Sins of Commissions: What $1 Billion Can't Buy

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Sins of Commissions: What $1 Billion Can't Buy
(Photo: _Davo_)

Poor Peter Peterson, he spent $1 billion to foster public knowledge on budget issues and he couldn't find a single person who could tell him about the Social Security trust fund. As a result, he has been running around the country making a fool of himself by announcing publicly that there is no trust fund.

There are literally hundreds of readily available public documents, for example the Social Security Trustees Report, that show that the trust fund holds more than $2.6 trillion in government bonds. The report even documents the specific bonds held by the trust fund. Apparently, none of the experts on Peterson's payroll has this information or was prepared to bring it to his attention.

This is not the only important piece of information that seems to have escaped Peterson, the people he has hired, the commissions that he has helped to fund, and others involved in their budget crusade. There seems to be almost no knowledge among this group of the fact that the economy is generating more wealth through time.

They constantly use rhetoric about generational burdens and being fair to our children and grandchildren. Yet, in almost any plausible scenario, our grandchildren will be far wealthier than we are today. For example, the Social Security trustees project that the real average annual wage will be more than 75 percent higher in 2040 than it is at present.

Remarkably, no one on Peterson's payroll seems to have noticed this fact. They speak of the enormous burdens that we are placing on our children and grandchildren as though they will be poorer on average than current workers. Peterson's employees have even gotten college kids to run around yelling about how their parents and grandparents are abusing them by running up the national debt. Imagine how foolish these kids will feel when they realize that they will be hugely richer than the people whose Social Security and Medicare benefits Peterson wants to cut.

There is, in fact, a huge issue of intra-generational equity. The baby boomers nearing retirement have seen very little improvement in living standards during their working years. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of the benefits of growth in the last three decades have gone to those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. The very rich people like Peterson, a wealthy investment banker, were the really big gainers in this story.

This is one reason that many people around the world, including the prime ministers of both France and Germany, are now advocating financial transactions taxes. Even the International Monetary Fund is now advocating increased taxes of the financial sector. Somehow, the numerous experts directly or indirectly on Peterson's payroll seem to know nothing about the drive to increase taxation on the financial sector.

These experts also seem to have missed the cause of the projected explosion in deficits over the next two decades. The United States currently spends more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for Germany, Canada, and other wealthy countries. This gap is projected to rise to a ratio of three and four to one in the decades ahead. If health care costs really do actually rise this much, then it will have a devastating impact on the economy.

There will be many more GMs and Chryslers, as companies that pay for their workers' health care will face an unbearable handicap in international competition. The number of people who are unable to afford care will soar. And rising health care costs will impose an enormous burden on federal, state and local budgets since most health care is now paid for by the government.

However, if we got our health care costs in line so that we paid roughly the same amount per person as in other wealthy countries, then we would be looking at huge budget surpluses, not deficits. So, the real story is that we have a horrible health care cost problem, not a deficit problem.

Unfortunately, Peterson could not get anyone to explain this simple point to him. If they did, he might have spent his billion dollars on setting up health care cost commissions rather than deficit commissions.

It really is sad. Peterson is running around the country proclaiming the economic equivalent of "the earth is flat." Meanwhile, his employees are promoting false and/or misleading images about the future. If he ever comes across an honest person who explains this to him he will no doubt be hugely embarrassed. Apparently. for people like Peterson, it really is hard to find good help.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



The bonds are issued by the

The bonds are issued by the government to itself. It is not an asset at all. It is all just one huge lie.



NO, the question is can he

NO, the question is can he and his Obamanible corporate co-dependents propound their Big LIES long enough!



There is no fund. The social

There is no fund. The social security surplus, which is spent by the federal government, is replaced with special issue treasury notes which cannot be traded, sold, exchanged, or bartered. They are pieces of paper that say that the federal government has borrowed this money. Even the interest is paid in these special issues. These have no value, unlike treasury bonds which have a market value. Although Medicare and health care costs are a bigger concern, the cause of one of the problems is the same, the federal government steals from today's workers to pay for past sins. The Medicare 40 trillion dollar obligated deficit is due primarily by increasing health care cost and administration. Abolishing insurance companies will go a long way toward eradicating the cause of some of those problems. So there is no fund in the social security trust fund, and there is no trust.



Of course there is a SS

Of course there is a SS fund! Trying to illogically argue there is no fund is just and dumb as arguing you have no mortgage, or no car loan, or no credit card bills.

We paid into the fund with our own money, and unless the federal government wants to go into default, something that it never has done, the money will be there to pay baby boomers and beyond.



And in the process he has

And in the process he has bought, and then ruined, the original purposes of the Concord Coalition.



Excellent points. Once we

Excellent points. Once we gain the courage to break the healthcare gridlock and bring our costs in line with other developed nations either through regulating the industry or by socializing it, many more hands will be free to the thing that Americans do best, innovate new fields of development. Cute nicknames for Obama or repeating lies about the American government will not do that. Sorry, folks, all the effort you put in to repeating lies and coming up with cutesy turns of phrase does nothing to put us back on track.



Trust fund. So what? Social

Trust fund. So what? Social Security has always been a "The money comes in Friday and goes out the door on Monday proposition". Unless we happen to have a current budget surplus when Social Security receipts are less than payouts, the only way for the Government to meet those obligations is to either borrow or print the money. In the long term,Social Security depends on a healthy economy and and a sustainable Federal budget process, not a meaningless trust fund. I suspect we may get a healthy economy at least once more in my lifetime, but I have considerable doubt that we will be able to muster the political will to get our deficits under control. If we don't, all entitlements are in deep trouble, trust funds or not. Mr. Baker is either deliberately being a dealer in half-truths or (if he really believes what he says in this article) has wasted whatever money he spent on his education.



Econ 101: For Social

Econ 101: For Social Security to even have a balance in its "trust fund" means that since inception it has taken in tax revenues and earned interest that far exceed what it has paid out in benefits.
It has run a surplus since inception unlike our overall budget which tends to run in the red.
True, the ratio of workers paying into the system vs retirees continues to decline to the point of "insolvency" per projections into the future. (Joblessness doesn't help either!) Those projections conservatively use current data and do not factor in potential future growth through an ever expanding economy. This is the point Dean Baker is trying to make.
Furthermore, all Treasury debt is what we collectively owe to our collective selves irregardless of who is the holder of the note.
Social Security is just a piece of the total budget that has heretofore been and still is self-funding. So what if in the future it is less so. It just becomes another item subsidized from general tax revenues like our needless wars. Cut defense spending and all its inherent waste and we could pay for SS for infinity. No, instead we allow ourselves to be led down the garden path with assurances of war that will miraculously pay for itself concomitant with the steepest tax cuts in history. Are we really this stupid?
Yeah, let Social Security and Medicare be the fall guys because the big guys are inured to their ill conceived income tax cuts.



i'm afraid the author is no

i'm afraid the author is no better informed than pete peterson. the social security fund was not part of the federal unified budget until herb stein, nixon's economist, did it to hide or at least obscure the deficits the rest of the government was running. it is also the case that there is no trust fund-congress and successive presidents have used all of it up, and put in essentially worthless notes. to pay these notes off, the government will have to raise taxes sharply or generate substantial inflation, or both. not a pleasant prospect.



Apparently some of those

Apparently some of those posting here can't find the SS fund either, but at least they didn't spend a billion dollars looking for it. We really do need single payer healthcare, as Baker points out, and a return to progressive taxation. If the US were to also cut the military budget to a fraction of its present level and transfer that money to education and infrastructure, the middle class could prosper once again.