SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: brutusdog who wrote (4793)11/4/2000 5:04:50 PM
From: Ben Wa  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10042
 
Yes, I confess to manipulating databases of historical interest rate information. My computer hacking skills are really THAT good.

Here's an inside tip, the day before Thanksgiving I am going to make Microsoft stock go up 3 5/8.



To: brutusdog who wrote (4793)11/5/2000 12:58:49 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10042
 
How's this for "substantiation"....

It may not have much to do with the past interest rate discussion, but it certainly pertains to the CURRRENT one:

washtimes.com

Paying down the debt as it goes up?

Martin L. Gross

Second of three articles

We incessantly hear, in loud bravado from Al Gore, and in more muted tones from the opposition, that Washington is so healthy financially we're regularly paying down the once-escalating national debt.

Vice President Gore recently roared that the debt will be gone, finished, paid off, finito, by 2012, just a whiff of time in fiscal measurement. In September, from his Rose Garden perch, President Clinton boasted that hundreds of billions have been erased from the national debt just this year. This is supposedly the third year in a row we have been paying down the massive albatross, one that lies heavily over our financial heads to the tune of $84,000 for every family of four.

Is the paydown all true? Of course not. This is merely another chapter in the newly minted mathematical hyperbole that has infected the body politic.

As political lies fly like leaves in a windy autumn, there is, however, one stalwart outpost of truth in Washington. It is the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the Treasury Department. But why would they tell us victimized citizens the truth? Why such contrarian thought?

The answer is that they, not the politicians, control the numbers that influence international finance, the stock market, and the central bankers here and abroad. if they lied, our currency would be damaged, our good faith and credit so much verbiage. Politicians can and do lie regularly, but somewhere, sometime, the buck must stop. It is at the Bureau of the Public Debt.

What do they say? I can give you an inside view because I deal with them regularly. On the forth workday of the month, the BPD issues the latest true numbers on the national debt on a single sheet that any citizen can obtain by calling them. Or you can check it out on the Web at publicdebt.treas.gov.

You'll be surprised by the truth.

In 1998, the administration crowed it had a surplus of $70 billion and was paying down the debt. I called the Bureau and asked if that was correct. They said they couldn't get involved in politics, but . . . .
"In 1998, we had a negative $113 billion for that year. The national debt went up (emphasis mine) $113 billion. from $5.413 trillion to $5.53 trillion."
What about 1999, an even grander year, when the administration announced there was a surplus of $123 billion?

Again, I called and received a copy of the 1999 national debt, covering the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, 1999.

Did the national debt go down as promised?

Apparently, it went in the only direction it seems destined for.
It rose to $5.656 trillion, an increase of $130 billion. Some paydown.

Fiscal 2000 ostensibly set the record in surpluses, some $237 billion. But once again, the national debt went up. Not an enormous amount in Washington terms, just some dozen billion, but up nevertheless.

What about the future? Now, this is classic. The president's own 2001 budget has a chart showing the projected future of the national debt. According to the administration itself, it will reach $6.8 trillion by 2012, the year Vice President Gore says it will be fully paid off.

What's going on here? What's the gimmick that allows them to fool me and thee?

It's a simple case of two sets of books. The national debt is split into two parts, the "external" debt consisting of bonds held outside, from simple folks to giant financial institutions from Manhattan to Tokyo. This is called the "marketable" debt.

The second part is the "internal," non-marketable debt which holds bonds representing the people's money — excess trust fund taxes, mainly from Social Security. It is a kind of second income tax and makes up 80 percent of the so-called "surplus." That money has been spent by the government in the general fund, then deposited as IOUs. Both debts, external and internal, carry approximately the same interest, averaging about 6 percent.

Over the last few years, the marketable debt is being paid down, a few percent at a time. But the money to pay it down comes from a raid on the trust funds. That internal debt, which someday will have to be redeemed, has meanwhile gone up almost twice as much as the external one has come down.

It's a two-card Monty game in which the money is just shifted from one Beltway pocket to another.

The purveyors of this gimmick say paying off the outside debt is more important. Supposedly it is going to save us interest. Nonsense. The internal debt alone will cost us extra interest of some $240 billion a year by 2012, money that has to come out of the annual budget —and just enough to kill any grandiose spending.

The reduction in the marketable debt was supposed to accomplish the miracle of lower interest rates. However, it turns out the Treasury is a relatively small player in the daily traffic in government bonds. The result? While we've been paying down the marketable debt (while the other half has gone up more), the interest rate has not gone down. Instead, it has gone up, from 4.5 to some 6 percent.

It is easy to fool the public with fancy, false math. Some politicians are honest, but being totally ignorant of Beltway numbers, they merely ape their party's words. Others are clued into the truth but have decided to lie to the voters, confident they'll never be tripped up.

The subterfuge is shameful, but it's only the beginning.

Anyone for a $10 trillion national debt?

Martin L. Gross is the author of three New York Times best sellers on the federal government. His latest is "Government Racket 2000: All New Washington Waste From A to Z," an original paperback published by Harper Collins



To: brutusdog who wrote (4793)11/5/2000 1:16:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10042
 
You are posting ridiculous charges with no substantiation

And what about these "unsubstantiated charges"...

Gore will DO NOTHING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. He will spend the surplus on bigger government and put us even deeper into debt. A debt our kids will have to pay off.

DO THE FRIGGIN' MATH YOURSELF!!!
*******************

The $6 trillion surplus heist

Martin L. Gross

First of three articles

There was a time when political lies were restricted to verbage. American politicians, the masters of high-flown rhetoric, have promised to "save" Social Security (the mysterious "lockbox"), no longer raise taxes ("read my lips"), and provide cheap, effective health insurance for all. (Remember Hillary Clinton?) And most important, all of this at minimal cost.

We citizens are the perennial, everlasting, original suckers. We've never really learned to cut through rhetoric to find the truth. I had hoped that after 40 years of foggery, we were finally getting the hang of it. Then suddenly our politicians outwitted us again by opening a second front: the arithmetic lie.

Now, that's something we're infinitely not equipped to handle. If you recall, in a recent international contest, American high schoolers came out 19th out of 21 nations in math. Apparently, that is a failing that extends all the way up the line, from voters to even the honest if mathematically challenged politicians.

The newest arithmetic twist involves a lie masquerading as both a "surplus" and a "lockbox." It goes something like this: Social Security will be protected by ensuring that the FICA taxes we pay (12.4 percent of the payroll) are put aside for those who will need it most — the Boomers when they start to come on line beginning in 2008, then heavily in 2013. The "surplus," we are told will be used to "strengthen" Social Security.

As someone with some background in math — having addressed the American Statistical Association, testified five times before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on budget and spending, even having eked out an "A" in college calculus, I develop crippling stomach secretions when I listen to the politicians' carefully constructed math lies.

The arithmetic reality is quite simple, and it's the exact opposite of what politicians are telling us. The so-called budget "surplus" that is supposed to "save" Social Security is almost entirely (80 percent) excess FICA-Social Security taxes taken by politicians and immediately spent in the general fund for everyone except the aged and disabled. The Social Security "fund" is then given IOUs in return. That debt, in a twist of math the non-governmental world has yet to master, is counted as cash. As the federal budget calls those IOUs, it is "debt securities held as assets." (That's quite a trick, much like counting your mortgage debt as cash on your back financial statement, a gimmick that will quickly land you in the clink.)

That idea of debt as surplus is an arithmetic fantasy, unless it takes place in Washington, where this new, new, new math is created by legislation.

The true arithmetic is quite simple. In 1983, the FICA taxes were raised 25 percent in order to save funds to pay the retiring boomers 25 years later. This created an enormous FICA surplus. In 2000, for example, Social Security took in $566 billion, including accrued interest, and paid out only $410 billion. That left a Social Security surplus of $156 billion. In addition, the Medicare fund also had a surplus of $25 billion. What happened to that $181 billion? Sad to say, as part of the phony "unified budget," it was put into the general fund and spend on whatever — welfare, tanks, fat retirement funds for the members of Congress.

What happened after that? The Social Security "fund" (actually only a bookeeping item) got bonds for $181 billion, IOUs that are now sitting there with no idea of how to redeem them when the time comes. So far, since 1983, $105 trillion has been taken from the Social Security money meant for the aged and disabled, but spent, spent, spent instead.

By the year 2015, when less money will be coming into FICA than going out, there will be $4 trillion of misappropriated money from Social Security that is gone, gone, gone, replaced by IOUs. That figure rises to $6 trillion by 2025 with no way to pay the Boomers except by raising taxes or lowering benefits — the ultimate result of the federal Ponzi scheme.

I call the Social Security money "misappropriated," but in such a profile in courage, Sen. Ernest ("Fritz") Hollings, South Carolina Democrat, says the truth: that it is "looted." As he says: "For everyone crying 'Save Social Security,' the first order of business is to stop destroying it by looting the fund."

This idea also came to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and Sen. Robert Kerrey, Nebraska Democrat, who introduced a bill, S 21, which would cut Social Security free from the general fund so the money couldn't be touched. This is much like Al Gore's favorite "lockbox," part of another arithmetic lie since it has two insolvable problems.

One is that S 21 has been bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee since January 1999 with no chance of passing. The second, more insidious problem is that if FICA cash is no longer "looted" and spent in the general fund, then 80 percent of the president's supposed $237 billion "surplus" automatically disappears. It will be hard to strengthen Social Security by using a surplus made up mainly of IOUs.

Not only that, but then the presidential candidates will loose the FICA candy store with which to promise goodies to the gullible voters.
It might help if citizens went back to school to study arithmetic. But not really, so long as there are politicians who now understand that if the big lie of rhetoric falls, there's always " 'rithmetic" with which to fool the voters.

Martin L. Gross is the author of three New York Times best sellers on the federal government. His latest is "Government Racket 2000: All New Washington Waste From A to Z," an original paperback published by Harper Collins.

washtimes.com