2013: The beginning of American decline?
I’m also well aware that incentives to take excessive risk remain at the heart of Wall Street. The Dodd-Frank financial reforms contain some useful measures but do too little to significantly alter the balance of power between global megabanks and the rest of us. The Federal Reserve seems to be edging in the right direction on regulation but it is moving too slowly to make any difference for the next cycle.
And the U.S. is now entering perhaps the most dangerous phase of its long-standing tax revolt, in which Republicans insist on holding down federal revenue while the population is aging, but they won’t propose specific cuts in social programs, precisely because they know that Medicare and Social Security remain immensely popular.
As a result, the political logic of the moment leads to continued increases in U.S. government borrowing, about half of which is financed, for now, by international savings at low interest rates. Our post-crisis monetary policy is contriving to keep those rates very low for a long time, presumably setting the table for a further round of mismanaged risk taking in the financial sector (just as it did after 2001).
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Beginning?
steebo77 on December 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Liar liar.
darwin on December 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM
No. Try November 2008.
Ted Torgerson on December 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Oh me thinks that 2013 IS only the beginning of American decline? Under bho/d’s/and most r’s we will not recognize our Republic is major changes doesn’t happen? But Who will see to that?
L
letget on December 24, 2012 at 5:05 PM
We were spending way beyond our means before Obama. He just does it more efficiently.
a capella on December 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM
beginning… of the end.
mittens on December 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Author says no, but cites previous times predicted when OUTSIDE forces sought to over take the USA.
This is the first time that forces in the White House saw this as a good thing, and strove to make it so.
The world will miss the USA. And the weakness caused by that decline will lead to years and years of small and growing wars.
Wander on December 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM
Nov 4th, 2008 was America choosing Suicide by Indonesian. That pretty much did it, right there. We live in the American Socialist Superstate, now.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 24, 2012 at 5:12 PM
The left wants America in decline. The UN wants America in decline.
darwin on December 24, 2012 at 5:13 PM
That^
Mimzey on December 24, 2012 at 5:23 PM
We are all Chinese now.
更多捞面，请
petefrt on December 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM
I guess this moron has never heard of the Ryan Budget.
Liberals are really, truly delusional. I wonder what it’s like to constantly substitute reality as you wish it existed for how it actually exists.
The Count on December 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Politicians in general don’t want to raise taxes OR cut benefits, although the GOP is more opposed to raising taxes than cutting benefits and the Democrats vice versa. But to specifically call out the Republicans for the problem and NOT the Democrats is BS… in other words, modern “journ0lism.”
Marxism is for dummies on December 24, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Social Security is NOT popular.
We have heard for decades from politicians on both sides that Social Security was untouchable, that is was the 3rd rail of politics. We’ve also been subjected to claims from the Democrats that the program is hugely popular and that to propose even modest reform would bring on the wrath of grandma and grandpa. We are regularly subjected to tales of desperate seniors forced to eat dog food or choose between medications and food so as to play on the sympathies of voters and prevent even modest changes to the program to extend its solvency.
We all know though that the system is unsustainable as the number of workers per retiree has plummeted since the program’s inception and will be at its lowest ratio ever as the Boomers begin retiring.
The unfunded liabilities of the system for those of us still in the work force run into the tens of trillions of dollars. It’s well past time for some changes.
I have what I believe to be a modest proposal to over time, retire the system, prove the Democrats claims about the program’s popularity to be false, and to reduce drastically the program’s unfunded liabilities.
Now of course I haven’t done all of the math but my proposal seems rational to me and has a little something for everyone.
1. Make participation in Social Security optional. This is among other things a moral issue. Why should any American be forced to participate in any government program? Are we not free citizens? Is our income not our property? Are we not largely adults responsible enough to plan for our own retirements? Participation in Social Security is government coercion.
2. Those that opt out will have to forgo all previous contributions. This will keep many, if not most, middle-age workers in the system. It will depend on their doing the analyses to determine what would be best for them financially. This also eliminates those that opt out as future liabilities.
3. Require employers to continue funding their portion of the FICA tax until all participants have passed away. Yes, we all know that the employer contribution is really an employee’s salary that he is never paid but this provision should garner some Democrat support due to the continuing program funding.
4. Ideally we’d also raise the retirement age and in a bow to fiscal reality, implement a means test so younger workers aren’t subsidizing grandma and grandpa’s vacations to Maui.
That’s it! Let’s test the Democrat’s theory on how popular Social Security is. With only 34% of those between 18 and 34 expecting to ever receive any benefits I guarantee most if not all younger workers will opt out immediately. Their investment in the system will have been low so the choice to opt out for them would be a real no-brainer? I suspect that many higher earning workers over 34 will also opt out and divert their FICA taxes to their 401ks, IRAs or even extra appending. I’m 46 and I’d opt out immediately and divert my money to my 401k.
The Democrats don’t really care about the financial well being of Americans, what they really crave is control and the ability to use Social Security as a tool to drive voting.
Let’s push ideas like this that increase our freedom of making our own life’s choices and to break the back of the Democrat party’s demagoguery.
Charlemagne on December 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM
Count me in.
petefrt on December 24, 2012 at 7:41 PM