Lawyers for the state, represented by Attorney General John Suthers’ office, argued that the question of how much should be spent on education should be left to the legislature and voters. They also said more money alone is not necessarily the solution to better schools.

“The court clearly invited an appeal, and we believe an appeal is likely,” spokesman Mike Saccone said. “It was clearly very tempting for the District Court judge to wade into what is a public policy debate.”

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_19513992#ixzz1g9AqodTJ

To put this in perspective, of the 2010-11 Colorado budget of nearly $7 Billion, we spend $3.2 Billion – over 40 percent – on K-12 schools.  This ruling could demand that we increase funding by up to $4 Billion – which would consume MORE THAN 100% OF THE STATE BUDGET! 

 That means no State Police, no state roads, no Medicare.  In fact, no money to pay this judge’s salary.  Unless we raise taxes by 75%, which is obviously what Judge Rappaport desires. 

 But shouldn’t that be a decision by the People and their Legislative Representatives, rather than one un-elected Judge?

What to Do about the Dilemma of Voting for the “Less Bad” Candidate vs. the 3rd party “Protest Vote”

1 – I would never myself, nor ask someone else, to violate their core principles. Some things are absolute, and we cannot support things that are outright evil. For many, the issue that meets this criterion is abortion. I will never vote for someone who is so pro-abortion that they promote using my tax dollars to kill babies. If both candidates were this extreme, then I would have to cast a 3rd party protest vote, even though I knew that one of these bad politicians would then become my “representative” in government. But there are very few issues that meet this absolute test, and very few cases when both candidates are equally bad on that issue. Sometimes you have to vote for someone who is squishy moderate on your issue to prevent the more extreme candidate from obtaining power.

2 – On the sum of all of the other issues, there is a sliding scale between the Conservative / Constitutional position and the Liberal / Socialist position. Requiring a candidate to agree with me 99% of the time is a losing proposition. A candidate that is more conservative than 80% of the voters will always lose to the opponent that appeals to the majority of that 80%. Voting for a “pure” candidate who only appeals to 20% of the public is a recipe for failure. So refusing to vote for a politician who disagrees with you 30% of the time will likely leave you with a “representative” who disagrees with you 70% of the time. You are worse off, and the country continues to slouch toward socialism.

Note: This is an over-simplification. The scale between conservative and socialist is not linear, different issues are multi-dimensional, and facts/opinions/emotions/priorities complicate the equation. But the point remains valid. Sometimes you have to vote for the “less bad” candidate who is electable to prevent the worse choice.

3 – This does NOT mean that we must always settle for squishy-moderate representatives that sell out on our principles. We want to create a future where conservative candidates are not only electable, but are available to run in the first place. That requires a long-term strategy that will eventually give you better short-term choices in the voting booth. There are three ways to do this:

a) The short game: ACCOUNTABILITY:
In the short term, you have to work with what you’ve got. There are times and locations where you may have to vote for the “less bad” politician. You may even lose an election and have the “very bad” representative. That does not mean you give up and start stocking beans and rice in your cave. Call and write your representative to let them know when they pass bills that are good or bad. Attend town hall meetings and challenge their thinking on upcoming bills. Write letters to the editors of your local paper. Don’t forget the Executive Branch, which also needs to be held accountable. Mayor, Governor, perhaps Secretary of HHS or whatever department.
Even conservatives elected to office have a reputation for “drinking the kool-aid” and straying from the principles that got them elected. They need to be held accountable, and more importantly, supported when they stand up to the entrenched interests to defend our values. If they know we have their back when things are difficult, they will be better able to stand strong.

b) The medium game: POLITICS:
Are you frustrated at how often we have to vote for the “less bad” candidate? Why are there so many mealy-mouthed unprincipled representatives in office, even those that call themselves “Conservative”? Does “The Establishment” seem to hold sway over who “they” will allow onto the ballot? The answer lies in taking an active role in the Republican Party, so that we can restore the party to its conservative roots. The local party is extremely influential in poorly-attended local primary races, such that the party-sponsored candidate usually wins (sometimes unopposed). You can become the “they” that promotes party-approved candidates. I heartily recommend “The Precinct Project” (http://precinctproject.us/ ) that explains this better than I ever could, and provides practical advice on how to get involved.

Note that the local County, City or State elections are often the “farm team” where individuals are tested and trained for higher office. As you work with, and promote, conservatives at this level, they develop the skills and experience to be available for higher office. Then you will not only know the future candidate personally, but will have an enthusiastic choice in that future election. Perhaps you could even be that choice?

c) The long game: CULTURE.
Politicians reflect the people they represent; otherwise, they could not get elected. Ultimately, to obtain representatives and government that is consistently conservative, the CULTURE of the country must be moved toward a conservative world view. That requires involvement in cultural institutions that shape the opinions of the wider society, and future generations. I could name some national organizations I support, but the more important institutions are the local community groups that are part of the day-to-day life in your area. Churches, social clubs, sports teams and gathering spots where people interact. Maybe even become a “community organizer” to assemble like-minded neighbors. These are the places where peoples’ opinions and worldviews are shaped, and therefore can be challenged to consider conservative ideals. And of course involvement in schools are important to shape the next generation of future conservatives. Our current schools are often hotbeds of mushy liberal thinking, and it requires the active involvement of parents and communities to counteract the education establishment. Not to be forgotten are the mass-media forums that hold sway over what much of the country learns or thinks about. Conservatives should be involved in news reporting, movie production, TV, music, radio and the Arts. Even the Internet. Many of these are hostile platforms for conservative ideas, but a diligent effort can make a significant difference in what people see and think about every day. These are the leverage points that move a culture, over time, and we must be involved to use them to move our Country toward true ideals.

This is just a brief overview of what you can do to make a difference. What MUST be done in order to save our country.
As Thomas Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

A friend sent me a link to Zachary Karabell’s article in Time Magazine, asking “What Would the Founding Fathers Say about the National Debt?”

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/02/what-would-the-founding-fathers-say-about-the-national-debt-dont-default/#ixzz1SSw8nt22

Some critical comments to ensure you are not sucked in by his arguments:

1 – The conclusion of the article is that the Founding Fathers would have said don’t default. But this is a straw-man argument, because nobody is suggesting the US default on the existing debt obligations. Karabel states “But that is what is being contemplated” – except that this is NOT what is being contemplated. Even those who demand no rise of the debt ceiling under any condition, do not say we should default on our bonds. They cite that normal tax receipts are 10 times the amount required to pay interest and service our current debt – so there is no need to default. If this were the total purpose of the article, then it would not be of any merit, because the entire argument is a non-issue.

2 – If you read the quotes from the Founding Fathers, MOST of them are actually arguing for the US to pay off their outstanding debt as quickly as possible, not just service the debt and retain the balance. That is what George Washington meant when he said “No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt.” So to use this quote to advocate for RAISING the debt limit is disingenuous. Thomas Jefferson was also adamant that the US pay off its debts – and get rid of debt altogether.

(Note: I acknowledge Alexander Hamilton, who as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary largely set up the US financial system, was an outspoken proponent of maintaining some level of national debt. His thinking was two-fold: First, the US had to build up a positive record among international creditors by accepting the obligations incurred by the States, and by creating a credit history showing we could make our payments. You could use the analogy of a young citizen taking a small loan to build up his credit history by showing he can be trusted to make monthly payments, so that the bank will trust him with a larger loan should he need it in the future. Second, Hamilton also understood (which most founders incorrectly rejected), that maintaining some national debt is a useful tool for helping to control the money supply. Neither of these reasons are at all valid for justifying the SIZE of the US Federal Debt – as every founder would agree that neither reason for the existence of debt would justify an amount of debt. It must be paid down to reduce the drag upon the Federal Budget and the total US Economy.)

3 – Which brings me to my final conclusion: Time Magazine and Zachary Karabell are liberals, and want to grow government. Therefore, they have twisted this argument to reach their preferred conclusion (implied but not clearly admitted), that they want to raise the Debt Ceiling so that the Government can continue to incur debt and grow unimpeded.

And this agenda is not at all supported by the Founding Fathers.

(responding to link from my friend at Heritage Action, Joseph Muniz (www.heritageaction.com)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/0628/Slash-that-budget-deficit-No-cut-it-artfully

The Christian Science Monitor article linked above has some thought-provoking features, but make sure you do not take EVERYTING it says at face value. In particular, the CSM leans left-of-center, and therefore their perspective skews their take on the debt problem. And therefore, the final conclusion is manipulated to their preferred solution, and falls short.

So, Ms Rogers is correct that “the definition of economically unsustainable: when an economic obligation rises faster than the means to pay for it.” and we do not necessarily have to balance the budget, just bring the growth of debt to lower than growth in the economy. But first we need to balance the budget so that we can REDUCE the debt to a level that is less of a drag on economic growth.

I take issue with 3 items:

1) Ms Rogers seems little concerned about the problem with the current deficit, because it is caused by a “temporary” recession, and are more concerned that “Even when the recession ends and those deficits are projected to come down to 6 or 7 % of GDP … [this] will still far exceed the expected 2 to 2.5 % annual growth in the economy.” She fails to recognize that the current deficit is part of what is PROLONGING the recession and preventing robust economic growth.

2) She also ignore the fact that entitlements are poised to explode in cost unless major reforms are enacted, which will make future deficits FAR, FAR larger than 6 or 7% of GDP (See Heritage Foundation charts on deficit and debt). The problem is MUCH worse than she implies.

3) Ms Rogers is also correct that we need to address both Government Spending and incentives for Economic Growth: the definition of economically unsustainable: when an economic obligation rises faster than the means to pay for it. But her liberal perspective is revealed when she asserts that spending on Healthcare or Education is essential to future growth, or that government spending only needs to get good “bang for the buck” to stimulate short-term demand.

Economic growth is promoted when the Government allows the Free Market to reward work, innovation and investment, and reduces the government’s drag on the economy through high taxes and regulation. Therefore the correct solution to BOTH sides of the Spending/Growth dilema is by REDUCING government.

And to get anywhere close to this, we must not “artfully” cut here and there – DRASTIC SLASHING OF SPENDING is REQUIRED!

Or so says Dr. Donald Berwick, who is Obama’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  He writes in an opinion article titled “We Can Have It All”: 

I am absolutely certain that we can have what we want and need-better care, better health and lower costs-all at the same time.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110517/NEWS/305179959#ixzz1Obhb4c1Q

How can we achieve this nirvana of more care, better care, and less expensive care all at the same time?  Why, Government regulation, of course!  Dr. Berwick is the Administration’s primary proponent of ObamaCare, with all of it’s mandates, regulations, and taxpayer “investment” that they promise will lead to more efficient and effective delivery of services.  Let’s look at just one aspect, to evaluate the validity of their promise. 

The number one reason for mandates is to get coverage for all of those who are currently uninsured – with the highest rate being among young adults.  This is a significant and growing issue:

According to the 2010 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 45 percent of young adults age 18 to 26  surveyed are passing on needed medical care – a sharp increase from the 32 percent reported in 2001….  The report estimated there were more than 14.8 million uninsured young adults in 2009, an increase of nearly 4 million in 10 years. 

As a result, they aren’t filling prescriptions, going to the doctor when sick or seeing a specialist when necessary, and they’re not getting follow-up treatment recommended by a doctor.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/young-adults-are-skipping-needed-medical-treatments-due-cost-report-says

 Again, the government response is more bureaucracy that they “promise” will be an improvement.  Specifically, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA – better known as ObamaCare) addresses the problem by:  

Allowing young adults remain on or join their parents’ health plans up to age 26 (effective in 2010);

Requiring college health plans to meet new standards, starting in 2012;

Significantly expanding Medicaid eligibility to cover all adults with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) beginning in 2014; and

Creating new state health insurance exchanges with subsidized private insurance for people with low and moderate incomes up to 399 percent of the FPL, beginning in 2014.

 Now, put aside the fact that this younger demographic is more likely to be uninsured because they are also less at risk for needing expensive medical care.  Or the horrible job situation (made worse by Federal regulation, taxes and uncertainty hindering the economic recovery) that limits their ability to afford insurance.  And the fact that they have chosen to spend their money else where (like the rising costs of food and gas – but that’s another inter-related story).  If they have decided that these “needed healthcare” expenses because they had other priorities for their limited funds, then why should it become a demand on someone else to pay from their limited funds?  If your own care is not worth it to you, why is it worth it to someone else? 

Instead, let’s look at the Government’s solution that they “promise” will be an improvement.  Specifically, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA – better known as ObamaCare).  Each of these features actually makes the problem worse, instead of better:

1) Allowing young adults remain on or join their parents’ health plans up to age 26 – So the Government solution to the problem of young people not wanting to pay for their own insurance, is to have their parents pay, instead.  Pass the buck, have someone else pay, and encourage extended dependency.  Note that parents could always pay for their child’s policy, if they so desired, but now it is explicitly encouraged by law.  Some will argue that adding a young adult to the parents’ policy is cheaper than purchasing a separate individual policy.  But the underlying medical care is the same price; in fact encouraging more coverage will increase the services demanded and therefore increase the costs of the total system overall.  And these increased costs will be passed on to parents. 

No solution, just cost shifting. 

2) Requiring college health plans to meet new standards, starting in 2012  – The issue of “mini-med” plans (cheap insurance with limited coverage and payment caps) has been highlighted by the rush to procure waivers to this regulation.  Requiring more expensive coverage is – you guessed it – more expensive.  And therefore unaffordable to many young people with limited means.  This same regulatory limitation becomes applicable to college health plans next year – driving up the costs of attending school, yet again.  The more expensive plans do provide more, but many with limited means would choose to spend their money on other priorities. 

A survey of 1,300 employers finds that 30 percent will “definitely or probably” stop offering health insurance to their employees due to new requirements imposed by the Obamacare health reform law.

http://cnsnews.cloud.clearpathhosting.com/news/article/30-percent-employers-drop-health-coverag

Reducing low-cost options will increase costs – not decrease them.  The problem is made worse.  

3) Significantly expanding Medicaid eligibility to cover all adults with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level   – This is another case of cost-shifting; making Taxpayers pick up the tab.  There is no cost reduction, and in fact likely an increase in costs as young people decide to take advantage of the services at taxpayer expense.  The services that they decided were not worth it if they had to use their own money, suddenly becomes worth it when someone else is paying. 

Increasing services will increase costs.  The problem is made worse again.

4) Creating new state health insurance exchanges with subsidized private insurance  – The Federal Government is giving States “seed money” to set up insurance exchanges mandated by ObamaCare.  That up front cost is a net loss to taxpayers (if the exchanges were going to save so much, they would not require seed money to set it up – investors would seek that profit).  Then taxpayers will subsidize everyone up to nearly 4 times the poverty level – sticking the costs to the taxpayer again.  The fact that the poor are not paying their own costs makes them less sensitive to which plans they select from the Exchange system, and therefore drives up costs.  This is why government subsidized programs without built-in cost sensitivity to beneficiary selection will always cost more than expected, and continue to increase until they become unaffordable. 

Again, no solution, just cost shifting and the potential to make costs go up again.

This is a call to action, to maintain the pressure on all of our elected representatives to repeal this government overreach, under threat of voting them out. 

But CMS Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick says: “We can have it all”    Don’t you trust him?

The American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems and several other lobbies for inpatient care providers have embarked on an extensive ad campaign to stem further payment cuts to hospitals, reports AHA News Today.

The print ad, entitled “Enough is Enough,” discusses some $155 billion in payment reductions it claims the hospital and related sectors have already had to endure.

Citizens for Tax Justice finds that 12 big U.S. companies paid an average -1.5% rate during 2008-2010, while earning $171 billion in profits. If they had paid at the full 35% U.S. statutory rate, they would have coughed up about $60 billion in taxes, the study says. Instead, they actually got a little money from the government, on net – about $2.5 billion.  GE was the number one recipient. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/01/study-finds-some-big-companies-paid-little-in-taxes/
——————–

The problem with this study, because Citizens for Tax Justice is a liberal group, is that they want to use this study to RAISE taxes on everyone, espeically the rich and evil corporations.  Take away the tax breaks and make the rich pay! 

The real issue that this study illustrates is how crony capitalism distorts the market.  Companies will do whatever is required to get these favors from the government, regardless of whether they would grow the economy or help the country.  And we taxpayers end up picking up the bill, not only for the remaining costs of government, but for the highter costs of everything we purchase caused by this subsidy-seeking corporate behavior. 

So these special tax breaks for corporations should definitely be reduced – but that savings should be rolled back into tax RATE reductions for everyone, so that everyone gets to keep their money, and the government stops distorting the marketplace by picking favored buisinesses and activities to subsidize.  This frees up the economy to grow and make EVERYONE richer.

In today’s “Breakpoint” commentary, Chuck Colson says that the war in Afghanistan does not meet the “Just War Doctrine” criteria, and the US should immediately withdraw.  Read his commentary here:
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/16990

I strongly disagree, and wrote the following response:
—————————–
Chuck Colson,

I respect you tremendously, and quote your application of worldview to current events frequently.  You are one of the most potent moral thinkers of today.  But no one is 100% perfect, and in today’s Breakpoint, you are just plain wrong. 

You say, “Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building,” – well, yes.  We removed the old, evil regime, and have some moral responsibility to help them rebuild with something better.  Similar to the US occupation of Germany and rebuilding of Europe after WWII.  We had learned after WWI that leaving a vacuum allows the worst elements to walk in.  Just as we found that leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets left, opened the door to takeover by the most extreme elements in the Taliban. 

“Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.”  How can you be so pessimistic, when Afghanistan has conducted 2 national elections (albeit flawed).  We are not going to “transform Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society.”  But we can support the reform elements and give them the protection and training to achieve their own version of a developing free country.  Remember, the lack of any history or social understanding of freedom was the argument against transforming Japan and Korea after WWII.  It will take time, and yes money and sacrifice, but the goal is very realistic. 

“The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists.”  This is the most wrong statement of the entire commentary.  The intelligence to root out bin Laden was gained through aggressive military action within Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. 

Osama was found by tracking down his personal courier, which was extremely difficult because of the security precautions they enacted.  The pseudonym “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti” was provided by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in Pakistan in 2003), and Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in Pakistan in 2005). It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the NY Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name.  A file released by WikiLeaks suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA.

In fact, Osama was holed up in his compound (and largely ineffective in leading further terrorism) because of the on-going military operations partnering with counter-terrorism efforts.  Plus the “targeted” operation was from a base in Afghanistan which would not exist without our presence there.  We cannot gain intelligence without the larger effort, and without our active military partnership with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. 

The fact is, that without the heartbreaking sacrifice of so many US Soldiers and Marines, the people of Afghanistan would be enslaved by the worst kind of terrorists.  And freeing the enslaved is one of the most Christian, and “Just War Doctrine,” goals I can think of. 

Respectfully,

——————–

It is disturbing to hear continued referral to the mythical “Social Security Trust Fund.”  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, most significantly, cites this fund as proof that Social Security is not bankrupt and in urgent need of reform, because the “Trust Fund” has sufficient money to pay full benefits thru the year 2035.  I suspect he knows that this is a lie, but says it anyway as a convenient way to demagogue Republican efforts at reform, while avoiding responsibility himself.  What is even more disturbing is to hear Conservatives fall into the trap of blaming officials of “raiding” the Trust Fund, or agitating to “protect” the trust fund.  They may be well-intentioned, but have been misled. 

Let me state this as clearly as I can:  The Social Security Trust Fund is a Myth. 

Always was, always will be.  In fact, not only does the “fund” not exist, but it CANNOT exist.  Allow me to explain these two points in detail, through logical argument. 

1)  The Social Security Trust Fund does not exist. 

So what is this mythical trust fund?  If you go to the official government web site, http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html, they will tell you that the Trust Fund held $2.6 Trillion in assets as of December 31st, 2010.  But what are those assets? 

“The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund comprise the Social Security trust funds. Both funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury through their Bureau of Public Debt. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government. There are two general types of such securities:
• Special issues—available only to the trust funds
• Public issues—marketable Treasury bonds available to the public.
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.”

This is the “fund” that Harry Reid hopes to tap in order to pay future benefits. 

Now let’s use a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the Trust Fund assets work. 

Situation A:  If there were no trust fund.  To pay benefits to retirees and disabled, the Government has to get the money from somewhere.  These are their only sources:

• Current revenues (Social Security Taxes, Income Taxes, and other tax and fee revenues – but of course these are not currently enough and raising taxes could sink the economy). 
• Borrow money (sell more Treasury bonds on the open market, as long as someone will buy them, and sink us further into national debt)
• Print money (with all the economic implications of inflation and currency devaluation)

Sounds bad, yes?  But maybe we have that Mythical Trust Fund to help us! 

Situation B:  Use the Trust Fund.  To pay benefits to retirees and disabled, the Government has to cash in the trust fund assets.  These assets are the most secure and reliable assets in the world – US Government Treasury securities.  Essentially a promise to pay with the full faith and credit of the US Government behind it.  Sound good?  But for Social Security to cash these in to pay benefits, the Tresury has to pay out the cash for these bonds.  They have only 3 ways they can do this: 

• Current revenues (Social Security Taxes, Income Taxes, and other tax and fee revenues – but of course these are not currently enough and raising taxes could sink the economy). 
• Borrow money (sell more Treasury bonds on the open market, as long as someone will buy them, and sink us further into national debt)
• Print money (with all the economic implications of inflation and currency devaluation)

Do you notice any difference between Situation A and Situation B?  Neither do I! 

You see, all of the “assets” in the Trust Fund are promises from the Government to pay to the Government.  That is not an asset – it is a myth. 

2) The Trust Fund cannot and should not exist: 

So, my illustration above shows that a promise from the Government to pay itself is not an asset.  But certainly Social Securty has taken in more money than it has paid over the past few decades.  To the tune of $2.6 Trillion.  This money has been “loaned” to the Federal Government (via issuing the mythical “Special Issue Treasury Bonds”) so that the politicians could use this to prop up their spending habits.  Instead of trying to sell an extra $2.6 Trillion in Treasury Bonds in the financial markets to cover the tax shortfall, they issued those bonds to the Trust Fund.  And they spent it all, PLUS issued even more bonds to sell on the open market.  To a total of our $14.2 Trillion National Debt. 

I can hear the mis-led screaming now – “they raided the Social Security Trust Fund!!!” (extra exclamation points for yelling). 

Well, what else should they have done with that money?  Shouldn’t that money have been “saved” by putting it into a Trust Fund that is separate from US Treasury Bonds, so that it would be a “real” asset instead of a myth? 

NO!!! (my own exclamation points for yelling). 

Should the government have invested this money by purchasing Chinese Treasury Bonds?  Saudi Bonds?  This is what the “Sovereign Wealth Funds” from various countries do.  But do we really want the US Government to hold such large portions of another country’s “Promise to pay”?  Should the US Government be the largest foreign investor in the world?  Especially when we are at the same time the largest debtor in the world (US National Debt)?  The political implications are huge. 

Perhaps, instead, they should purchase stock in a major US Company that would have actual assets and revenues to earn a return on investment.  Perhaps General Motors and Chrysler (oops – they already did).  And that experience shows how bad an idea it is for Government to own a large (remember, we’re talking about investing $2.6 Trillion) stake in a private companies that they effectively become publicly owned.  Government ownership of production is called Communism.  And it leads to political diversion of production to political rather than economic ends.  Such reversal of our respect for private property is anathema to the capitalist system and our principles of free enterprise. 

And yet the Government cannot put so much money in a bank account and save it up.  The only thing they can do, is use the money for current expenditures, or to pay down the US Debt (purchase back US Treasury Bonds).  There is no way to build up a Trust Fund. 

So there you have it.  The Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, and it cannot exist.  It is a myth.