Inventing a Crisis

[SViscusi]

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004


Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.

But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Link

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004

...For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Financial security is not the reponsibility of government. It's a personal choice - and we like choice, don't we?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004

...For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Financial security is not the reponsibility of government. It's a personal choice - and we like choice, don't we?

Thanks for confirming what the article is saying.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004

...For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Financial security is not the reponsibility of government. It's a personal choice - and we like choice, don't we?

Thanks for confirming what the article is saying.

:roll:

 

[NJbronco]

In what bank is this trust fund deposited?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: NJbronco
In what bank is this trust fund deposited?

Bank of the United States

 

[NJbronco]

The reality is the trust fund does not exist; it is funded with IOU's from the General Budget. When the trust fund is tapped, taxes will have to be raised to pay the benefits.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: NJbronco
The reality is the trust fund does not exist; it is funded with IOU's from the General Budget. When the trust fund is tapped, taxes will have to be raised to pay the benefits.

How can a trust fund that, according to you, does not exist, be, again according to you, tapped?

Isn't your position exactly what Krugman describes as:

"But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest..."

 

[NJbronco]

What 2 positions I am holding? The only position I am holding is that Social Security taxes will have to be constantly raised to cover the retirees.

Can we agree on that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004


Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.

But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Link

Good editorial. It's a shame the so-called "liberal" media aren't all over this, yet another monumental deception by the Bush administration.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Inventing a Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 7, 2004


Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.

But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Link

Good editorial. It's a shame the so-called "liberal" media aren't all over this, yet another monumental deception by the Bush administration.

you never heard of Paul Krugman?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: NJbronco
What 2 positions I am holding? The only position I am holding is that Social Security taxes will have to be constantly raised to cover the retirees.

Can we agree on that?

No, because thats not true.

 

[ntdz]

i take anything Paul Krugman writes with a grain of salt. I saw O'Reilly debate him and he couldn't even look O'Reilly in the eye, he kept looking down or away when he talked, it was sad. He's an ultra liberal, too radical for me to take seriously (that goes for some conservatives w/ me too). I think we have too many problems right now w/ the deficit to even THINK about touching social security. Maybe when we get the deficit under control we can talk about reforming S.S. (it does need it).

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: NJbronco
What 2 positions I am holding? The only position I am holding is that Social Security taxes will have to be constantly raised to cover the retirees.

Can we agree on that?

No, because thats not true.

either people will have to pay more into S.S. and get less, or they are going to have the raise the retirement age or exclude some people. When S.S. was originally designed, there would be 15 workers supporting one retiree. Right now, its 4 workers supporting one retiree, and it's going to get worst now that the baby boomers are starting to retire. Something needs to be done in the near future or it's going to go bankrupt like the rest of the govt

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alent1234
you never heard of Paul Krugman?

Certainly. I'm missing your point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz
either people will have to pay more into S.S. and get less, or they are going to have the raise the retirement age or exclude some people. When S.S. was originally designed, there would be 15 workers supporting one retiree. Right now, its 4 workers supporting one retiree, and it's going to get worst now that the baby boomers are starting to retire. Something needs to be done in the near future or it's going to go bankrupt like the rest of the govt

Social Security is nowhere near going bankrupt, though it will go into the red beginning somewhere between 2042 and 2052 (depending on who one listens to). That doesn't mean it will be out of money. It just means it will be paying out somewhat more than it is then collecting and had previously collected. Yes, we should act now to fix it to avoid more drastic fixes later. Contrary to Bush & Co., we do not need to panic, and we do not need to gut it.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: ntdz
i take anything Paul Krugman writes with a grain of salt. I saw O'Reilly debate him and he couldn't even look O'Reilly in the eye, he kept looking down or away when he talked, it was sad. He's an ultra liberal, too radical for me to take seriously (that goes for some conservatives w/ me too). I think we have too many problems right now w/ the deficit to even THINK about touching social security. Maybe when we get the deficit under control we can talk about reforming S.S. (it does need it).

You mean the one where OReily compared Media Matters to the KKK? That was classic, right up there with when Alan Keyes accused Barak Obama of having a slave holder's mentality.

What's sad about all of this is how morons like you in the red parts of america are so distracted by the noise you can't see the truth.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: ntdz
i take anything Paul Krugman writes with a grain of salt. I saw O'Reilly debate him and he couldn't even look O'Reilly in the eye, he kept looking down or away when he talked, it was sad. He's an ultra liberal, too radical for me to take seriously (that goes for some conservatives w/ me too). I think we have too many problems right now w/ the deficit to even THINK about touching social security. Maybe when we get the deficit under control we can talk about reforming S.S. (it does need it).

You mean the one where OReily compared Media Matters to the KKK? That was classic, right up there with when Alan Keyes accused Barak Obama of having a slave holder's mentality.

What's sad about all of this is how morons like you in the red parts of america are so distracted by the noise you can't see the truth.

Once again a loser liberal spews his mouth not knowing what the hell he's talking about. I live in California, a BLUE STATE. I wasn't referring to the debate itself, I was referring how Paul Krugman debated. It was terrible, he lacked confidence, style, poise, and most importantly, he made no good points. O'Reilly wasn't any good either but he was 10 times better than Krugman.

I love your stupid little picture of "Reagan's Funeral". Reagan was one of the best Presidents we had, and even most liberals would agree he was half decent. Get over the fact that you are a loser, have been for four years and will be again in four more years after Hilary gets thrashed by anyone the GOP picks.

 

[NJbronco]

SS FAQ

Please read; but here are the highlights:

2018 current taxes not enough and Trust Fund is used but the fund is nothing but IOU's from the Treasury

2042 even these IOU's are exhausted


Now I'm not saying the current plan to borrow a trillion dollars is the correct one, but someting must be to privatize the retirement portion of the system.

I think right now the employee tax limit of 87k should be eliminated, and the creation of Roth credits whereby individuals get credits of 2k a year. This way if you don't have the money to put away this year, your Roth contribution next year could be IRS limit + the 2k from the previous year. It would help young workers who typically don't have a lot of disposal income for IRA contributions.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: NJbronco
What 2 positions I am holding? The only position I am holding is that Social Security taxes will have to be constantly raised to cover the retirees.

Can we agree on that?

No, since it is guaranteed by general revenues, the shortfall could be made up from general revenue. As the article said, withdrawing a portion of the Bush tax cuts, or cutting back on military spending could do the trick.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Once again a loser liberal spews his mouth not knowing what the hell he's talking about. I live in California, a BLUE STATE. I wasn't referring to the debate itself, I was referring how Paul Krugman debated. It was terrible, he lacked confidence, style, poise, and most importantly, he made no good points. O'Reilly wasn't any good either but he was 10 times better than Krugman.

What in hell does debating skills have to do with the validity of a person's opinions? Krugman is a proffessor, which means that he is a writer. In his public life, he is a columnist, which means he is a writer. I read the transcript with O'Reily, and in that he made a couple good points, but there were many times when his statements trailed off into ellipses. . . which means he's not a very good speaker when under pressure.

big deal. He's an academic. It usually best to give them some time t make their points.

Edit: Put O'Reily and Krugman on this forum, about an economic policy issue, and Krugman will hand O'Reily his ass.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only "crisis" looming in the near future for SS is the one being intentionally created via deficits and debt in the general fund. When the day comes that the trust needs to be repaid from the general fund, it won't be possible- we'll have to pay the bankers and the military/security contractors first, and there's just not enough to go around...

Krugman's right, it's just another cash grab- taxcuts for the wealthy financed by debt and deception...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200501140807.asp">?Save Social Security First??
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.
</a>

The latest line of attack against President Bush's still-unformed plan to reform the Social Security system is the charge that the White House is manufacturing a phony Social Security "crisis" to sell its proposal. "The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency," Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote this week. "To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office ? the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security ? he concocted crises where there were none." A number of other commentators, and also some news reporters, have joined in the same theme in recent weeks.


A key document in the controversy, a strategy memo written in early January by White House aide Peter Wehner ? a top assistant to political chief Karl Rove ? does not use the word "crisis," but it does say clearly that Social Security is headed for trouble. "Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg," Wehner writes. "We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."

To some commentators, Wehner's analysis suggested that the White House planned to stir up a phony "crisis." But in fact it appears that President Bush is not only relying on accepted economic wisdom about Social Security's future financial viability but also, in his campaign for reform, borrowing a page from the public-relations playbook of his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending ? or, more importantly, no tax cuts ? "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years ? by 2032 ? "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."

Invented crisis by Bush? Hmm...

CsG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually Bush did help "foster" a crisis by his ridiculous management of the US budget. The natural history of SS (change in demographics) is certainly a trainwreck in evolution. But it could easily be averted by structural changes (increasing eligibility age, means testing eligibility, increasing payroll tax, removing or raising payroll tax). When you look at larger budget concerns, the duplicity of Bushites is obvious.

Merely repealing the tax cuts of the top 1% of US taxpayers alone comes within shouting distance of covering the ENTIRE SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Repealing the Medicare Drug Benefit/Modernization Act is significantly more than the SS shortfall.

Bushoviks have succeeded in ACCELERATING the demise of SS by spending ALL of the SS surplus for EVERY single year Bush has been in office. A phenomenon that has also obscured the true gravity of the fake MBAs poor budgetary skills . . . granted Clinton was a fraud on this issue, too.

In short, the Bush Regime's "public" proposals are largely window dressing on solving the looming fiscal issues in SS. To the contrary, his budgets (just like Reagan) have exacerbated the fiscal problems overall.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[L=?Save Social Security First??
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.
[/quote]

Bullsh1t. No one is denying there is a problem.

The Dems suggested a "Lock Box" not here's the Cookie Jar, all you Rich Boys have at it. :roll: