IS GM REALLY ALIVE?

The Democrats, and espceially VP Joe Biden, made the claim that "...and GM is Alive". Is that true?

Well it depends on what alive means. Consider this article, The Democrats' GM Fiction, as published in the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. George W Bush started the TARP bailout, but...

President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

This amounts to Corporate Welfare. It creates a dependency on our Government by using taxpayers money.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney proposed this.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

President Obama's bailout of GM has had other consequences.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

In fact many analysts are prediction that GM will probably go bankrupt shortly after the November Election.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

ROMNEY'S TAX RATE

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Mitt Romney paid a higher tax rate than 90% of rest of of us. The IRS has released its data on the 2010 tax year. That report is over 300 pages of information as compiled by the IRS. If you don't want to take the time to read all of this, I suggest you read this article. Mitt Romney Pays a Higher Percent in Taxes than 90% of all Americans

...in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.

Based on this data, it would appear to me that the RICHEST of American Tax Payers are already paying their fair share.

NANCY PELOSI - WITHOUT STIMULUS UNEMPLOYMENT 14.5%

Former Speaker of the Most Ethical House of Representatives EVER says in reference to The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (2009 Stimulus to us)

"Without the Recovery Act and accompanying federal interventions, whether from the Fed, or Cash for Clunkers, or other initiatives, the unemployment rate last year at the time of the election would have been fourteen and a half percent, not nine and a half percent,"

This quote is reported in the Weekly Standard article Pelosi Says Unemployment Rate Would Have Hit 14.5% Without 2009 Stimulus

It would appear that Representative Pelosi, who is currently the Minority Leader of the House, has a rather short memory. There are two inconvient facts about which Ms Pelosi should be aware. 1) The current realistic Unemployment Rate is already at 14 -16% when the number of Unemployed who have stopped looking are added and 2) When the $862 Billion Stimulus Bill was being considered by Congress, the American Public was assured that passage of the Stimulus would insure that Unemployment would not rise above 8%. Despite those facts, Ms. Pelosi thinks the Stimulus was a success.

Now she is saying the current Obama Jobs Bill is also going to be a success. If the Stimulus was a success, what's her definition of a Failure?

WARREN BUFFETT IS QUALIFIED TO BE A HYPOCRITE

Warren Buffett, hypocrite is the title of an article in the NEW YORK POST. A hypocrite because he said recently that people like him should pay more taxes, yet his company admits, according to the Post article that it owes back taxes.

As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company [Berkshire Hathaway] openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

Mr. Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway apparently still has unresolved tax issues for tax years 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

By the way, there is no law that prevents someone from writing a check to the IRS. In fact the law specifically provides for that kind of payment. Therefore if anyone feels they underpay their taxes, the remedy is simple send a check!

When someone like Warren Buffett makes the claim, that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than many of his employees do, he is being a little disingenuous.

...he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Disingenuous because he makes most of his money in the form of qualified dividends. Dividends which are taxed when he receives them at a rate of 15%. (All citizens pay from 0% to a maximum of 15% on qualified dividends.) But the actual rate on those dividends for Mr. Buffett is closer to 40% or more, because they are also subject to taxation when Berkshire Hathaway files their corporation return.

Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?

The $26 Billion is not enough to pay our $4 Trillion debt, so when Obama and friends say millionaires and billionaires, they also must tax those who make as little as $200 thousand. $200,000 is quite a lot, but it takes five of those taxpayers to get to $1,000,000.

What about the 51% of taxpayers who pay nothing, nada, zip? Shouldn't they pay something? Not only do the top half pay all the income taxes, many in the other half get back all they paid plus some of what the top half payed.

WARREN BUFFETT PROBABLY NOT QUALIFIED TO BE TREASURY SECRETARY

Warren Buffett thinks Millionairs and Billionairs should pay higher taxes. After all they can afford it. But the fact is Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.

Why? The answer is simple - there are not enough US citizens who make a Million Dollars or more. It is interesting to note that even though President Obama has used the terms "...millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share...", the fact is President Obama will start taxing at the $200,000.00 level. Why? Because apparently he considers someone who makes $200,000.00 a millionaire?

“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.

Something else to consider. Fortunately for our life savings, the Tax Laws do not tax that which we have already accumulated, only the growth is taxes. That is one reason that Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay as much taxes. They have already earned the money that makes them Millionaires and Billionaires. They have already paid taxes on the ACCUMULATED millions and billions they have.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.

Therefore unless we wish to change the Tax Law to include some sort of "look-back" provision, the fault Mr. Buffett sees is in the past when he acquired his wealth. By the way this is still wrong headed thinking, because if Mr. Buffett and friends had not been "coddled" by Congress, they wouldn't be where they are today. And more importantly, the jobs they created when they earned their wealth would not exist. We would all be a lot poorer if they had not been "coddled

".[A]ccording to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

The truth is that we cannot pay our national debt with taxes, unless you wish to consider this:

In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said

It is clear that the best way to pay off our National Debt is to reduce spending. Raising the Debt Ceiling should only be a stop-gap measure to insure that our credit standing is maintained. As the Standard and Poor's reasoning for the downgrading of the US Credit rating indicates: The problem is the unstanable level of spending by the Government.

We currently use over 40 cents of every dollar borrowed just to pay the interest on our National Debt. Congress does not have the will power to reduce spending but a Constitutional Admendment requiring a balanced budet would make Congress feel the will power of the people they represent.

PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCUSED

Joseph Curl writing for "The WASHINGTON TIMES" asks the following question.

Is Obama a pathological liar?"

As we all know, the percentage of Politicians who "expand" or "bend" the truth is close to if not 100%. This is a class of people who want to please everyone. Therefore they promise things they can't or shouldn't deliver.

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”

RHETORIC is an interesting word!

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

The article continues and points out President OBAMA'S lies.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

I will leave it to the reader to follow the link above for the rest of the story.

WHY DIDN'T THE STIMULUS WORK?

Terry Keenan has the answer in a piece she wrote for the New York Post Why feds' spending has failed In this article Terry points out this interesting fact.

...if the Obama-era spending increases had just been cut in half to, say, $1.1 trillion extra, the president wouldn't have had to even face a debt-ceiling debate until a second term.

Why is President Obama unwilling to accept a short-term solution to the Debt Crisis? It is clear that he is playing politics because he does not wish to go through another Debt Limit vote before he is re-elected in 2012. Politics.

Government does not create jobs. There is no tax increase that will create a job either. What does create jobs is in the final paragraph of Terry's article. She quotes Lacy Hunt, who is an excellent economic forecaster.

"In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals." [Emphasis mine]

Lacy also points out the astonishing numbers when she compares the 3years of the Obama administration to the last 3 of the Bush Administration.

"In the three years 2009, 2010, 2011, US federal spending was an astounding $2.2 trillion more than in the three years ending 2008."

The deficit in the first three years of the Barack Obama administration will total 28.3 percent of GDP, versus 6.3 percent the last three years President Bush was in the White House.

If government created jobs, that should have done it, and I think we can all see why? If you don't understand yet refer back to the 1st Lacy Hunt quote.

REPUBLICANS 2 DEMOCRATS 0

We are facing a default condition on August 2nd according to the Department of the Treasury. That's less than 2 weeks from today. Both the Senate and the House are gone for the weekend.

But at least the House, under Republican leadership, has acted responsibly by proposing 2 solutions to solve our Debt Limit crisis. Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican, has proposed a plan and the House has passed the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation. That's 2 different proposals to solve the crisis.

On the other hand the Democrats have done nothing except make grand speeches about possible ideas to be considered. There is nothing specific from either President Obama or the Democrat controlled Senate. In fact, the Senate has not passed a budget for 2 years, and the House under Democrat Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget.

Where is the leadership the American people deserve from the Democrats? It is one thing to disagree with a proposal, but how can anything be solved if all the Democrats are willing to do is say the Republican proposals are not acceptable. Where is the Democrat Plan? If you are going to say something is unacceptable, then at the very least you should be willing to propose something, anything. Nothing is not acceptable.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says it this way:

Senator Rubio: “I have watched the President give press conferences, I have watched the President give speeches, but I have yet to see a plan from the President. And with all due respect to my colleagues in the other party here in the Senate, I haven't seen a plan from them either. They are the majority party. They control this chamber. They control the Senate. And I haven't seen a plan from them.

The Senator goes on to say this:

“A moment ago we heard this talk about – well we have to compromise. Well it's really hard to compromise when the other side doesn't have a plan. What do you compromise on? Where is your plan? You can't compromise if only one person is offering plans. There is only one plan that has been voted on by any House to deal with this issue, and it's the one we're on right now, Cut, Cap and Balance. I would submit that if you don't like Cut, Cap and Balance, if you don't think we need to cut spending, cap spending and balance our budget, then show us your alternative. [Emphasis mine]

As a final thought. When the Democrats controlled the House under Nancy Pelosi, the Senate under Harry Reid and the Presidency under Barack Obama, they could not get a tax increase through. Therefore, what would allow a tax increase to pass now?

POVERTY IN AMERICA

In America when we hear the word poverty we form a mental picture. A picture of a dismal, bleak existence. But says the Census Bureau that's not the real picture of Poverty in America.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE lays-out what Poverty In America really looks   like.

"When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor"

That is a lot of people. But are most of them really poor by the standards we think of a Poverty Level? Here is what the Cencus Bureau says is typical of a Poverty Level household.

"Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless."

Well-Housed and Adquately Fed. From other Government Agencies these items are found in the Poverty Level Home.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Makes one wonder.

HISTORY LESSON - CUT TAXES - INCREASE REVENUE

To many cutting Taxes sounds like Revenue would also be cut. But History says otherwise. Who says tax cuts kill jobs? Our history sure doesn’t

"When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top tax rate in America was 70 percent. Reagan cut that to 50 percent in 1982, then to 38.5 percent in 1987, and finally to 28 percent in 1998. What happened? Unemployment dropped from 9.2 percent (exactly what it is today) to 5.3 percent and inflation plummeted from 13.5 percent to 4 percent. At the same time, real income for Americans grew by an average $4,000."

That's one example. Here is another.

"John F. Kennedy — a Democrat! — had the right idea. He slashed the capital gains tax in 1962 and dropped the top tax rate to 70 percent. Federal tax revenues went up 50 percent, from less than $100 billion in 1961 to more than $150 billion in by 1968"

And yet another example.

"Reducing taxes, historically, has driven up federal revenue. In the 1920s, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 25 percent; revenue rose from just more than $700 million in 1921 to $1.1 billion by the end of the 1920s."

One other lesson from history.

"One of the real problems is the tax-paying base. A whopping 43 percent (some say nearly 50 percent) of Americans — 66 million “lucky duckies” out of 151 million taxpayers — don’t pay a cent, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a far cry from the past: From 1950 to 1990, that number averaged 21 percent, dropping to 18 percent in 1986, according to the Tax Foundation."

So when President Obama says "Fair Share" he means the Richest among us, but he should be talking about the bottom of the Heap. 43-50% pay nothing. Does this sound like paying a "Fair Share"?

JAN SCHAKOWSKY SAID WHAT?

My Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), says we don't know how the Social Security Trust Fund works. According to her there is apparently no LOCK BOX the payments of Social Security may be held up because there is no money.

What happened to the money which was paid into the Trust Fund all these years? Who took it out of the LOCK BOX? Why are millions of employees and self employed people still making payments in excess of what is paid out, yet there may be no money to write the checks? Why were we told that Social Security was not broke, but suddenly the Government can't make monthly payments?

It will be President Obama's decision which prohibits the payment to Social Security receipitents even if we don't raise the Debt Limit by August 2nd.

Therefore, this President Obama and the Democrats are using scare and fear to get what they want.

BALANCED APPROACH TO DEBT LIMITS

Much is heard from the Liberals in Congress and especially from President Obama that we need a "Balanced Approach" to control our Budget. As part of the "Balanced Approach" the tax rate on the highest earners needs to be raised so they pay their "Fair Share". Highest earners are those making over $250,000 for a Married Couple and $200,000 for a single earner.

So what is the "Fair Share" for these people? According to the IRS, for 2008 (the latest year available) the top 1% paid more than 38% of all Income Taxes while the top 5% paid almost 59% of all Income Taxes. (source The Tax Foundation) To be in the top 1% you have to have at least $380,354 Adjusted Gross Income while $159,619 and above is the top 5%. It might be noted that the bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all Income Taxes. These represent Adjusted Gross Income of less than $33,048. (Nice to know that if your Adjusted Gross Income is more than $33,048 you are in the top half of all Income Tax Payers and you are part of the group that pays better than 97% of all income taxes.

To me a "Balanced Approach" would mean more Income Taxes on the 50% who pay less than 3% not higher Income Taxes on the 50% who pay over 97%. There may be a growing difference between the richest and the poorest in America, but the emphasis should not be on limiting the top, but rather raising the bottom. If this happened, we would have a better distribution of the "Fair Share" for Income Taxes paid.

We need to eliminate the Loopholes in the Tax Code which carve out special individuals and groups to receive unfair Income Tax Benefits. We do not need to limit the top earners who are the job creators. We need to make more opportunity for the rest of us to reach the top earning levels by letting everyone retain more of their earnings through a more fair and lower Tax Rate.

Increasing the Tax Rate for the Richest Taxpayers will have the same effect as cutting the top off most plants. Growth Stops because (except for the Grasses) the top is where all the growth happens.

SOCIAL SECURITY vs DEBT LIMIT

Let me make this very clear. If by August 2nd the Debt Ceiling is not raised, there will still be money comming into the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury decides who and what gets paid with this money. The Secretary of the Treasury works at the pleasure of the President. Therefore, IT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO WILL DECIDE IF SOCIAL SECURITY, MILITARY, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS ARE MADE. Read that last sentence again.

Pop quiz.

Who decides who gets paid?

We do not have to default. We do not have to withhold Social Securtiy Checks. President Obama will decide.

Next question: why hasn't the President or any Democrat made any specific proposals (other than tax increases) which would be acceptable? Why have they not put forth on paper specific items? The Republicans have. So how does anyone negotiate without knowing what's open for discussion? To only say Social Security, Medicare and Increasing Taxes are off the table is not a plan which allows anything to move foreward.

When we the American People get actionalble specifics rather than scare tactics?

Why has the Senate, under Democrat Harry Reid, not passed a budget in 2 years? They haven't even brought a budget out of committee!

A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

President Obama thinks 80% favor a Tax Increase Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal No poll figures support this.

Scott Rassmussen shows 55% oppose a Tax Increase 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal

Gallup Poll Numbers are similar where only 11% believe Tax Increases are the sole answer and 50% say mostly spending cuts are the answer On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

In 2006 EVERY Democrat Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the Debt Limit Senate Roll Call What changed such that they are prediction dire consequences if the debt limit is not raised?

STATE OF THE UNION - REALITY CHECK

President Obama gave his State of the Union speech to Congress last night. For an analysis, go here ("FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger")

This was one of the "What did he just Say Moments"!

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

Wasn't this one of the first Campaign Promises he broke?

DO AS I SAY - NOT AS I DO

We are told daily (sometimes hourly) by the Left that ObamaCare is the only thing which will prevent the Bad Insurance Companies from unfairly deciding who is eligible for Health Insurance. Obama and the Left Demonized the Insurance Companies. They claimed that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit through smoke and mirrors.

Yet certain companies and labor unions are now getting waivers from the provisions of this wonderful entitlement - ObamaCare. Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement If ObamaCare is so great, why does the SEIU and other groups need a waiver? Appears to me that Do as I say - Not do as I do is in full force for those politically connected - especially if they are contributors to the Left.

From that article we learn some relevant facts.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third -- 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.

I wonder if this fact influenced the Department of Health and Human Services decision to grant the waivers?

The SEIU's Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008.

UPDATE Jan 26, 2011: The official Department of Health and Human Services list of wavers granted from their own Government Website. It's over 700!

CHILDREN AND G-CHILDREN WILL PAY UNLESS

The interest is the fastest growing part of our budget.

The Cost of the Debt Explosion

YOUR TAX BILL IS GOING UP...UNLESS

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History describes the Federal Tax Increases unless Congress enacts new legislation by December 31, 2010.

In addition, the states have designs on your income through their own Tax Measures. New Report Outlines Significant State Tax Changes in 2010

What can you do about it? Exercise your right to vote. When voting, consider your choices carefully.

UPDATE: Here is a table of how the Bush Tax Cuts impacts each State and Congressional district. Effect of Expiration of Bush-Era Tax Cuts on Average Middle-Income Family, by State and Congressional District

HARRY'S WRONG ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader, recently said Social Security is not broke. Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"

During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It's not."

And here. Out-Of-Touch Harry Reid Calls Social Security Insolvency A Myth

Reno, NV - During the Nevada Democratic Party Convention that was held over weekend, Senator Harry Reid called the idea of Social Security insolvency a “myth” while claiming that the fund should remain solvent for at least another 40 years. Reid went on to say that this “myth” was perpetuated in order to scare senior citizens,as noted by reporter Jon Ralston.

That's what Harry says. This is the truth. Social Security Jitters? Better Prepare Now
is from the "New York Times".

The program, which has its own dedicated stream of income, is projected to pay out more this year than it is taking in, but that is a function of the weak economy. [Emphasis Mine]

That's the bad news. The good news is this.

Social Security will, according to the last annual report from its trustees, be able to pay full benefits through 2037. Then, if there are no changes in the program in the meantime, the taxes collected will be enough to pay out only about 75 percent of benefits through 2083.

However it is prudent to note that the Social Security Trust Funds are not in a Lock Box. These dollars have been used by Congress for years to fund all the spending. What is really in the Social Security Lock Box is a bunch of IOUs signed by Congress.

These IOUs can only be made good by Congress taking money from the General Revenue, unless some changes are made in The Social Security System. There are several proposals. Raise the retirement age to 70, or cut benefits, or raise the FICA payroll taxes, or increase the limit on earnings subject to Social Security Tax, or some combination of these ideas. But it is clear. Something must be done and the sooner the better. The other thing clear to me is Harry Reid is Wrong.

DoD CAN ACCOUNT FOR $400,000 - MIA $8.7 BILLION

The Department of Defense says not following regulations makes it impossible to account for $8.7 Million of the $9.1 Billion in Development Funds for IRAQ. SIGIR: Defense can't account for $8.7 billion because...

"This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI (Development Fund for Iraq) funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds," the report states.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) finds that only one Defense organization actually set up the accounts required by the Treasury.

The fact that $400,000 could be accounted for is only because one Defense organization followed Treasury requirements is unacceptable. Where did the money go? Unfortunately, we will probably never know.