it starts to add up!"

I'm particularly encouraged to share this conclusion at a time when the Congressional Budget Office said Social Security benefits began exceeding payroll tax revenues in 2010, and without changes, "the program will never get back into balance."

I'm particularly concerned about this conclusion when I'm hearing estimates that, as Harry reported in his blog, the SS trust fund contains (or contained)  an estimated  $5 trillion (that's with a "T") of Treasury IOU's.

S.S. represents more than one-fifth of federal spending at a time when Senator Durbin, among others, insists that Social Security does not add a penny to our deficit. I guess that  conclusion depends upon which accounting approach or research you believe will best support this position.

Simply put, at a time when the National Debt. the Debt Ceiling,  and the Fiscal Cliff seem to be taking up so much newspaper space and discussion, I believe we need to accept one simple economic fact as laid out by the editorial staff of USA Today:

"Financing the difference between benefits paid and and taxes collected requires borrowing money, which increases annual deficits and adds to the cumulative national debt."

Now, as a result of my 'research', including what my buddies over at Merrian Webster tell me - I still see Social Security falling into at least one of the above definitions of "crisis".

One caveat, however.

Per my recent copy of "The Coffee News": "Researchers have reportedly discovered that people will believe anything that you tell them researchers have discovered."