Thread: Obama ‘cannot guarantee’ benefits checks will be paid if debt deal isn’t reached

Coming Soon: Smaller Raises for Seniors?
Lawmakers are considering changes to how Social Security is adjusted for inflation.
by Catey Hill Friday, July 15, 2011

When inflation rises, retirees' social security checks keep pace with small increases. But if some lawmakers get their way, those raises may be a whole lot smaller in the future.

As part of the current deficit-reduction talks, White House officials and Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are advocating changes to the way inflation is calculated. The little-noticed proposal advocates measuring inflation with the "chained consumer price index," a metric that would likely make inflation look slower than the current measurement does. That would result in smaller Social Security increases for seniors, experts say. "Seniors cannot afford this," says Mary Johnson, a senior policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League, a non-profit seniors rights advocate. "This would negatively impact not just seniors, but also many families that end up helping out these seniors financially."

For the roughly 60% of seniors who rely on Social Security for at least half of their retirement income, this is a big deal. Under the new calculation, the rate of inflation would grow at an average annual rate of about 0.3% less, on average, than under the current calculations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If Social Security uses the new measurement to determine cost-of-living adjustments, the average retiree would receive about $18,000 less in benefits over 25 years, according to The Senior Citizens League. Or, under the new calculations, after 10 years, a 73-year-old would get a check that's about 3% smaller than he would get under the old calculations, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Of course, lower benefits are part of the point. Using the slower-rising index is being billed by many including President Barack Obama's fiscal responsibility commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center -- as a way to generate much-needed savings to help deal with the country's mounting debt crisis. In fact, the savings could amount to an estimated $112 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "This is a start in helping us fix Social Security," says David John, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

But critics say the new proposal only makes a bad system worse. The current measurement of inflation is supposed to account for the spending habits of adults of all ages, including only a small proportion of retirees. That doesn't reflect the true inflation seniors face, says Moshe A. Milevsky, a finance professor at York University in Toronto. For example, many older people spend a large share of their budgets on items like health care, whose prices have risen about twice as fast as overall prices, according to a 2010 paper published by the Congressional Research Service.

To be sure, almost everyone agrees that the current Social Security system is unsustainable, and the current debate over the deficit has turned up the pressure. Social Security has become a target partially because of the significant cost of the program, say experts. (In 2011, the government will pay out an estimated $606 billion in Social Security, survivor's benefits and related expenditures; this number is projected to rise to more than $1 trillion in 2020, according to a report from the Social Security Administration.

Whether the new measurement will be adopted remains unclear. Some experts think at least some Social Security cuts will go through, at least in part because Obama has warned that unless an agreement on the current debate to extend the United States' borrowing limits is reached, Social Security benefits cannot be guaranteed starting on Aug. 3. A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) simply said "a deal has not yet been reached," and a representative for Senator Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who has been vocal in his criticism of the president's budget plan and announced his own plan on Tuesday, could not be reached.

For some retirees, the proposed switch could mean more belt-tightening. For pre-retirees, it could mean saving more earlier to make up for lower benefits. On top of that, it would become more important to protect a retirement portfolio from inflation hikes, experts say. That includes considering investments that rise or keep pace with inflation, such as dividend-paying stocks, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or floating-rate loan funds. What to avoid? Fixed-rate, low-yielding certificates of deposit, says Michael Wall, the founder of Wall Financial Group in Altoona, Penn.: "They're a good way to lose buying power."

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/...etire-planning

comments

"The recessation is over", yet unemployment continues to rise. Every thing is going up, gas, groceries, taxes. But not my income isn't. No cola for senior citizens. When I was working and contributing to the system there were continued increases in the deductions. Now when it's time to return it we seniors are screwed.

Yet Congress voted a raise for themselves ....

----

Retirees have not had a raise in two years. Cut the politicians benefits. If there benefits weren't so great we would have fewer politicians.

---

Let's see, 180,000 new federal employees in the last 2 1/2 years w/ an average salary of approximately $74,500.00, or the number of dept of trans employees that now make in excess of $170,000.00 a year has gone from one to nearly two thousand.

And we have no where to cut expenses?

Put me in coach!!

---

We are the screwed generation! We are continually getting hit with higher increases in Medicare rates, prescription drug costs, utility bills, taxes, and now they want to cut increases to our social security? How about cutting those huge, hefty salary increases that they get? How about only doling out social security only to US citizens who have worked the required amount of time before collecting? Stop giving non citizens the right to collect social security when they haven't put in the working time! Require that people on welfare must actually work a job after being on the doles for more than one yr. If they can't find work then assign a job to them. Retirees are being blamed for the failure of the system but the truth is that the younger people are not working so what we have here is no one contributing to the system. This welfare entitlement has gone on long enough. Let the seniors who put in their time collect the benefits of Social Security. Don't make this selective euthanasia! Our country no longer respects its elderly. Time to take a lesson from Japan!

Dissembler in Chief
By Jeffrey H. Anderson | The Weekly Standard – 2 hrs 19 mins ago

‘I’m the president of the United States, and I want to make sure that I am not engaging in scare tactics. And I’ve tried to be responsible and somewhat restrained so that folks don’t get spooked.”

So said President Obama at his June 29 debt ceiling press conference. Two weeks later, CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley asked Obama whether he can “tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are gonna go out on August 3?” President Obama replied that whether it was Social Security checks, veterans’ checks, or disability checks, “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

These statements are representative of Obama’s contradictions, in word and deed, over the course of the entire deficit debate. Gelatinous is an apt description (to paraphrase Speaker John Boehner) of the president’s rhetoric, for Obama has been slippery and irresolute—the opposite of the responsibility and restraint he touts.

To be responsible, a leader should express ideas to the American people in clear and informative language. Yet the deficit debate has been marked by Obama’s fondness for referring to “revenues” (taxes), “investments” (spending), the need to “reduce spending in the tax code” (increase taxes), and the importance of “further improving Medicare” (cutting Medicare) by further empowering the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose cuts—at least under current law—would go to fund Obamacare, not cut the deficit.

He has misled people and incited envy by repeatedly suggesting that wealthier Americans don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Yet Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that if the citizenry is divided into quintiles by income, the top two quintiles pay 99 percent of all federal income taxes, and the top 1 percent pays 40 percent. Nor is this merely reflective of disparities in income: The top two quintiles make three times as much money as the bottom three quintiles but pay 75 times as much in income taxes.

And take Obama’s statement about not having the money for Social Security, veterans’ checks, or disability: The federal government takes in roughly $180 billion every month. (It also borrows $135 billion a month.) Social Security payments are about $60 billion a month, payments to all military personnel (veterans and otherwise) are about $12 billion, and payments to disabled veterans are about $6 billion. That totals about $78 billion. To say that “there may simply not be the money in the coffers” to pay for these items is plainly false. One might even call it “engaging in scare tactics.”

Perhaps most grating of all are his repeated references to “a balanced approach” and his petulant insistence that Congress “make a deal.” In a debt ceiling press conference during which he chided Congress for “procrastinating,” Obama said, “This is a matter of Congress going ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions. .  .  . We’ve identified what spending cuts are possible. We’ve identified what defense cuts are possible. We’ve identified what health care cuts are possible.” Then, in a comment that some might not characterize as “restrained,” he added, “You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 13; Sasha is 10.”

Yet Obama hasn’t followed his daughters’ fine example. He has yet to submit a single debt ceiling proposal to Congress for a vote. Likewise, he has yet to submit a budget to Congress that would cut federal spending by so much as $1. He did submit a budget (defeated in the Senate 97 to 0) earlier this year that he described as reducing deficits by “roughly $1 trillion.” But the CBO scored it and said it would increase deficits by $2.8 trillion—and that’s even compared to current law, which would already lead to $6.7 trillion in new deficits.

Meanwhile, in his July 15 press conference, Obama said of the Republicans, “If they show me a serious plan I’m ready to move.” But House Republicans passed a serious budget three months ago that would cut deficits by $1.6 trillion, even before its proposed Medicare reforms (for those under 55) would go into effect. Yet Obama hasn’t moved. He has shown no willingness to tackle runaway entitlement spending. To the contrary, Obamacare dramatically accelerates it—even though, according to his own budget, mandatory spending alone will surpass total federal revenues this year.

As for Obama’s “balanced approach,” according to White House figures, the highest percentage of the gross domestic product that Americans have ever paid in taxes is 20.9 percent, at the height of World War II. Obama’s budget calls for spending an average of 24 percent over ten years—a tally that, pre-Obama, we last hit during that same war. So Obama’s idea of a “balanced approach” involves spending at the highest rate since World War II and taxing at the highest rate in American history. Meanwhile, Obama wants a debt ceiling increase of at least $2.4 trillion, the staggering amount of money that we’d need to borrow to get us through his reelection bid.

In light of all this, it’s no wonder that House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan received a standing ovation from his fellow Republicans last month at the White House when he told Obama, “Mr. President, the demagoguery only stops if the leaders stop it,” adding, “Leadership should come from the top.” Ryan’s words tapped into an increasing feeling of frustration among the American people—the frustration that comes when the president of the United States speaks to them as “folks” prone to being spooked rather than as responsible citizens of a democratic—if increasingly insolvent—republic.

http://news.yahoo.com/dissembler-chief-150309603.html

Last week Obama and Reid said debt default could mean Social Security checks wouldn’t be mailed out, no paychecks for our troops and closed schools. This week they're throwing in the kitchen sink — along with the dish cloths, soap, silverware and counter tops: http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/07/...years-to-come/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdTN4...layer_embedded

Washington, D.C.– Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding Senate Democrats’ meeting last week with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Senate Democrats sat down with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and he painted a picture of what our world will look like if Republicans in Congress force this nation for the first time in its history to default on its financial obligations.

The picture was grim. This is how he described the state of our government if Congress allows this unprecedented default: “lights out.”

He said default would result in a complete “loss of capacity to function as a government.”

Even those who believe government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub have to admit that a total shutdown of even the most basic and essential functions of government is scary.

It wouldn’t be good for the American people. And it certainly wouldn’t be good for our economy.

The Senate has no more important task than making sure the United States continues to pay our bills for pre-existing obligations like Social Security.

To ensure that we meet this responsibility, the Senate will stay in session every day – including Saturdays and Sundays – until Congress passes legislation that prevents the United States from defaulting on our obligations.

Geithner described how the 80 million checks cut by the Treasury every day could simply stop coming. The federal government would, in effect, go dark.

Paychecks for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and bases around the world could stop. FAA towers could shut down. So could the FBI and the CIA. Border crossings could close. Safety inspections of the food Americans eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. Literally every function of government could cease.

There would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. All the payments would likely stop.

Some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. Even if that wouldn’t irreparably damage the nation’s credit and our reputation in the global community – which it would – it is also a complete fiction.

Our government won’t even be able to cover the bills due on August 3. It will simply run out of money. And because we’ll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we won’t be able to borrow the money to keep running even if we wanted to.

That’s the picture Secretary Geithner painted. Like I said, it’s grim.

Many of my Republican colleagues understand this fact. They know what is at stake.

But the irresponsible Republicans who say default would not be an unmitigated disaster for this country either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are twisting the truth for political gain.

Americans have gotten this message. Seventy-one percent of them disapprove of the way Republicans have used this crisis to force an ideological agenda. Even a majority of Republicans disapprove of their unreasonable refusal to compromise, which puts our entire nation at risk

Those who say this crisis would be a blip on the radar are wrong. Default would be a plague that would haunt our nation for years to come. Our credit rating would take years to rebuild. The country would never be the same.

Some will say this is an exaggeration, but it is not. This is what Treasury Secretary Geithner told us. And it’s what business leaders, economists, rating agencies and bankers have all told us as well.

If this country defaults on its obligations, Geithner said, it will be “much worse than the Great Depression.”

And it would make the massive financial crisis of 2008 look mild.

“It will make what we just went through look like a quaint little crisis,” Geithner said.

That “quaint little crisis” led to the loss of almost 5 million American jobs. It caused our banking system to nearly collapse. More than $34 trillion in wealth was destroyed in less than two years. The ripples were felt throughout this nation and around the world.

The average American family lost $100,000 on its home and stock portfolio alone. And 400,000 families were plunged into poverty.

That crisis was minor, Geithner said, compared to the potential fallout from a U.S. default.

The leading business and economic voices of our time have said it again and again: the risks of default are unthinkable. It would be a catastrophe.

Secretary Geithner also said we’re running out of time to avoid this iceberg. The rating agencies have already placed our AAA credit rating under review, and could downgrade us at any moment.

This is what Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said: “The eyes of the country are on us. The eyes of the world are on us, and we need to make sure we stand together and send a definitive signal that we’re going to take the steps necessary to avoid default.”

I ask, what will it take to get my Republican colleagues to wake up to the fact that they are playing a game of political chicken with the entire global economy? They must wake up soon.

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/07/...years-to-come/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Last week Obama and Reid said debt default could mean Social Security checks wouldn’t be mailed out, no paychecks for our troops and closed schools. This week they're throwing in the kitchen sink — along with the dish cloths, soap, silverware and counter tops: http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/07/...years-to-come/

I’ll bet they’d manage to find enough money to pay Congress.


Has anyone asked Reid why they can’t prioritize payments? Is the government so crippled under its own weight that it can’t remotely begin to accommodate an “emergency” using the existing revenue stream? Federal revenue is $200 billion a month. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, active duty military, veterans affairs and education totals about $145 billion, leaving plenty left for cowboy poets. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...boy_poets.html


Besides, Republicans have offered to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, and it includes cuts, a spending cap and a balanced budget amendment. President Obama has already threatened a veto. http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ap-and-balance If Reid wants those checks to go out next month he’d better head to the White House and forcefully express his opinion.

According to Reid’s debt ceiling sherpa, Tim Geithner, “Plan A” is that Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling. What’s “Plan B”? There isn’t one. http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.co...e-no-plan.html We’re in the best of hands.

Geithner Admits: We Have No Plan
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...mit-not-raised

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday there is no backup plan if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, but expressed optimism that talks were moving towards a deal.

"Our plan has been — and it's the only plan available — is for Congress to act," he said Monday on CNBC. "Their plan and our plan is for Congress to raise the debt limit."

Don’t you wish some of these people could be half as creative when it comes to navigating alternative paths through a crisis as they can be when, say, doing their taxes? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/al..._tax_evasion_/

And after all of Harry Reid’s debt default Armageddon talk, just to cleanse the palate and provide some contrast, here’s another reminder of what Harry Reid said about raising the debt ceiling in 2006: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/05/fl...in-2006-video/

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.

:

Obama officially threatens to veto Republicans' 'cut, cap and balance' bill
By Sam Youngman - 07/18/11 03:58 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ap-and-balance

The White House on Monday warned President Obama will veto GOP legislation to “cut, cap and balance” spending and the budget.

In a statement of administration policy, the White House Office of Management and Budget labeled the GOP bill as an “empty political statement.”

The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and allow for the debt ceiling to be increased if a balanced-budget amendment is approved by Congress and sent to the states.

The administration said the measure, which is not expected to move through the Senate, is unnecessary and unrealistic. “Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”

The president's veto threat was followed by a full-on assault from administration officials who blasted the GOP proposal as "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented."

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare.

Republicans are rallying around the "cut, cap and balance" measure as their answer to the debt talks as negotiations between the administration and congressional leaders have stalled. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was disappointed at Obama's veto threat and that the House vote would go forward Tuesday as scheduled. "It’s disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said in a statement. "While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn’t serious about making the same tough choices.

"This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the [resident’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government. If we are going to raise the debt limit and avoid default, the White House must be willing to demonstrate more courage than we have seen to date," Boehner said.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has offered a proposal that would grant responsibility to Obama for raising the debt ceiling, but it is unpopular with House conservatives.

The administration lambasted the "cut, cap and balance" proposal as setting out “a false and unacceptable choice between the federal government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.”

The White House also blasted some of the cuts Republicans have suggested, saying the proposal would “undercut the federal government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future. “[The bill] would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future,” the statement said. “It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.”

Shattering the Social Security Myth
Every senior citizen just joined the Tea Party.
by John Hayward 07/14/2011

President Obama has performed one very important service for his country during the debt ceiling negotiations: he has utterly and forever shattered the myth of the Social Security “lockbox.”

Back when Social Security officially went bankrupt in January, there was a panicked flurry of editorializing from liberals who hastily assured their nervous brethren that it wasn’t true. http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...urity+bankrupt Social Security was fine, all kinds of money piled up in the vault, nothing to worry about. I got the occasional email from people gullible enough to believe that.

As recently as March, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid angrily told reform-minded Republicans to “back off Social Security” because “it’s in great shape for many decades. Let’s worry about Social Security when it’s a problem. Today it is not a problem.”

But last Tuesday, President Obama said, “I cannot guarantee that [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do this.”

In other words, Barack Obama just called Harry Reid a miserable, stinking liar. Or a doddering imbecile. Take your pick.

This is a very important point to drive home. There is no Social Security trust fund. There never has been. All money given to the State will be spent by the State, immediately, and then it will spend some more. Nothing is “saved” or “protected.”

Attention senior citizens: what Obama is saying, by making this threat, is that all your lovely Social Security money is his to spend right now, as he sees fit. He may decide to spend it on other things, which will leave no funds for the Social Security checks you depend on.

What other things could he choose to spend it on? In today’s Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove gives us a list of spending priorities that are “off the table,” and therefore more important to Barack Hussein Obama , than your Social Security check: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...077227784.html

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

Seniors, you have been lied to, shamelessly, throughout your long working lives about what Social Security is. The President of the United States just confirmed it, absolutely and indisputably, on videotape.

I live in Florida, so I speak from first-hand knowledge when I say that senior citizens are solid citizens. They pay attention to the issues, they organize, and they vote. Send this article to every senior citizen you know. Spread the word. Tell them Barack Obama just made every last one of them an honorary member of the Tea Party.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44843


comments

A 1960 Supreme Court case ruled that we have no property interest in Social Security. The government can do what they want with the money. Mr Hayward is correct seniors have been lied too for 50+ years.

~~~

Recall the argument when the Republicans wanted to privatize a small portion of individual SS contributions?

" Why, it is too risky! People would lose their retirement funds in the stock market. Better to leave it in the Social Security Lock Box where it has the full faith and credit of the government."

Sounds like that argument just got demolished...forever.

~~~

I'm afraid your statement that 'Social Security taxes, paid by virtually every working person,...' is kind of "way" off. NONE of the Federal Govt. employees pay into SS and of course no one in Congress. Also many State and local governments also have opted out of SS - some a long time ago. My wife just retired after 30 years as a teacher in GA and no public school system in GA pays into SS. Also I recall many stories of local municipalities around the country who have opted for their own private retirement system.

The one thing ALL of these organizations have in common - other than not paying into SS - is ALL of them enjoy MUCH better retirement pensions than they ever would have had under SS.

It's very sad commentary for the rest of us "brain-dead sheep" who are depending on SS for at least part of our retirement.

~~~

Let every SS recipient make the following calculation: 1) get from the SSA the complete list of your annual contributions; 2) add your company's SS payments made in your name (that is by how much your salary was reduced); 3) add income tax you paid in your personal SS contribution; 4) sum up the 3 amounts and invest the sum in the 5% tax-free municipal or state bonds; 5) repeat this process for all your working years until retirement. You will then have the real value of your payments. Compare now this capital to your miserable monthly SS payment. In my case the value after 33 years of work of this personal fund was $1,800,000, earning tax-free return of $90,000/year, or $7,500/month, without touching the capital which I could have left to my inheritors. Compare that amount with my actual payment of $1,400/month. The difference illustrates the amounts stollen from me by this gigantic, criminal Ponzi scheme

Last week Obama and Reid said debt default could mean Social Security checks wouldn’t be mailed out, no paychecks for our troops and closed schools. This week they're throwing in the kitchen sink — along with the dish cloths, soap, silverware and counter tops: http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/07/...years-to-come/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdTN4...layer_embedded

Now who is it that is claiming that Romney/Ryan will be "pushing granny off a cliff" ??

Treasury Secretary Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity
By Elizabeth Harrington November 19, 2012

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/trea...limit-infinity

(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that Congress should stop placing legal limits on the amount of money the government can borrow and effectively lift the debt limit to infinity.

On Bloomberg TV, “Political Capital” host Al Hunt asked Geithner if he believes “we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling.”

“Oh, absolutely,” Geithner said.

“You do? Will you propose that?” Hunt asked.

“Well, this is something only Congress can solve,” Geithner said. “Congress put it on itself. We've had 100 years of experience with it, and I think only once--last summer--did people decide to use it to threaten default on the American credit for the first time in history as a tool for political advantage. And that’s not a tenable strategy.”

Hunt then asked: “Is now the time to eliminate it?”

“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner said. “The sooner the better.”

Geithner’s Treasury Department quietly warned at the end of October that the Treasury would reach current legal limit on the federal government's debt by about the end of the year.

In August 2011, President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to lift the legal debt limit by another $2.4 trillion--allowing the government to borrow up to $16.394 trillion. However, as of the close of business on Thursday, the Treasury had only $154.3 billion of that $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority left.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that the Senate stands ready to increase the debt limit by another $2.4 trillion. “If it has to be raised, we’ll raise it,” Reid said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that Congress should stop placing legal limits on the amount of money the government can borrow and effectively lift the debt limit to infinity.

Neither will we, or the generations after us.