26
   

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:45 am
@JPB,
A couple of things JPB
Medicare is not just funded by 2.9% of salaries.
It also collects premiums from seniors.

Medicare also has as trust fund that currently holds over 380 billion in US treasuries. So it has a large surplus that needs to be paid back, which will increase the debt service payments in the future. The trust fund is projected to last until at least 2024.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:47 am
I do love the argument that we have to cut SS and Medicare because THOSE PROGRAMS are going broke. SS and Medicare aren't in any immediate danger. It's nothing but a diversion because some don't want to pay back the borrowed money because otherwise they would have to admit that taxes have to be raised.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:52 am
@parados,
agreed, but the % of GDP is expected to rise from 3.6% in 2010 to 5.5% in 2035, and increase that cannot be supported by the current tax structure.

Quote:
Relative to the combined Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare HI Trust Fund faces a more immediate funding shortfall, though its longer term financial outlook is better under the assumptions employed in this report.

Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.66 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets drop below one year’s projected expenditures early in 2011. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. Medicare’s HI Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, five years earlier than estimated in last year’s report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs. The share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues is projected to decline slowly to 75 percent in 2045, and then to rise slowly, reaching 88 percent in 2085. Over 75 years, HI’s actuarial imbalance is estimated to be equivalent to 21 percent of tax receipts or 17 percent of program outlays.

The worsening of HI's projected finances is primarily due to lower HI real (inflation-adjusted) non-interest income caused by a slower assumed economic recovery, and by higher HI real costs caused by higher assumed near-term growth in real economy-wide average labor compensation. The resulting increases in HI real deficits are concentrated in the near term, which is why trust fund exhaustion occurs five years earlier than was projected last year despite a relatively modest increase in the 75-year actuarial deficit.

Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs will cause SMI costs to grow rapidly from 1.9 percent of GDP in 2010 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2035 and approximately 4.1 percent of GDP by 2085. Roughly three-quarters of these costs will be financed from general revenues and about one-quarter from premiums paid by beneficiaries. Small amounts of SMI financing are received from special payments by States and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs. 2011 Report
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:53 am
@JPB,
2035? Thank GOD we held the debt ceiling hostage in 2011.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:56 am
@parados,
Meanwhile the rest of the government (not medicare and SS) gets 13.1% of GDP in revenues and spends 17% of GDP. But damn.. we have to worry about cutting SS and Medicare. Never mind that they both are OWED money that MUST be paid back.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:58 am
@parados,
You saw me say that where?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:58 am
@parados,
Yes, we have to worry about everything.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 08:30 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Meanwhile the rest of the government (not medicare and SS) gets 13.1% of GDP in revenues and spends 17% of GDP. But damn.. we have to worry about cutting SS and Medicare. Never mind that they both are OWED money that MUST be paid back.


So, you're saying that the trust fund balances quoted in the Trustee's annual report do not include the value of the Treasury bonds they hold. I don't think that's the case. Regardless, here's the status of the three trust funds. The short term outlook for HI is not good.

Quote:
What is the Outlook for Short-Term Trust Fund Adequacy? The reports measure the short-range adequacy of the OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds by comparing fund assets to projected costs for the ensuing year (the "trust fund ratio"). A trust fund ratio of 100 percent or more -- that is, assets at least equal to projected costs for a year -- is a good indicator of a fund’s short-range adequacy. That level of projected assets for any year means that even if cost exceeds income, the trust fund reserves, combined with annual tax revenues, would be sufficient to pay full benefits for several years.

By this measure, the OASI Trust Fund is financially adequate throughout the 2011-20 period, but the DI Trust Fund fails the short-range test because its projected trust fund ratio falls to 90 percent by the beginning of 2013, followed by exhaustion of assets in 2018.Furthermore, despite the increasing nominal value of the OASI and combined OASDI trust funds throughout the short-range period, both the OASI and DI trust fund ratios -- indicators of the duration of continuing benefit payments that the trust funds could finance out of current assets -- will continue to decline from 2011 forward.

The HI Trust Fund also does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy; its projected trust fund ratio falls to 86 percent by the beginning of 2012. Projected HI Trust Fund assets are fully depleted in 2024. Chart D shows the trust fund ratios through 2040 under the intermediate assumptions.

A less stringent annual "contingency reserve" test is applied to SMI Part B assets since the overwhelming portion of the financing for that account consists of beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions that are set each year to meet expected costs. Part D is similarly financed on an annual basis. Moreover, the operation of Part D through private insurance plans, together with a flexible appropriation for Federal costs, eliminates the need for a contingency reserve in that account. Note, however, that estimated Part B costs are improbably low for 2012 and beyond because the projections assume that current law, which substantially reduces physician payments per service under the sustainable growth rate system, will not be changed. The estimated physician fee reduction for 2012 is 29 percent. A reduction in fees of this magnitude is highly unlikely; Congress has acted to prevent smaller reductions in every year since 2003. Underestimated payments to physicians would affect projected costs for Part B, total SMI, and total Medicare.

Chart D—OASI, DI, and HI Trust Fund Ratios
(Assets as a percentage of annual cost)
I hoped to post the chart but it blew out the pagesize....

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:20 am
What all this discussion about the trust fund and its ability to last until a future date doesn't take into consideration many issues that impacts the cost.
1. Longer life 2. Expanded (Bush's) unfunded drug benefits 3. Increasing beneficiaries (as the baby-boomers begin to retire). 4. Less workers paying into the system 5. Increasing cost of medical care, and 6. Adding beneficiaries who have never paid into the system.

Social benefits cannot be sustained at current growth of the programs in patients and costs. It's impossible.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:28 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

........................
Chart D—OASI, DI, and HI Trust Fund Ratios
(Assets as a percentage of annual cost)
I hoped to post the chart but it blew out the pagesize....

Your Chart D on this page http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
is based on GDP growth projections of about 5% p.a. (column 5):
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2011/lr6f6.html#2
Their posted figures are wrong for the actual US GDP (as revised) 2010 and wildly optimistic for projected GDP 2011 - we'll be lucky to see 2% this year. As per analyses (mine and Prof. Kwak's) posted on previous page a new debt ceiling increase will probably become necessary before November 2012.

Team Obama's support for the latest one (4th in his presidency) will blow up in their faces on the day the Treasury has to come back cap in hand asking for a 5th. That, btw, was the reason for standing firm and calling Obama's bluff about the "deadline" being August 2; recall that Treasury had already been bumping under the debt ceiling for months, that the delay forced it to exhaust all other available funding avenues (such as borrowing from the Trust Funds, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, etc) and that this accounting maneuver can't easily be repeated unless those funds are reimbursed first. If you read comments made by PM Putin of Russia and the president of the (central) Bank of China after Obama signed this 4th debt raise you'll see they weren't fooled.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:40 am
@JPB,
Saw you say what?

You clearly said "2035".
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:46 am
@JPB,
No, I said what the trustees said. The funds are OWED money from the general fund to pay off the treasuries held by those funds.

None of the funds run out of money in the next 10 years. The only thing we are doing is changing how fast we have to pay back the funds and then saying it's a cut to spending. It isn't a cut to what we owe the funds and the general fund still needs to find the revenue to pay back the funds.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:52 am
@High Seas,
So, where do you get your information that the US government will spend 2.4 trillion more than it takes in over the next 16 months? The projected deficit for 12 months is less than 1.5 trillion.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 10:59 am
@parados,
Right, so your point about the funds being owed monies is moot to my point that we need to have Medicare reform on the table. You won't find any references from me ever saying that we needed to hold the debt ceiling hostage in 2011. In fact, if you look you'll find many references where I said it needed to be raised to a level that will get us beyond the 2012 elections in order for the American people to speak at the polls before we have to do it again.

Unfortunately, I think HS is right. No matter what this deal was - it didn't accomplish that.

JPB
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:02 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Team Obama's support for the latest one (4th in his presidency) will blow up in their faces on the day the Treasury has to come back cap in hand asking for a 5th. That, btw, was the reason for standing firm and calling Obama's bluff about the "deadline" being August 2; recall that Treasury had already been bumping under the debt ceiling for months, that the delay forced it to exhaust all other available funding avenues (such as borrowing from the Trust Funds, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, etc) and that this accounting maneuver can't easily be repeated unless those funds are reimbursed first. If you read comments made by PM Putin of Russia and the president of the (central) Bank of China after Obama signed this 4th debt raise you'll see they weren't fooled.


Standing firm in order to accomplish what, exactly?
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:05 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
Their posted figures are wrong for the actual US GDP (as revised) 2010 and wildly optimistic for projected GDP 2011 - we'll be lucky to see 2% this year.


I agree. We can guess all we want about how much further down the projection drops from 2024, but there's no doubt in my mind that it will be significant.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:09 am
@JPB,
You won't find me ever saying YOU held the debt ceiling hostage.

Can you agree that the vote was taken because of a hostage crisis manufactured by those that refused to simply pass the ceiling?

Quote:
Right, so your point about the funds being owed monies is moot to my point that we need to have Medicare reform on the table.
No, my point isn't moot. The deal was for 2 years of debt ceiling and 10 years of savings. In neither of those 2 time frames does Medicare run out of money. It only needs to have money that was borrowed returned to it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:15 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

[Military spending - 4.9% of GDP
Medicare - 3.3% of GDP
Social Security 4.8% of GDP
Veteran's benefits - .8% of GDP
Transportation - 6.9% of GDP
adm of Justice - 3.7% of GDP
General govt - 0.17% of GDP
Allowance for Emergencies - 0.13%

That alone adds up to 16.8% of GDP..

Medicaid and other health programs - 2.6%
Income Security - 3.8%


What is your source for the data in this taxonomy?
Where are the costs of the EPA, Energy, Education, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, HHS and State departments?

Every business does periodic self assessments of productivity and efficiency, redirecting staff costs to where they are truly needed. Government agencies almost never do that and could easily cope with an up to 10% reduction in their operating costs. Worse, most of them contract out their assigned work leaving the government employees to shuffle paper, drink coffee and attend meetings. Huge savings could be achieved in this area simply by making the employees actually do the jobs for which they were hired.

Federal gasoline taxes & special taxes on airline operatiors are much less than the 6.9% of GDP you listed for transportation.

While the special taxes for Medicare and SS are dedicated to those programs, the eligibility for and value of benefits can be modified by the Congress for any purpose it chooses, including keeping the programs solvent at current tax revenue rates. Delaying corrective action until they become insolvent is a certain way to disaster. In this area 15 years is a minimal lead time.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:20 am
@JPB,
A 2% vs 5% GDP growth for 2011-12 doesn't equate to tax revenues being down by $.6 trillion over the next 16 months.

Assume the projected growth is 5% and the projected deficit is 1.1 trillion over 12 month.
The debt ceiling was raised by 2.4 trillion.
One would have to make the ridiculous assumption that all of that 3% GDP growth was going for taxes under the current projections for us to run into the debt ceiling by Nov of next year. (14 trillion x .03 = .42 trillion vs the .6 trillion revenues would have to go down on the current debt ceiling.)
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 11:21 am
@JPB,
Standing firm in order to focus the people's attention that we're standing on the edge of a precipice, but it's still time to get our affairs in order and pull back. Did you happen to look up any of the speeches of Adm. Mullen on the debt? He trusts the people's judgement, as do I. Sadly, Obama et al don't:
Quote:
The national debt is the single biggest threat to national security, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Tax payers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012, the chairman told students and local leaders in Detroit.

“That’s one year’s worth of defense budget,” he said, adding that the Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.[/i]“We’re going to have to do that if it’s going to survive at all,” Mullen said, “and do it in a way that is predictable.”.........“I have found that universally, [private-sector workers] care every bit as much about our country, are every bit as patriotic and wanting to make a difference … as those who wear the uniform and are in harm’s way,” he said[/i].


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:53:06