"Do or Do not. There is no try."

Age Gap: The GOP’s Generational Weapon In The Medicare Fight

To senior citizens at town hall meetings angry or worried about their plan to convert Medicare to a private insurance scheme, Republicans have a simple answer: It’s not about you. You’ll be fine. This is for “the next generation.”

The next generation is everyone 55 or under, since the plan would not start for ten years and would affect only newly eligible seniors. The stated logic of the ten-year delay is that it takes time to put the system in place and that people need time to plan. But if “premium support” (a euphemism right up there with “enhanced interrogation”) were ever going to work, it could be implemented as quickly as the Affordable Care Act (four years) or Medicare’s prescription drug coverage (two years). Presumably, the delay is mostly a political kludge, intended to avoid a backlash from those now or soon to be dependent on Medicare by affecting only those young enough to be giving little thought to retirement health coverage.

But the line they chose is more than a gimmick: The 55-and-over cutoff marks a sharp and significant generational divide. Those over 55 will continue to benefit from one of the triumphs of social insurance in the Great Society, while the rest of us will be on our own, with a coupon for private health insurance. If you consider what it means to be 55 years old in 2011, you’ll see the significance of the line.

Today’s 55-year-old was born in 1956. That’s not generally considered a major break in the generations. It’s smack in the middle of the Baby Boom (the peak of the boom, in fact), with almost a decade to go before the first Gen-Xers were born, dreaming of Winona Ryder. But the difference between early and later Boomers, especially in their experience of the economy, is dramatic.

A baby born in 1956 would have graduated from high school in about 1974, from college in 1978 or so. Look at almost any historical chart of the American economy, and you see two sharp breaks in the 1970s. First, in 1974, household incomes, which had been rising since World War II, flattened. Real wages started to stagnate. The poverty rate stopped falling. Health insurance coverage stopped rising. Those trends have continued ever since.

Second, a little later in the decade, around the time today’s 55-year-olds graduated from college (if they did—fewer than 30 percent have a four-year degree), inequality began its sharp rise, and the share of national income going to the bottom 40 percent began to fall. Productivity and wages, which had tended to keep pace, began to diverge, meaning that workers began seeing little of the benefits of their own productivity gains. The number of jobs in manufacturing peaked and began to drop sharply. Defined benefit pensions, which provide a secure base of income in retirement, began to give way to 401(k)s and similar schemes that depend on the worker to save and the stock market to perform. While the benefits of higher education rose, college tuitions started to rise even faster. Those trends, too, have continued.

If there was ever going to be a generational war in this country, that high school class of ’74 would be its Mason-Dixon line. It’s the moment when Bill Clinton’s promise—“if you work hard and play by the rules you’ll get ahead”—began to lose its value. Today’s seniors and near-seniors spent much of their working lives in that postwar world, with their incomes rising, investments gaining, their health increasingly secure, and their retirements predictable. Everyone 55 and younger spent his or her entire working life in an economy where all those trends had stalled or reversed. To borrow former White House economist Jared Bernstein’s phrase, it was the “You’re On Your Own” economy. Finally, those 55-year-olds are spending several of what should be their peak earning years, years when they should be salting away money in their 401(k)s and IRAs, in a period of deep recession and very slow recovery.

The Ryan plan, in other words, delivers to the older generation exactly what they’ve had all their lives—secure and predictable benefits—and to the next generation, more of what they’ve known—insecurity and risk. It’s hardly the first generational fight the GOP has started. The previous one was just last fall, when they campaigned for Medicare, and against the $500 billion in cuts (mostly by getting rid of the overgenerous subsidies to private insurers in an experimental program) passed as part of the Affordable Care Act. With an off-year electorate that was overwhelmingly older, they could put all their bets on the older side, knowing that seniors would see little benefit from the Affordable Care Act and were naturally worried about any change to the health system they enjoyed.

Heading into the 2012 election, however, the electorate is likely to shift back to one in which younger and middle-aged voters vote in proportion to their share of the population, so a “Mediscare” campaign won’t work. This time, the GOP hopes to play both sides of the generational war, gambling that while seniors want security, younger voters never expected the certainty of Medicare, just as they don’t expect reliable pensions or Social Security benefits, and thus will embrace a plan that sounds innovative, flexible, and market-based. Contending that the only alternative to premium support is the end of Medicare entirely, they are offering a generation that is accustomed to getting less than their parents a little bit, rather than nothing.

This strategy is a variation on the generational conflict the Bush Administration tried to launch in 2005 over Social Security privatization. Although it never reached the level of specificity that Ryan achieved, the calculus was the same: Younger voters would welcome the opportunity to take advantage of the stock market for their retirement, rather than the stodgy and predictable system their parents and grandparents liked.

That wager didn’t work, however: It turned out that older voters were terrified of Social Security privatization and younger voters unenthusiastic. Within five months, the radical move that every pundit thought was a near-certainty when George W. Bush declared “I’ve got political capital and I intend to use it,” had disappeared, never even introduced as legislation. And despite this week’s relaunch of the Ryan plan, it’s likely to end in the same result. If Social Security is any precedent, younger voters will be indifferent, while older voters won’t believe they’re exempt. The Republicans will again walk away from the conflict, hoping to get credit for being “serious” without bearing a political price for the error.

For Democrats, the defeat of the Ryan plan, like the failed Social Security privatization before it, will be regarded as a great victory, and an opportunity to get a fresh start with worried older voters. But they should not ignore the generational divide revealed by Ryan’s cutoff. If progressive politics has nothing to offer the late Boomers and the generations that follow except the same old programs, and nothing that responds to their distinctive experience of the economy, then eventually they’ll fall for one of these gimmicks from the right.


By: Mark Schmitt, The New Republic; Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute, May 20, 2011

May 29, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Consumers, Economy, Elections, GOP, Government, Health Care, Ideologues, Ideology, Income Gap, Jobs, Lawmakers, Medicare, Middle Class, Politics, Rep Paul Ryan, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, Social Security, Voters | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Republicans Ignored Warnings On Paul Ryan Plan

It might be a political time bomb — that’s what GOP pollsters warned as House  Republicans prepared for the April 15 vote on Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, with its plan to dramatically remake Medicare.

No matter how favorably pollsters with the Tarrance Group or other firms spun  the bill in their pitch — casting it as the only path to saving the beloved  health entitlement for seniors — the Ryan budget’s approval rating barely budged above the  high 30s or its disapproval below 50 percent, according to a Republican  operative familiar with the presentation.

The poll numbers on the plan were so toxic — nearly as bad as  those of President Barack Obama’s health reform bill at the nadir of its  unpopularity — that staffers with the National Republican Congressional  Committee warned leadership, “You might not want to go there” in a series of  tense pre-vote meetings.

But go there Republicans did, en masse and with rhetorical gusto — transforming the political landscape for 2012, giving Democrats a new shot at  life and forcing the GOP to suddenly shift from offense to defense.

It’s been more than a month since Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his  lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) boldly positioned their party as  a beacon of fiscal responsibility — a move many have praised as principled, if  risky. In the process, however, they raced through political red lights to pass  Ryan’s controversial measure in a deceptively unified 235-193 vote, with only  four GOP dissenters.

The story of how it passed so quickly — with a minimum of public  hand-wringing and a frenzy of backroom machinations — is a tale of colliding  principles and power politics set against the backdrop of a fickle and anxious  electorate.

The outward unity projected by House Republicans masked weeks of fierce  debate, even infighting, and doubt over a measure that stands virtually no  chance of becoming law. In a series of heated closed-door exchanges, dissenters,  led by Ryan’s main internal rival — House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave  Camp (R-Mich.) — argued for a less radical, more bipartisan approach, GOP  staffers say.

At a fundraiser shortly after the vote, a frustrated Camp groused, “We  shouldn’t have done it” and that he was “overridden,” according to a person in  attendance.

A few days earlier, as most Republicans remained mute during a GOP conference  meeting on the Ryan plan, Camp rose and drily asserted, “People in my district like Medicare,” one lawmaker, who is now having his own  doubts about voting yes, told POLITICO.

At the same time, GOP pollsters, political consultants and House and NRCC  staffers vividly reminded leadership that their members were being forced to  walk the plank for a piece of quixotic legislation. They described for  leadership the horrors that might be visited on the party during the next  campaign, comparing it time and again with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s  decision to ram through a cap-and-trade bill despite the risks it posed to  Democratic incumbents.

“The tea party itch has definitely not been scratched, so the voices who were  saying, ‘Let’s do this in a way that’s politically survivable,’ got drowned out  by a kind of panic,” a top GOP consultant involved in the debate said, on  condition of anonymity.

“The feeling among leadership was, we have to be true to the people who put  us here. We don’t know what to do, but it has to be bold.”

Another GOP insider involved to the process was more morbid: “Jumping off a  bridge is bold, too.”

Time will tell whether the Medicare vote, the most politically  significant legislative act of the 112th Congress thus far, will be viewed by  2012 voters as a courageous act of fiscal responsibility — or as an unforced  error that puts dozens of marginal GOP seats and the party’s presidential  candidates at serious risk. That question might be answered, in part, this week  during a special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District, in which  Republican Jane Corwin appears to be losing ground to Democrat Kathy Hochul.

The GOP message team is already scrambling to redefine the issue as a  Republican attempt to “save” Medicare, not kill it.

But the party’s stars remain stubbornly misaligned. Presidential hopeful Newt  Gingrich candidly described the Medicare plan as “right-wing social engineering”  — only to pull it back when Ryan and others griped. And Priorities USA Action,  an independent group started by two West Wing veterans of the Obama  administration, was out Friday with its first ad, a TV spot in South Carolina  using Gingrich’s words to savage Mitt Romney for saying he was on the “same  page” as Ryan.

“The impact of what the House Republicans have done is just enormous. It will  be a litmus test in the GOP [presidential] primary,” said former White House  deputy press secretary Bill Burton, one of the group’s founders.

“I couldn’t believe these idiots — I don’t know what else to call them — they’re idiots. … They actually made their members vote on it. It was  completely stunning to me,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat  who worked hard to win over the western part of his state, which has among the  highest concentration of elderly voters in the country.

It was also the site of some of the Democrats’ worst losses in 2010 — three  swing House seats Democrats hope to recapture next year, largely on the strength  of the Medicare argument.

“Look at [freshman House members in the Pittsburgh-Scranton area], they make  them vote on this when they’re representing one of the oldest districts in the  country?” Rendell asked.

“We have a message challenge, a big one, and that’s what the polling is  showing,” conceded Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a former Karl Rove protégé who  enthusiastically backed the Ryan plan. “There’s no way you attack the deficit in  my lifetime without dealing with the growth of Medicare. Do we get a political  benefit from proposing a legitimate solution to a major policy problem? That’s  an open question.”

The House Republican leadership had hinted at an emerging plan to tackle  entitlement reform on Feb. 14 — the day Obama released his budget without  reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Cantor caught Hill reporters by surprise when he said, nonchalantly, that the  Republican budget would be a “serious document that will reflect the type of  path we feel we should be taking to address the fiscal situation, including  addressing entitlement reforms.”

But there were also internal motivations in the decision to go big on  Medicare, rooted in Boehner’s still tenuous grasp of the leadership reins,  according to a dozen party operatives and Hill staffers interviewed by  POLITICO.

Republican sources said Boehner, who has struggled to control his  rambunctious new majority, needed to send a message to conservative upstarts  that he was serious about bold fiscal reform — especially after some of the 63  freshmen rebelled against his 2011 budget deal that averted a government  shutdown.

Then there’s the ever-present friction between Boehner and Cantor, who, along  with Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), has positioned himself as the next  generation of GOP leadership and champion of the conservative freshman class.

Boehner’s camp said the speaker has always supported the Ryan  approach — which would offer vouchers to future Medicare recipients currently  younger than 55 in lieu of direct federal subsidies — and proved his support by  voting for a similar measure in 2009.

“Boehner has said for years, including leading up to the 2010 election, that  we would honestly deal with the big challenges facing our country,” said his  spokesman, Michael Steel. “With 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring every day, it is  clear to everyone that Medicare will not be there for future generations unless  it is reformed. The status quo means bankruptcy and deep benefit cuts for  seniors. It’s clear who the real grown-ups in the room are. We’ve told the truth  and led, while the Democrats who run Washington have cravenly scrambled and lied  for partisan gain.”

But that message hasn’t always been quite that clear. On several occasions,  Boehner has seemed squishy on the Ryan budget. In talking to ABC News, Boehner  said he was “not wedded” to the plan and that it was “worthy of consideration.”

Still, even if Boehner had opposed the plan — and his top aide, Barry  Jackson, expressed concerns about the political fallout to other staffers — he  probably couldn’t have stopped the Ryan Express anyway, so great was the push  from freshmen and conservatives.

That’s not to say some of the speaker’s allies from the Midwest didn’t try.  Camp and Ryan hashed out their differences in a series of private meetings that,  on occasion, turned testy, according to several GOP aides. Camp argued that the  Ryan plan, which he backed in principle — and eventually voted for — was a  nonstarter that would only make it harder to reach a bipartisan framework on  real entitlement reform.

A few weeks later, Camp told a health care conference that, from a pragmatic  legislative perspective, he considered the Ryan budget history. “Frankly, I’m  not interested in talking about whether the House is going to pass a bill that  the Senate shows no interest in. I’m not interested in laying down more  markers,” he said.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) also made  the case for a more moderate approach — but his principal concern was the  Medicaid portion of Ryan’s plan, an approach he believed wouldn’t do enough to  reduce burdens of indigent care on states.

But even as Democrats high-five over the possibility of Medicare-fueled  political gains, Republicans are trying to muster a unified defense. Cantor, for  his part, stumbled by suggesting to a Washington Post reporter that the Ryan  Medicare provisions might be ditched during bipartisan debt negotiations being  led by Vice President Joe Biden.

Cantor later clarified his remarks and claimed he still backed the Ryan  principles, but no GOP staffer interviewed for this article believed the  Medicare overhaul has any realistic chance of passage.

By: Glenn Thrush and Jake Sherman, Politico, May 23, 2011

May 23, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Budget, Congress, Conservatives, Consumers, Deficits, GOP, Government, Health Reform, Ideology, Individual Mandate, Journalists, Lawmakers, Media, Politics, Rep Paul Ryan, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, Tea Party | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A “No New Taxes” Pledge Is A Death Trap For Seniors

This has to be one of the funniest political stories of recent weeks: On Tuesday, 42 freshmen Republican members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to stop Democrats from engaging in “Mediscare” tactics — that is, to stop saying that the Republican budget plan released early last month, which would end Medicare as we know it, is a plan to end Medicare as we know it.

Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels!

Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.

Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare. Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans.

To explain why, let me answer a rhetorical question posed by Professor John Taylor of Stanford University in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal. He asked, “If government agencies and programs functioned with 19% to 20% of G.D.P. in 2007” — that is, just before the Great Recession — “why is it so hard for them to function with that percentage in 2021?”

Mr. Taylor thought he was making the case for not increasing spending. But if you know anything about the federal budget, you know that there’s a very good answer to his question — an answer that clearly demonstrates just how extremist that no-tax-increase pledge really is. For here’s the quick-and-dirty summary of what the federal government does: It’s a giant insurance company, mainly serving older people, that also has an army.

The great bulk of federal spending that isn’t either defense-related or interest on the debt goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The first two programs specifically serve seniors. And while Medicaid is often thought of as a poverty program, these days it’s largely about providing nursing care, with about two-thirds of its spending now going to the elderly and/or disabled. By my rough count, in 2007, seniors accounted, one way or another, for about half of federal spending.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, there will soon be a lot more seniors around because the baby boomers have started reaching retirement age.

Here are the numbers: In 2007, there were 20.9 Americans 65 and older for every 100 Americans between the ages of 20 and 64 — that is, the people of normal working age who essentially provide the tax base that supports federal spending. The Social Security Administration expects that number to rise to 27.5 by 2020, and 31.7 by 2025. That’s a lot more people relying on federal social insurance programs.

Nor is demography the whole story. Over the long term, health care spending has consistently grown faster than the economy, raising the costs of Medicare and Medicaid as a share of G.D.P. Cost-control measures — the very kind of measures Republicans demonized last year, with their cries of death panels — can help slow the rise, but few experts believe that we can avoid some “excess cost growth” over the next decade.

Between an aging population and rising health costs, then, preserving anything like the programs for seniors we now have will require a significant increase in spending on these programs as a percentage of G.D.P. And unless we offset that rise with drastic cuts in defense spending — which Republicans, needless to say, oppose — this means a substantial rise in overall spending, which we can afford only if taxes rise.

So when people like Mr. Boehner reject out of hand any increase in taxes, they are, in effect, declaring that they won’t preserve programs benefiting older Americans in anything like their current form. It’s just a matter of arithmetic.

Which brings me back to those Republican freshmen. Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare. Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program. So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.

But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth. Policy details aside, the G.O.P.’s rigid anti-tax position also makes it, necessarily, the enemy of the senior-oriented programs that account for much of federal spending. And that’s something voters ought to know.

By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, May 12, 2011

May 13, 2011 Posted by | Budget, Congress, Conservatives, Death Panels, Democrats, Economy, Federal Budget, GOP, Government, Health Care Costs, Lawmakers, Medicaid, Medicare, Politics, Republicans, Seniors, Social Security, Tax Increases, Taxes, Voters | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Security and The Deficit: Associated Press Passes Off Dishonest Editorial About Social Security Finances

The insidious ways that conservative narratives bleed into our mainstream economic discourse as objective truths is a dominant theme in my book, and this story by the Associated Press’s Stephen Ohlemacher — ostensibly a piece of reporting rather than opinion — is one of the most egregious examples I’ve encountered. Check out the lede:

“Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates.”

Is it “sick”? Social Security has $2.5 trillion in T-Bills sitting in a trust fund, is financed through 2037 and if nothing were to change it would still be able to pay out higher benefits than it does today, indefinitely.

Is it getting sicker? Well, the 2000 Social Security Trustees’s report (PDF) projected that the trust fund would run out in … 2037. But the 1997 report (PDF) expected the trust fund to be depleted by 2029 — 8 years earlier than currently projected. So in that sense, it’s “healthier” today than it was 13 years ago. More from the AP’s thinly veiled editorial:

“The massive retirement program has been suffering from the effects of the struggling economy for several years. It first went into deficit last year but had been projected to post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into the red in 2016.”

“This year alone, Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in retirement, disability and survivors’ benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.”

OK, this is just incredibly dishonest. Let me explain why:

When he says the program is “in the red” what he’s talking about is that current tax revenues being paid into the system have fallen below current benefit payments. Which should be unsurprising with wages stagnating and an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent.

But what’s unsaid is that the Social Security’s revenues aren’t limited to current tax receipts, thanks to the interest earned on those T-Bills in the trust fund. They earned 5.1 percent in 2008, and 4.8 percent in 2009. When you include that earned interest, as any honest reporter must do, the program has not “gone into the red,” and — if we define “going into the red” as total annual outlays exceeding total income, including interest income — it won’t until at least 2018, according to the Trustees’ latest report (PDF).

Yes, the Trust Fund grew last year, is growing this year, and will continue to grow for several more years, until it reaches a projected $4.2 trillion dollars. Back to the AP misinforming the public:

“That figure nearly triples – to $130 billion – when the new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included.”

“Congress has promised to replenish any lost revenue from the tax cut, but that’s hardly good news, either, adding to the federal budget deficit. In another sobering estimate, the congressional office said government red ink this year will increase to $1.5 trillion, the most in U.S. history.”

Could any ordinary citizen reading that possibly know that, by law, Social Security’s financing is separate from the rest of the federal budget, and that the program has not added a single penny to the deficit?

These are two wholly separate issues — there’s Social Security’s financing, which has been in surplus since 1983, and then there’s the federal budget, which is in deficit because of the downturn, tax breaks showered on the wealthy and trillions in war spending. (Note: unlike the Social Security program, we don’t have a War Trust Fund with its own dedicated revenue stream.)

The AP then turns the program’s greatest strength into a weakness. Behold the sleight-of-hand:

“Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 – unless Congress acts in the meantime.”

No, Congress could raise taxes to cover the shortfall anytime — nothing need be done in “the meantime.”

But more to the point, this narrative ignores the fact that the Trust Fund had a specific purpose: to ease the glut of baby-boomers entering the system. As I wrote in September, it “was a far-sighted act of governance.”

At the time, the oldest boomers were 37 years old, and the youngest were just 19. In 2037, when the fund is projected to be tapped out, the oldest baby boomers still kicking will be 91 and the youngest will be 73 years old. Not to be morbid, but given that the life expectancy of Americans is 78.1 years today, that means that the “glut” of baby-boomers receiving benefits will be receding in the nation’s rearview mirror. In other words, the trust fund will have done exactly what it was intended to do.

This point never seems to wind up in the conversation.

But it gets even worse, as Ohlemacher advances perhaps the most dishonest spin in the entire debate — that the trust fund is not a huge pile of T-Bills, but just “IOUs” — that the funds have been “borrowed” by the government.

“The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment, with interest.”

Again, this conflates two wholly separate issues. Let’s run it down:
The national debt is (approximately) $14 trillion. None of that debt is a result of Social Security, which is fully funded and has run surpluses for years.
The federal government issued $14 trillion in T-bills to cover its budget shortfalls — that’s the national debt. It exchanged those $14 trillion in T-bills for cash (which it spent on programs other than Social Security). It must pay back that cash, with interest, as those T-bills are redeemed.

So, yes, it borrowed money — it borrows money by issuing Treasury Bills, which are held by individuals, institutions and governments. One of those institutions happens to be the Social Security Administration — $2.5 trillion of those T-Bills were exchanged for cash paid into Social Security by workers (and the interest is earned). Which is good, as it’s a safe investment for the surpluses that have been generated. They couldn’t just stick those trillions under a mattress.

But those T-Bills could just as easily have been exchanged for cash from China, or from private pension funds — there would be no difference at all. That would have happened if there had never been a Social Security program in the United States. The $14 trillion in debt would be exactly the same — it doesn’t matter who holds the T-Bills.

All of the above is why the deficit has nothing to do with SS — they are two completely separate issues being conflated by the “entitlement crisis” crowd. And no “neutral” reporter should ever write a story that simply carries their water for them.

By: Joshua Holland | Sourced from AlterNet, January 27, 2011

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Deficits, Social Security | , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: