Everyone is talking about the down turn that our economy is having, and because of the mismanagement of funds that seems to be occurring right under our nose. I have a suggestion that may kill two birds with one stone, bringing down the national debt and improving social security. I am an undecided voter and am curious what the candidates response is to this statement.
A few months ago I read an article on line about the decline of the solvency of Social Security, about how the federal government agencies are borrowing from Social Security (http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=847). I did a little research and found that this practice has been going on for decades. After listening to all the candidates, I have not heard of any of them recommending that laws being passed forcing various entities paying back what was borrowed.
Why is that? At one time, Social Security had a surplus of funding to help the disabled and the retired. It has been whittled down to the meager reserves that we have today. Moreover, it seems none of the borrowed is being paid back.
When I borrow money from a bank or credit card, and I do not pay the debt back, I have the misfortune of having to deal with debt collectors and the courts. Why should it be any different for government agencies. Should not the people in charge be held in the same accountability? Should not these people that make the decisions to not pay an intergovernmental debt be held legally accountable for decisions that would normally be considered illegal in the private sector?
How much of the National Debt is due to various aspects of the government owing each other money? According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3948&type=0), in 2003, $2.7 trillion is debt that government owes itself. Problem is, no candidate is talking about it. I do not know if that number includes debt that has been owed from decades past, or how much of that is owed to Social Security.
What I do know is that if the Federal Government was responsible with the surplus Social Security once had, and carefully invested it over the years, our Gross National Product, Poverty Level, and many other economic indicators would be looking a lot better right now. More over, we must remember, the standard of living for the least capable in our society reflects on the poverty level of our country over all. Social Security should have been looked at as a last resort funding source for government agency programs, instead of an open money belt for questionable spending practices.
This leads to another interesting question. Why is the federal government giving money to research products and services that become holdings for corporations. I always here about how this drug company is being sponsored by the government to find a cure for some disease, or our government is paying for research to improve the spacecraft technology. Why do they not just say that the government is investing in a private company that is researching these technological developments?
I think that if the government was looked on as an investor, then it would mean that it would expect a return. If a private company has private investors then the leadership would have to be responsible for the proper use of that funding, AND any profits would have to be dispersed accordingly.
Where as, if the government gives a grant to a company, then it does not expect a return. I feel the government should not give grants to “For Profit” companies, but give “investment capital” and expect a return for that investment.
Any profits made in this fashion can not only reduce the nation debt, but maybe even make the politicians more accountable for what is being spent as well.
And that is my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment