Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (158199)	7/6/2001 4:47:04 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

And they can run on the economy and the energy ripoff. The democrats in order to do that would have to run against their own record which brought this horrible economy and energy crisis on, and anyone who doesn't understand that is the fool!

To: American Spirit who wrote (158199)	7/6/2001 6:13:28 AM
From: ColtonGang	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769667

BUSH is in deep doodoo...........Medicare surplus may have to be used The tax cut and waning economy may lower revenue, and lead to the breaking of a congressional promise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive \| Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Ken Moritsugu INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - The federal government may dip into the Medicare or Social Security trust funds as soon as this fall to cover expenses - breaking a congressional promise not to do so - because the recently enacted tax cut and the economic slowdown together are draining the Treasury of revenue. The tax cut and extra spending, mainly for agriculture and defense, will reduce the fiscal 2001 budget surplus to about $7 billion, excluding surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. The economy also is yielding less tax revenue than expected, which could easily leave Treasury funds below that $7 billion cushion, budget experts say. "The prospect is pretty substantial that we might be into the Medicare surplus this year and next, and even more so in 2003," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan lobby opposed to deficits. "The margin for error is so thin that it could easily tip into the lockbox." The lockbox, made famous by Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore last fall, is a pledge by lawmakers to avoid spending surpluses in Social Security and Medicare funds - figuratively locking up those surpluses where they cannot be touched. The lockbox concept has no economic significance. It is essentially a rhetorical device, for it does not in any way lock money away somewhere to pay future Social Security and Medicare benefits. It is only a pledge not to spend that money on other programs, other than reducing the federal debt. The lockbox, however, has enormous political significance. Medicare and Social Security are projected to have costs exceeding revenues in 2016. Republican and Democratic lawmakers scored points with voters by pledging to save the programs by not raiding their trust funds to pay for other things. Now that appears imminent, and neither party wants to be held responsible for it, said Stan Collender, chief federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard, a public relations firm. "Which party is blamed for doing that will suffer substantial political consequences because of the perception they will be hurting Medicare," he said. "That in fact is the endgame for appropriations this year: How do you get the other party to take the blame?" Democrats are already blaming President Bush's $1.35 trillion, 11-year tax cut for threatening the surplus. The tax cut will reduce revenues for fiscal 2001, which ends Sept. 30, by $74 billion. "This administration, after advocating a tax cut that was too large . . . has put us right back in the bad old days of raiding every trust fund in sight," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.). "We're on the brink of raiding the Medicare trust fund this year. This is fiscal mismanagement on a grand scale." Republicans fire back that the only threat to the surplus is from Democratic spending plans. "I don't know how many times we have to say it: We are not going to spend the Social Security and Medicare trust funds," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R., Iowa). "The biggest threats to Social Security and Medicare are the calls for higher spending we've heard from [Democratic] senators." When gauging the economic impact of federal surpluses, economists focus on the total budget, including Social Security and Medicare. This year's total looks likely to be $175 billion to $200 billion, less than last year's record $237 billion surplus, but still substantial. Most of that, however, is in the Social Security and Medicare accounts. The administration points out that the overall budget surplus will be large this year, regardless of whether the government dips into the Medicare fund. "We feel it's remarkable after a year of economic slowdown that we are still in such strong fiscal condition and there's going to be a huge surplus," said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Mitchell Daniels, the administration's chief budget officer. Amid such fiscal trends and partisan finger-pointing, the chance of a government shutdown this fall is greater than at any time since the last shutdown ended in January 1996, analyst Collender said. Bush and Republicans may insist on a budget that avoids touching the Medicare or Social Security surpluses. But that could require limiting spending more than Democrats, who control the Senate, are willing to accept. They might counter by trying to cut defense spending. Gridlock could result, producing a shutdown, Collender said. Spending money from the Medicare and Social Security trust funds would not reduce anyone's Medicare or Social Security benefits. If the government does not spend surplus money - whether in Social Security, Medicare, or in the Treasury's general account - it uses it to pay off outstanding debt.