Sequester = Excuse to Avoid Obligations

[pennview]

No, technically there is NO money in the Social Security Trust Fund. There are only pieces of paper that say the Treasury Department will pay the Social Security Administration what it holds in paper. But, the Treasury has no money either except what it collects from taxes, etc., and what it borrows from others. So, the bottom line is that taxpayers are on the hook to repay what the Government has already spent of the payroll taxes.

Over the past two years, the Social Security Administration has paid out more money than it has taken in, with the shortfall made up by the taxpayers or through borrowing money from China, Japan, UK, etc.

What one should also understand is that these Treasury Bills held by the Social Security Administration don't guarantee that folks receiving benefits will get their payments should there be a financial crisis. Remember what Obama said the last time there was some question about whether or not the Nation's debt limit would be raised by Congress. Well, the debt limit talks are just around the corner.

The "Trust Fund" is just another euphemism used by Washington to mask what is actually taking place. It's merely another gimmick like referring to tax hikes as "revenue," or like saying spending is "investment."

[frank81]

There are only pieces of paper that say the Treasury Department will pay the Social Security Administration what it holds in paper.

Those pieces of paper can also be sold on the open market, just like anyone else that owns treasuries. Which would be anyone with a pension or 401(k).

What one should also understand is that these Treasury Bills held by the Social Security Administration don't guarantee that folks receiving benefits will get their payments should there be a financial crisis.

Actually, a recovery would be far worse than another crisis as far as the SSA's fund is concerned. As low as interest rates are, a 1% increase in rates would almost cut the Trust Fund in half.

[swampgator]

We've discussed this point before. The fed had not subsidized the Post Office since 1971. The Post Office pays the Congress billions of dollars each year to pay for retirement funds, premiums for health and life insurance. Otherwise, the post office pays its own way, that's why it is in the red and has been for the past 10 years or so. Here's a link that may interest those who believe that we give tax dollars to the post office.

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal ... ome.htm#H4 and scroll down to What the Postal Service wants you to know. There you will read from the Postmaster General that the Post Office gets no tax dollars.

The post office is quasi private, except the government gives them billions to operate, if FedEx/UPS.. was given billions of $ of subsidy they could do a much better job than the post office. You pay $.46 plus $$$ in Federal subsidy that adds to the Federal deficit. I send less than 5 letters a month and would be happy to pay $10 is I could eliminate to the $320 and growing per year my family subsidizes the Post office through taxes and Federal debt.

At least here if someone parks in front of the mailbox no one on the block gets mail that day. If someone complains to the postal inspector, you might not get mail for weeks, if at all. I don't worry much about the post office they will be gone within the decade, replaced by email (which they want to tax to pay for the post office) and private package delivery.

[pennview]

One problem with selling the Treasury Bills held by the Social Security Administration is that the chief trustee of the Administration none other than the Secretary of the Treasury. Moreover, the President controls what happens in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

[fredsheldon]

I suspect that if Fedex or UPS had to deliver junk mail to every house like the post office does instead of cherry picking only the profitable package business, they would be out of business in short order. If we would allow the post office to only pick and choose what items they want to deliver, I'm sure they could cut down on their overhead by a factor of 10 to 1 by reducing their need for all those little trucks and delivery folks. Could you live without all that junk mail and catalogs? Now I need to go out and turn another bowl in case I need to sell it to feed my family:D

[dusty]

I suspect that if Fedex or UPS had to deliver junk mail to every house like the post office does instead of cherry picking only the profitable package business, they would be out of business in short order. If we would allow the post office to only pick and choose what items they want to deliver, I'm sure they could cut down on their overhead by a factor of 10 to 1 by reducing their need for all those little trucks and delivery folks. Could you live without all that junk mail and catalogs? Now I need to go out and turn another bowl in case I need to sell it to feed my family:D

Yup, I could live without all the junk mail and catalogs but, as you stated, the carrier (whoever that may be) could not. Especially true as the age of email becomes fully mature.

In fact, .........well, no that is for another thread.

[dforeman]

Here is a little blurb I received not to long ago commenting on legal restrictions imposed upon the US Postal Service by Congress.

Unions, Workers Outraged at Post Office Closings
According to union spokespersons, the destruction of the U.S. Postal Service is a manufactured crisis intended to advance the strategic dismantling of the government and hand over the pieces to billionaires.
Here are a few facts Americans need to know about the Postal Service:
The Postal Service is the second largest employer in the United States after Wal-Mart. Unlike Wal-Mart, however, the Postal Service is unionized, pays reasonable wages and benefits, and receives no government subsidies.
Republicans have been attempting to privatize the Postal Service since 1996. In 2006, Republicans in the Congress pushed through a requirement that the Postal Service pre-fund 75 years of retiree costs. The Postal Service has to pay now for employees who are not yet born. No other government agency—and certainly no company—has to do this.
Unlike other government agencies (like the military), the Postal Service, since 1970, is required to break even. Not even the Department of Defense is burdened by this requirement.
While required to break even, the Postal Service has to deliver mail to areas that are unprofitable for private companies to operate in. A letter can be sent across the country for 46 cents. While the Internet and the recession have eaten into some of the Postal Service's letter business, magazines, books, newsletters, prescriptions, advertising, DVD services like Netflix and many other services still depend on the Postal Service for delivery—and many people still send letters. In a democracy, these people are supposed to count, too.
Congress has restricted the Postal Service's ability to raise rates, enter new lines of business or take other steps to help it raise revenue. In fact, while detractors complain that the Postal Service is antiquated, inefficient, and burdened by bureaucracy, the rules blocking the Postal Service from entering new lines of business do so because the Postal Service would have advantages over private companies. Republicans in Congress forced the Postal Service to remove public-use copiers from post offices and stopped the Postal Service from setting up a secure online system that would allow Americans to make monthly bill payments.
Concerned citizens should contact their legislators and insist that these burdens be removed. The Postal Service must not be allowed to be destroyed.

[Ed in Tampa]

I suspect that if Fedex or UPS had to deliver junk mail to every house like the post office does instead of cherry picking only the profitable package business, they would be out of business in short order. If we would allow the post office to only pick and choose what items they want to deliver, I'm sure they could cut down on their overhead by a factor of 10 to 1 by reducing their need for all those little trucks and delivery folks. Could you live without all that junk mail and catalogs? Now I need to go out and turn another bowl in case I need to sell it to feed my family:D

Those pieces of junk mail is what is keeping the Post Office functioning. Why do you think they give them discounts. If the Post Office didn't want to deliever them they would charge them the first class rate instead of the deeply discounted rate they do now.

Junk mail is to the Post Office as the commercials are to TV, that's their bread and butter. If my the Post Office didn't deliver junk mail it would be doing the route most days with nothing to deliver. I rarely go a day without mail but I only get 8 first class mailings a month and only mail out 2 a month on average. Figure out so who is paying for my carrier? The junk mail they deliver everyday.

Fed ex and or UPS would love to have the business.

[pennview]

Frank81, please explain why "a 1% increase in [interest] rates would almost cut the Trust Fund in half." To my understanding, if interest rates on treasury bills increase, the Social Security Administration would get larger interest payments from the Treasury Department, and that would bolster the so-called Trust Fund, not almost cut it in half.

Also, regarding your statement about the Social Security Administration selling its treasury bills on the open market, this isn't going to happen, but even if it did, American taxpayers would still be on the hook for paying off whoever holds the treasury bills.

As other have pointed out, this is truly a Ponzi Scheme. Were it not run by the government, the operators would be in jail for embezzlement.

[fjimp]

Post office waste was called to the fore front of my thoughts several months after we moved to our current home. The letter carrier a man in his early 60's was being pushed to retire. One day I happened to be working in my front yard when the carrier drove up the road and delivered mail at each box. Right behind him was another postal truck with carrying a man with a clipboard and a watch. I watched this waste of my money and wondered if my suspicions were correct. Several days later I had opportunity to visit with our regular carrier and asked him about the second vehicle. He confirmed for me that in fact the inspector followed him each day, all day for several days. Later he was informed he was too slow and forced to retire. A few of the young bucks now doing his job are quicker some slower than molasses. I keep watching for another inspector wasting time and dollars behind on of the new carriers. Comparing Fedex and UPS to the PO is interesting. We recently received two packages one origination with Fedex as shipper and the other originating with UPS. Internet tracking proved the packages moved well with originating carriers and once reaching Denver and being turned over to the PO then lounged with the PO for two full days prior to delivery. I wish the post office the best but feel it unacceptable the ways they find to waste money. At our house we compare on a daily basis first class and trash mail. I do believe we could do just fine without the PO. At this point in life we transact most transactions over the phone or internet.

As to waste and misuse of money by our elected officials, I keep wondering why we the people do not have the right to demand they mnot be paid if unable or unwilling to handle the peoples business in a timely fashion. Jim