The debt Ceiling and the brain dead

Well, those terms DO seem to go together, really. After all, isn't it two of the three branches of government that have to solve this problem, and aren't they the same two branches that got us into this problem in the first place? But the thing that gets me the most is idiots like Lieberman carrying on about having to give up Social Security funding so as to insure a "strong defense." When I heard that, I knew instinctively that I was truly listening to a brain dead politician.

First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.

Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.

Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?

So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.

I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.

Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?