ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - EDITORIAL: From each according to his ability ...

PRINT THIS Popular

May. 20, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: From each according to his ability ...

Sen. Barack Obama has a plan, and it's an old, familiar one

On the campaign trail in Oregon, where he was still expected to win the Democratic presidential primary despite a late rally by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday called likely GOP nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona a threat to Social Security as it's currently structured.

We should only wish.

Share & Save

What is this?

Most Popular Stories

LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program

FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership

LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure

LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead

EDITORIAL: Tip jar

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?

EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?

LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste

EDITORIAL: Sending the right message

EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'

In a front-page story the next day, USA Today revealed the U.S. government uses accounting tricks that would never be permitted in private industry to understate the extent to which the federal Medicare and Social Security entitlements are actually in the hole.

Officially, Washington contends the 2007 federal deficit -- the amount of spending for which it had no cash on hand -- was $162 billion, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

But the accountants on the Potomac get away with that only by limiting their tally to the payments they actually made last year. In contrast, accounting standards for private corporations and state governments require them to report new financial obligations accrued each year -- promises made -- even if the payments won't be made till later.

If such standard accounting methods were applied to the federal obligations, taxpayers would know the federal government actually ran up $2.5 trillion in new liabilities last year, which "dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit," the newspaper reports.

And that's just the one-year total. Overall, U.S. taxpayers are actually on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover lifetime benefits promised everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other federal programs -- nearly $500,000 per American household, the newspaper reports.

"We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Chicago-based Institute for Truth in Accounting.

Medicare, which took on $1.2 trillion in new obligations in 2007, has a total unfunded liability of $30.4 trillion. Social Security? $900 billion.

Some economists say these figures are no big cause for worry, because future generations will be wealthier, and will thus have more money to pay off the bills.

That might be true if costs were fixed -- if new workers signing on for Medicare were told they or their doctors will be paid for 2028 surgeries only what that surgery would have cost in 2008; if those signing up for Social Security were warned they'll receive checks only adequate to buy groceries at 2008 prices, not at 2055 prices.

But that's not true. Benefits go up with inflation.

Indeed, the most sensible short-term fixes are precisely the ones Sen. Obama jeered Sen. McCain for considering -- raising the retirement age or trimming annual "cost-of-living" raises.

A longer-term solution would be reviving George W. Bush's stillborn attempt to put the retirement program on a solid fiscal footing by allowing optional, privately owned accounts.

But again, Sen. Obama thrilled the redistributionist crowd in Portland by condemning just such sensible attempts to give workers the choice of assuming private ownership of part of their retirement funds -- even while allowing those afraid of such responsibility to keep their accounts just the way they are.

Sen. Clinton is drawing some criticism, these days, for saying -- in more and more direct fashion -- that Barack Obama can't be elected president because he's black.

That is indeed a forlorn prediction.

How odd that no one suggests Barack Obama may be unelectable because he's a socialist.

Ridiculing all sensible attempts to make the entitlement programs self-sustaining, the senator from Illinois has only one "solution" to offer for the unsustainability of Medicare and Social Security: Grab more money from the wealthy and shovel it down the line to "the poor" -- punishing the kinds of behaviors that allow some hard-working Americans to prosper and save, while rewarding the kinds of behaviors that leave others with their hands out, bleating for succor.

Leave Your Comment	40 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: John F wrote on May 21, 2008 08:27 AM: Fausto, One last word from me on the topic.... The fact that Cindy McCain's name was never mentioned by previous posters is exactly my point. If the supposed elitism of the Presidential candidates' wives is to be an issue in the campaign then it needs to be an issue for both candidates and both of their wives, otherwise we're holding them to a double standard. I certainly never would have raised Cindy McCain's name absent the attack on Michelle Obama. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Edward Cleary wrote on May 21, 2008 03:37 AM: Politicians never tell the truth since they would be un-electable if they did. Since this would destroy their only desire, to be re-elected, they invent fairy tale solutions to fool the public into believing that they actually have a workable solution. Of course they don't and could care less. They will tax, tax, tax and throw money at the problems with no possible way to audit the funds so that they will know what actually happens to the money when it is spent. If the money runs out, due to corruption, theft, ect., they will just keep throwing more money at the problem. Of course the problem never gets solved but do they care....of course not. They just blame the other party for the failure, or argue back and forth among themselves in an effort to embarass or disgrase the other guy to gain political advantage. Nothing ever gets done. Vote ALL of them out. Elect public servants that care about the people. Get intelligent men that understand the problems and have the guts to come up with viable solutions and have the will to enforce them. Whateverusaydear wrote on May 20, 2008 10:44 PM: Sad Summerlin, When did these candidates make that speech you put in quotes (or is it another straw man argument)? I'd like to see the context in which the speech (if it exists) was made. It seems like it's your opinion (which you are indeed entitled to, just like the rest of us). I can agree with you on the mistreatment concerning the possible first ladies... but get used to it; that happens to be the way "politics as usual" is conducted. Anything that even marginally makes a candidate look bad will be used... sickening, but nowadays anything goes. Sadly, this election has illustrated how ageism, racism, pandering, fear mongering are still useful to scare people out of voting or to put one's candidate in power. Unless people are truly fed up enough to change Washington's ways, get used to more of the same mess we've all been forced to endure. In spite of the voter turnout this time around, we as a people seem willing to put up with the same old same old, and wonder why our standard of living seems to erode as time goes on. Sad Summerlin wrote on May 20, 2008 06:21 PM: Can anyone who supports Obama or Clinton write a logical argument against this statement: "Grab more money from the wealthy and shovel it down the line to "the poor" -- punishing the kinds of behaviors that allow some hard-working Americans to prosper and save, while rewarding the kinds of behaviors that leave others with their hands out, bleating for succor" Sounds like most of Obama's speeches to me... And for everyone on both sides that want to go after Michelle and Cindy... neither are running and both are allowed to their opinions... I was sad when people went after Theresa Heinz and thought it silly when people went after Hillary (when she was first Lady)... We elect a President folks... not a tabloid tryst... Fausto wrote on May 20, 2008 06:06 PM: Today... "I'm not going off on Cindy McCain; I'm going off on people who call Michelle Obama an elitist. I don't have a problem with Cindy McCain per se" Interesting...now yesterday.... "Now ask yourself, which of the two is elitist? Which of the two has refused to release her income tax records?" Remember, of course, the poster you highlight DID NOT mention Cindy McCain. Seems as though you ARE going off on her, and you do have a problem with her. "I would be one proud American to have Michelle Obama as our First Lady." Ahh...would you, to paraphrase Michelle Obama...be proud of your country for the first time in your adult life if she were first lady? tim wrote on May 20, 2008 05:01 PM: classic tim wrote on May 20, 2008 04:37 PM: is there a censor on this sight? can no one challenge james?whats up? tim wrote on May 20, 2008 04:13 PM: lets try this again,before the dems took over gas was $2.00 a gal.two yrs later its almost $4.00 dollars a gal.so in two more yrs of a dem.controlled congress it should be about $6.00 dollars a gal.sound about right? they must be busy stopping illegal aliens?not,they want to give them ammnesty,hmmm.illegals are costing us more than the war on terror,check it out for yourself.people are pissed alright,at all politicians.hear the joke,surgeons are debating whos the best to operate on.they decide politicians,no guts,no heart,no stomach and their heads and butts are interchangable. James wrote on May 20, 2008 03:31 PM: Ou812, you're way out to lunch. Low approval ratings for congress because of the Democrats? Get a grip. Dems just won THREE special congressional elections in GOP strongholds. People are mad as hell but not at Democrats. It's George and the Republicans that will find out in November just how p***ed off Americans are. Of course $4.00 a gallon gas and a TRILLION DOLLAR unnecessary war (among many, many other things) has a way of rubbing folks the wrong way. Wonder why? 0u812 wrote on May 20, 2008 03:16 PM: Native Nevadan. Please read the congressional records of the past and take a look at your demoncratic parties bills and amendments etc before judging the Repukeicans. As an Independent both of these parties are not about the American citizen but about thier own WELFARE. These two parties and people who follow are braindead. Open yourself up to independency and vote for who you feel will defend the rights and Constitution of the USA. This REP. & DEM parties need to go and WE THE PEOPLE need too send a message to all politicians no more BULL SH()T. The Dems wanted congress in 06 and they got it, LOWEST APPROVAL RATING in the HISTORY OF THE USA. So you see the DEMS are just as bad as the Rep. We are fighting against ourselve instead of at our POLITICIANS who are telling us this is wht joey is doing don't believe him he's a LIAR. Reid, Pelosie the two heads in charge just like the heads of gangs and the bully at school do as i say or else. They all can kiss my Read All Comments