On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> http://www.populist.com/01.16.sawicky.html
This is a good article, Max. But I still feel like I'm not getting something.
You seem to be saying in this article that the main ledgerdemain comes from treating the "Social Security Surpluses" as something that can't be spent, when in fact it has to be spent, and the real question is whether it ought to be spent on debt reduction (which is what is meant by "not touching it") or spent on things we can use.
Clearly if these money's earmarked for debt reduction in the name of social security are defined as plain old surpluses that we can spend any way we see fit, then voila, there's lots of money. I think I follow that well enough.
But what I can't figure out is how to square the rest of your numbers with those of the chicken little camp. You said in your earlier post
> Current estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of the 10-year
> budget surplus, after netting out the tax cut, are $3.968 trillion.
> If you want to try and hoodwink the public and subtract Social
> Security Trust Fund surpluses, it's $1.484 trillion. If you want to
> try even harder and subtract Medicare surpluses, it's $1.087 trillion.
Dividing by 10, that means there is a surplus of $148.4bn this year *not counting* the funds set aside for debt reduction in the name of social security.
But today the FT, warming to its theme, said once again on their front page:
> Administration budget figures released this week show that only a $1bn
> surplus will remain this year unless Congress dips into the $157bn
> social security surplus
Where did the other $147.4bn go?
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com