Dream on Crybaby Boehner, you're not going to be speaker anytime soon! Just wants to suck up all that dirty corrupt lobbyist money as he gives away access to the rich and greedy who already have too much money influence upon Congress.

Boehner. If people want access to this "ordinary" guy, it will cost them $100,000 each. This is the family values guy who by 5 PM is hanging out at the local bars; the guy others in Congress say works the least amount of time; the one other critics say doesn't bother to read any legislation and that is why he cannot knowledgeably speak about what is in bills. There must be a better choice for republicans.

Boehner, the regular at the bar guy, has surrounded himself with lobbyists, he is obviously saying that he is for sale to the highest bidders. He does not have a clue about ordinary Americans because he surrounds himself with the corporate elite lobbyists instead. Watch Out Repubs, he is an egomaniac that only wants power for power's sake, not to actually help the 95% of Americans that are not super wealthy. He is a corporate apologist if there ever was one!

I'll admit, I'm not up to date on Congressional ethics.

But when does offering meetings, VIP access, and other benefits for campaign donations reach problematic levels?

Boehner is exactly what the Republican Party is all about: Big Money, selected influence from corporations and the rich, shading dealings behind closed doors and exclusion of their most important supporters-middle class Republicans. What's scary is that those same middle class Republicans are OK with being ignored once they elect them into office. He's a lazy man who couldn't do his job if his life depended on it. All talk no action or reading of Bill before him. The Republican talk point man Too busy in the suntan booth. People in California don't even look that tanned. Hope he's got his Id if goes to Arizona!

The tea party must still be in bed nobody blowing bonner's horn, this guy is has got to be one of the top corupt rep in town.This is a 2% man and doesn't even bother to try to hide it.He know's mindless people will follow.I've always said a man that gets up in the morning and pulls his pants on and head out to put in his eight hours for his boss and votes for the likes of bonner is a blooming idiot,cut and dry.

Sure should watch my typing! Sorry for the errors everyone.

Thanks Honest!

You DINOS are loons. You are not talking about lobbyists are ya? You mean you are talking about lobbyists? I just don't believe it. You gotta be kidding. The Bama is the Biggest Lobbyist in the history of lobbyism. You got to be talking about hobbyists. The Bama is el Presidente Lobby. Who could be bigger than the Bama? I'm going insane. I have to check into Bellevue everytime I read your blogs.

Look who's talking about corruption! Are you DINOS in your right mind. I heard through the grapevine that the Bama is setting up a new Cabinet position. The Department of Democratic Deception. Its cabinet secretary will be one of dem zars. Its employees will be qualified Liars, tax dodgers etc.

B.Honest, Admit that your Bama and his Cabinet are Loons who belong to the mental asylum. They flew over the cuckoos nest. You have the longest list of tax dodgers and crooks who only when they get caught , they admit their crime. Kerry, Wrangatan, Geithner and the others on the crime list. But Kerry cracked me up. He KNEW exactly what he was doing so he did a pirate run thinking that no one will be watching on smugglers coast. He got the shock of his life when the reporters swarmed him. He seem to know all the coves, inlets and hidden caves on the coastline. Wow, a 7 million dollar yacht. That's something to do a clandestine run. A pity they all couldn't do the perp walk with the Bama leading the way in handcuffs! As to him, he couldn't pass a police lie detector test.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.¹ After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.² Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.³ What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.⁴ But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.⁵ Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.⁶ But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.⁷ The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.⁸

Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?

Thanks for all you do.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE BUDGET-DEFICIT PROBLEM!

The American people are being subjected to a scare campaign, waged by a government commission, that is designed to stampede them into accepting cuts in Social Security benefits that they would never agree to, if they knew the truth about the program. The government has been engaged in Social Security fraud for the past 25 years. It has embezzled the surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, and spent it on other programs. Now, because the government has made no provisions to repay the $2.5 trillion debt, they want to sweep the evidence of their misdeeds under the rug, default on their debt to Social Security, and cut benefits. That is one of the functions of the deficit reduction commission. Having said that, it is true that the government is in dire financial condition, and the commission has a legitimate function to perform. Most programs, that are financed with general tax revenue may have to be cut, but Social Security does not fit into this category.

Social Security is a separate “off-budget” program that does not receive money from the general revenue fund. It is funded exclusively by payroll tax contributions (FICA taxes) paid by working Americans. It is supposed to have its own piggy bank, in which Social Security revenue is deposited, and from which benefits are to be paid. Social Security does not borrow from the general fund or spend general fund tax revenue. It has not contributed a dime to the federal budget deficits. On the contrary, over the past 25 years, Social Security has taken in $2.5 trillion more than it has spent. If that $2.5 trillion had not been embezzled by the government, and used to pay for wars and other government programs, the Social Security trust fund would have enough money to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037 without any action being taken.

What happens after 2037? If no action is taken, Social Security would have only enough revenue from the payroll tax to pay approximately 75 percent of what would normally be full benefits after 2037. The program would not be broke at that point, It would have just used up the surplus revenue generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike that is supposed to be in the trust fund. There are various actions that could be taken to enable Social Security to pay full benefits for decades longer. One such action would be to remove the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes. Today, workers are required to pay payroll taxes on all of their earnings up to a maximum of $106,800 dollars. A person who earns exactly that amount of money pays taxes on 100 percent of his or her earnings. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and all others who earn big bucks, pay Social Security taxes only on the first $106,800 of their earnings. All income above the cap is exempt from payroll taxes. If the cap were removed, so that everyone paid payroll taxes on all of their earnings, instead of just the first $106,800, there would be enough additional income generated to enable the payment of full Social Security benefits for decades beyond 2037. This is one solution to the long-term Social Security problem. There is no short-term Social Security Problem!

It is unforgivable that government officials are not telling the public that Social Security is self-supporting, and is in no way responsible for the government’s financial problems. Opponents of Social Security have been trying to destroy it since the day it was enacted into law, and they are closer to inflicting damage to the program now than ever before. . Those who oppose Social Security do so for philosophical reasons—not because the program does not work. On the contrary, Social Security is probably the most successful and popular program ever created by the government. If Social Security is to be changed, it should be done so only if the majority of Americans express that desire through the normal political process, after ample public debate. The deficit commission should restrict its jurisdiction to the items in the general budget that are financed with general fund revenue. It would be a grave miscarriage of justice for an appointed commission, meeting behind closed doors, and a lame duck Congress, unaccountable to the American electorate to make changes in a program that has been successful and popular for 75 years. Voters have demonstrated their support for Social Security, as it now exists, over and over. Until and unless voters change their minds after thorough and open debate, there should be no changes made to the Social Security program.

Please visit my website or contact me. THANK YOU!

Allen W. Smith, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, Emeritus

Eastern Illinois University

Website: www.thebiglie.net

Email: ironwoodas@aol.com

Phone: 863-635-0408

The Ugly Road to Social Security’s Current Problems

The 1983 Social Security amendments included a “fix” for the baby-boomer problem, in the form of a hefty payroll tax hike. Prior to 1983, the obligation of each generation of Americans had been restricted to paying for the Social Security benefits of the generation that preceded it. However, since the baby-boom generation was much larger than any preceding generation, the 1983 tax hike required the boomers to prepay most of the cost of their own benefits, in addition to paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them. The boomers got hit with a double whammy, and they have paid more into Social Security than any other generation.

The surplus revenue generated by the 1983 tax hike was supposed to be saved and invested to build up a large reserve with which to ultimately fund the retirement of the baby boomers more than 25 years down the road. If the intent of the legislation had been followed, Social Security would now have enough money to pay full benefits until at least 2037, and there would be no talk today about the need to cut Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, the plan was not followed. Unscrupulous politicians have been stealing the surplus Social Security revenue and spending it for non-Social Security purposes for the past 25 years.

The first surpluses came in, almost unnoticed, during the second Reagan term. Instead of being saved and invested, the surplus money was deposited into the general revenue fund and used for other government programs. When George H.W. Bush became President, he followed in Reagan’s footsteps with regard to the mishandling of the surplus Social Security revenue. As the surpluses became larger and larger, criticism against Bush became louder and louder. The first significant Social Security surplus came in 1985 in the amount of $9.4 billion. By 1990, the surplus had shot up to $56.6 billion and was projected to grow larger and larger over the next two decades.

This was Social Security money, generated by the regressive payroll tax, and intended to be used exclusively for the payment of future Social Security benefits. For the Bush administration to blatantly violate the intent of the law, and use the Social Security money for other government programs, was nothing short of embezzlement. The whole issue came to a head in 1990 when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York introduced legislation that would rescind the 1983 payroll tax increase and return the Social Security program to a pay-as-you-go system.

Moynihan’s position was that, if the government could not keep its hand out of the Social Security cookie jar, then the jar should be emptied so their would no longer be any Social Security surplus to raid. Moynihan’s proposal was supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the liberal Institute of Policy Studies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But it was not popular with the Bush administration. “It is an effort to get me to raise taxes on the American people by the charade of cutting them, or cut benefits,” Bush told reporters. “And I’m not going to do it to the older people of this country.” The real reason that Bush opposed the legislation was that, had it passed, he would have lost his large secret slush fund

During the debate on the Moynihan bill, senator after senator characterized the ongoing raiding of Social Security as “embezzlement,” “thievery,” and “stealing,” and that is exactly what it was. Money paid by working Americans for the purpose of building up a reserve for the baby boomers was instead going into the general fund and being used to offset the lost revenue that resulted from Reagan’s unaffordable income tax cut that benefited mostly the rich.

The American public, and specifically future Social Security recipients, were the big losers when Senator Moynihan failed to end the raiding of Social Security in 1990. Senator Moynihan had supported the 1983 payroll tax hike, and the only reason he was advocating its repeal was to prevent the Bush administration from continuing to pilfer it. A far better solution, for Senator Reid and the public, would have been some arrangement that legally prevented the government from looting the money. But President Bush wanted no part of any kind of arrangement that would have kept him from using the surplus Social Security revenue. So the 1990 opportunity to end the raiding of Social Security was lost.

President Bill Clinton continued the raiding of the Social Security surplus throughout his eight years, but the opportunity to change policy came up again in the 2000 presidential election campaign. Al Gore acknowledged the ongoing looting of Social Security and promised to end it if elected. Gore’s promise to end the practice of using Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes became so popular that candidate George W. Bush felt he had to make a similar promise. So it appeared that, no matter who was elected President in 2000, the Social Security surplus revenue would be saved and invested, from that point on, as was the intent of the 1983 Social Security legislation.

George W. Bush became the new president, but he reneged on his promise to protect Social Security, despite ongoing assurances that he would not touch the surplus. During his State of the Union address on February 27, 2001, Bush said, “My budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and Social Security alone.” Yet he spent every dollar of the approximately $1.5 trillion in Social Security surplus that came in during his presidency. During his 2005 campaign to partially privatize Social Security, President George W. Bush openly admitted that all of the Social Security surplus was being spent. In a speech in Pennsylvania, on February 10, 2005 Bush candidly admitted the raiding with the following words: “Every dime that goes in from payroll taxes is spent. It’s spent on retirees, and if there’s excess, it’s spent on government programs. The only thing that Social Security has is a pile of IOUs from one part of government to the next.” On April 5, 2005, during a speech in West Virginia, Bush said: “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.’

President Obama has, so far, not officially changed the practice of his four predecessors. However, this year, for the first time in nearly three decades, there is no Social Security surplus to loot. The severe recession has resulted in a reduction in payroll tax revenue at the very same time that many senior unemployed workers are choosing to retire earlier than they otherwise would have, thus raising the total cost of benefits.

Over the past quarter-century, the United States government has embezzled $2.5 trillion of the Social Security contributions of working Americans and used the money to fund wars and other government programs. Unless that money is fully repaid, with interest, the future of Social Security, as we now know it, is doomed, and some politicians are already making plans to dance at its funeral. The American public must not allow that to happen. They must demand that the first priority of the deficit commission be to make provisions for the orderly repayment of the stolen money. Beginning in 2016, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to make full Social Security benefit payments. Unless at least some of the money is put back into the fund by then, benefits will have to be cut.

Dr. Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Eastern Illinois University. He is the author of seven books and has been researching and writing about Social Security financing for the past ten years. Read other articles by Allen, or visit Allen's website.