text:
Social Security is not going broke
Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?
Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.
That surplus is almost twice the $1.4 trillion collected in personal and corporate income taxes last year. And it is projected to go on growing until 2021, the year the youngest Baby Boomers turn 67 and qualify for full old-age benefits.
So why all the talk about Social Security "going broke?" That theme filled the news after release of the latest annual report of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, as Social Security is formally called.
The reason is that the people who want to kill Social Security have for years worked hard to persuade the young that the Social Security taxes they pay to support today's gray hairs will do nothing for them when their own hair turns gray.
That narrative has become the conventional wisdom because it is easily reduced to a headline or sound bite. The facts, which require more nuance and detail, show that, with a few fixes, Social Security can be safe for as long as we want.
Let's look at how Social Security taxes have grown in the last half century — a little-known tale of tax burdens shifted off the rich and onto workers. From 1961 through 2011, the year covered in the last Social Security report, Social Security taxes exploded from 3.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 5.5 percent.
Income taxes went the other way. The personal income tax slipped from 7.8 percent of the economy to 7.3 percent, with most of the decline enjoyed by people in the top 1 percent of incomes. The big drop was in the corporate income tax, which fell from 4 percent of the economy to 1.2 percent. Notice that the corporate income tax fell by 2.8 percentage points, an amount almost entirely offset by a 2.4 percentage point increase in Social Security taxes.
The effect has been to ease the taxes of the wealthy, while burdening the vast majority of workers. Considering how highly ownership of stocks is concentrated, the benefit of those lower corporate taxes went overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent and, especially, the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. Considering that the Social Security tax is capped, most of the burden of the increased payroll tax went to the bottom 90 percent.
Now let's look at how that $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus arose. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan sponsored an increase in Social Security taxes, changing the program from pay-as-you-go to collecting much more taxes than it paid in benefits. The idea was to have the Boomers prepay part of their old age benefits. The extra tax was supposed to pay off the federal debt and then be invested in federal bonds. Instead, Reagan ran huge deficits, violating his 1980 promise to balance the federal budget within three years of taking office.
In my view, building the Social Security surplus has had two major effects.
One effect was to finance tax cuts for those at the top, whose highest tax rate fell during the Reagan years from 70 percent to 28 percent, and for corporations, whose rate fell from 50 percent of profits to 35 percent. Those with less subsidized those with more.
The other effect was a huge increase in consumer debt, as Americans saddled with higher Social Security taxes took out loans to cover other needs. Stagnant wages played a role, but the $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus is also a factor in a $1.5 trillion increase in consumer debt since 1984.
It is no wonder consumers have gone into debt. Paying a tax in advance is expensive. Indeed, the first lesson in tax planning is that a tax deferred for 30 years is effectively a tax avoided, provided the money is invested wisely. The reverse is also true. A dollar of tax paid in 1984 cost $2.20 in today's dollars, and that's before counting the interest that could have been earned.
With the coming bulge in retirees, Social Security will start to pay out more than it takes in 2021, according to projections in the latest annual report. Under current law the program would be able to pay only about three-quarters of promised benefits starting in 2033. But that scenario can easily be avoided through a combination of four policy changes that would ensure full benefits continue to be paid, though I fear Congress will continue to do nothing.
One would be restoring the Reagan standard that 90 percent of wages are covered by the Social Security tax, which now applies to only 83 percent of wages. If we went back to the Reagan standard, the Social Security tax would apply to close to $200,000 of wages this year instead of $110,100.
Two would be raising the Social Security tax rate by two percentage points. That tax hike could be smaller or even avoided if, three, we reignited the growth in wages. Median wages have fallen in 2010 back to the level of 1999. And, four, it would help just as much if we created millions more jobs, which since 2000 have grown at only a fifth the rate of population increases.
Under current tax rules, the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years is $8.6 trillion.
But there is a much bigger problem that needs our attention. If we continue national security spending at current levels, with no future increases, the total cost would be $63 trillion, based on the figures in President Barack Obama's latest budget. Unlike spending on Social Security, much of the national security spending goes overseas. And that makes us worse off.
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
I commend you for being the first commentator I have read to tell the truth about Social Security.
Social Security is not the problem.
The problem is that the government, as the administrator, mishandled the account for decades by using it as extra cash to fund other programs.
As a result, now it is broke.
We need to force the government to fix what it has broken, and to quit attacking the elderly for something which it alone is responsible.
Shedding some truth on this would help tremendously.
Thank you!
It is certainly true that Social Security and Medicare generate huge surpluses. Those surpluses have be forcibly invested in War Bonds — er — Treasury Bonds. The money itself has been lavished on wars and history's most massive military machine.
To even think about Social Security going "broke" is to apply private business thinking to the program, thinking of it like a private insurance company. If a private insurance company sold policies to the public, was the largest land owner in all of North America, paid zero rent on a staggering amount of real estate, just like the Queen of England, would we permit it to decide to not make good on its policies? Would we not force it to disgorge the assets to meet its obligations? Social Security and Medicare are far, far from "broke".
Put all Federal lands and property into the Social Security Trust Fund and mandate market rate rents for Government usage of those assets, just like everyone else pays. Then there would be a huge surplus and the Federal Government might make better decisions about spending, as a side benefit.
My congratulations to Mr. Johnston. It has irritated me for years to hear our elected officials speak about the 'problem' we have with 'entitlement spending', as if it were some kind of drag on our economy that will inevitably lead us into the depths of bankruptcy. I've known for years that this sort of talk was drivel, but I have neither the resources nor the intellectual clout to explain it as cogently as he.
Why don't we fix this pseudo-problem by imposing Social Security taxes on all of the income earned by the wealthy? I rarely hear people of moderate means grousing about the money they pay into the Social Security system, so why should the rich have any greater problem with it?
It's quite likely that this simple 'fix' would ensure the security of the Social Security system for meny years to come.
Grateful for your post. Your option One is unclear to me. Does that mean that currently the top 13% do not pay proportionally into Social Security, and you would put 3% more into to the pool…. but still the top 10% would not pay? I am confused on that.
$200,000 of wages? How does SS collect from the really big bucks? Are the $400 million banker bonuses free and clear?
The Social Security Disability trust fund is schedule to go broke in 4 years, true ss is less of a problem and can be dealt with by raising taxes, age, or means testing, in addition ss is subject to tax and isn't inflation adjusted
, however medicare is more complicated.
@ TheOldSodbuster, let me try to flesh that out.
This year the maximum wage subject to SS tax is $110,100 so if you make, for example, $220,200 then only half of your pay is subject to the tax. If you make $1,101,000 only a tenth is.
Bankers paid salaries and bonuses should be fully taxed up the ceiling. But only earned income is subject to this tax, NOT dividends, interest, capital gains and most royalties.
At the current cap only 83% of wages are subject to the tax. The 17 percent of wages above $110,100 is free of this tax. If we raised the maximum to about $200,000 then 90 percent of all wages (The Reagan level) would be subject to tax. Wages above that would be free of the SS tax, but only a tenth of wages would be above the higher ceiling.
Raising the threshold, based on 2010 wage data, would bring in a little more than $100 billion annually.
Social Security is easy to fix, unless you are a politician or partisan extremist.
The article mentions raising the cap on wages which are capped from 83% of wages to the Reagan standard of 90%. Nice of the author to point how far to the right of Reagan we have already gone, but really it should be 100%. Yes, for many years I enjoyed passing the mark and watching social security deductions disappear, but it really isn't fair. However, it is a good political trick to give the upper middle class a tiny break so that the very rich can avoid social security tax on virtually all their income. TheOldSodbuster alludes to the fact that all earned income including CEO salaries, bonuses, stock options, perks, etc. should be taxed.
However, other fixes should be pursued. The COLA formula needs to be fixed as it as resulted in excessive increases for most of its history (although perhaps not so in recent years). The age thresholds should be continuously adjusted upwards with life expectations.
If all of this were done, we could actually lower the social security rates themselves.
David, excellent article. One little factoid about the Reagan changes on Social Security: It was designed by Alan Greenspan, probably the worst Fed Reserve chairman in history.
The big lie you here constantly in the conservative circles is that the rich pay all the taxes. Clearly we see that with the social security tax, let alone the sales tax, excise tax and other consumption taxes, the poor and middle class are paying more than their fair share.
Ever since FDR passed Social Security (which at first the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional – which sounds like the what is happening to Healthcare now), the conservatives have ranted about this social net that is suppose to ensure that after decades of work, a person can retire without going into poverty.
Another big change Reagan pushed through on Social Security was eliminating social security benefits for students over the age of 16 (if a working parent dies, Social Security pays monthly to support the child). THe age used to be 21. so poor families who lose a working parent can't afford to keep a teenager in high school. That's the Reagan legacy.
@QuietThinker, the reason SS is capped is that benefits go up with inflow. That said, I would love to see a study of what would happen if we continued the slightly progressive payout formula (those who make the least get more benefits, those who pay the top every year as I have since 1969 get less) without limit as with the Medicare tax. I suspect with some tweaks we could lower the rate, but that does require a finely detailed actuarial study. And COLA is not just an SS problem, as the late Hastings Keith used to say about his enormous and growing Congressional pension which paid for "the cost of living it up" instead of keeping up with the cost of living.
@ Acetracy, yes, and the Greenspan role is in one of my books. A child whose parent dies, becomes disabled or has retired can get benefits to age 18 or, if still in high school, age 19. The lowered age surely has had a negative impact on college educations.
The problem with Social Security is that Congress spent all the money and has stuffed the SS Fund Box with IOU's. Which means that SS checks actually come out of the treasury. This is really causing a problem for Congress as they are running out of money to spend on defense and more tax cuts for the rich.
The problem is that our govt borrowed the excess (prepay) from SS. Our govt only generates revenue by taxation. So to pay the IOUs back they will need to increase taxes. Our govt should never have been allowed to borrow from SS. It is far easier to say SS is going broke than to admit any wrong doing.
Thanks for another well presented and researched article. I would have to challenge your assertion, however, that "the benefit of those lower corporate taxes went overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent and, especially, the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent." There is certainly no clear concensus among economists (nor should there be) that the burden of corporate taxes falls predominantly on capital as you imply here. Surprisingly, this is a point you made yourself in a previous post titled "Congress' potential faulty tax logic" where you reference the work of several economists who have determined that the burden of corporate income taxes falls predominantly on labor. For instance, you referenced Arnold Harberger's opinions with the following "In later works, Harberger wrote that while the corporate tax burden falls on owners in a closed economy, in a global economy, where capital flows freely, the burden shifts toward workers, who cannot move so easily." In addition you referenced the recent work of Aparna Mather and Kevin Hassett and you appear to more or less accept their conclusions. While I do generally agree with their conclusions I would also agree that it is possible, and even probable, that while an increase in corporate income taxes would fall disproportianately on labor (particularly unskilled labor, as I argued in my comment to that post), a decrease in those taxes might well disproportianately (but not necessarily overwhelmingly) benefit the owners of capital and corporate management. Issues of this level of complexity certainly don't have to, and rarely do behave the same in both directions. I believe that, according to Mather's work, there would be an inflection point below which reductions in corporate taxes would begin to positively impact labor income. This would be the point at which corporations would be induced to repatriate labor intensive operations. Above this point I would imagine that the benefits of reduced corporate taxes would go mainly to capital and corporate management and possibly to customers depending on the influence of monopoly in the particular industry. All of this complexity and opacity is the reason why I'm generally opposed to corporate income taxes and believe that they should be shifted directly to income, consumption and (primarily) capital so as to remove corporate management's influence on taxation. Given all this I still think that your statement regarding the benefits of changes in corporate taxes is a bit misleading.
And to your list of potential solutions I would add means testing. It seems rather odd to me that a system intended to provide "social security" should hand out survivor benefit checks to children who derive six figure incomes from a trust fund or have a parent who takes home a high six figure salary, or that it should provide any benefits to multimillionaires. These folks would appear to be quite financially secure on their own, no?
@usagadfly, I'm confused by your proposal. Are you suggesting that the government pay itself rent for the usage of it's own assets? Surely not, I hope. I have to believe I'm misreading your intent.
@TheOldSodbuster, The level of income that is subject to Social Security taxes is capped (currently at $110,100), therefore, income above that amount is not subject to the tax. So if someone makes $400 million only $110,100 of it is taxed for Social Security purposes, the remaining $399,889,900 is not. In other words, the person with the $400M income would pay the same exact amount of Social Security taxes as someone who made $110,100. This is what makes Social Security taxes regressive.
Another excellent tax article, David. As usual, you do a good job of pointing out that most of our financial problems are highly fixable, and almost invariably fixable without causing undue pain to any one group. And, as usual, politicians who spend their political lives desperately catering to one group or another, conveniently ignore any and every workable solution. I note that a frequent outcome when a senior political figure either retires or is given the boot, is that he/she suddenly becomes reasonable and wise. Maybe the fix is actually a change to the elective process encompassing term limits, campaign spending limits and the like. When they stop running for office all the time, some of them are quite normal.
Whatever sources of big dollars in US, is a target for greedy financiers, corporations and their lobbies. The government collects a share of nat'l wealth, but gives most back to the top 1%. Because of the greed and the weakness of government. Middle classes are fooled (by media tool) into thinking their livelihood comes from supporting ideas and plans of the successful top 1%, who unfortunately are only planning on continuing patterns that got them there, i.e. stealing country wealth from the bulk of middle class! Fools in middle follow the deception that the poor are the problem and readily vote for the 1%, thinking they'll join them and gain in portfolios, but in reality the !% steals from their pockets! Evidence is in the growing division of wealth… yet middle class continues to attack the poor! Tax the rich and reward in deductions only those that benefit the economy, by proof… not by promise, i.e. trickle down fallacies. You create jobs, you get deduction. You create US spendable wealth, you get deduction. Shared wealth with middle class is what made US a powerhouse… now CHina has middle class growth and is powerhouse. Needed is strong government to keep 1% in check… not the other way around, as happens now! COrruption will destroy us if we can't get a hold of what is best for US population… SS is needed.
Tax rich until debt is met… give them breaks ONLY when debt is gone… that is incentive to lobby for better budget…. if it means money in pockets of 1% only when US solvent, they'll make a budget that works and fight amongst themselves overt the pillage that is bulk of budget, i.e. military contracts, sweet deals, favors, contracts, pork, etc.
Right now free for all, weak government, the richest take the biggest cut of the pillage.
Reuters… still has journalists! How rare today when new affiliates and media corporations seem to be no more than soundbites repeating the same message.
@ jtfane —
Regarding you comment about "means testing" as a potential solution to Social Security.
"Means testing" as you describe — that is as a method for denying those who have paid into Social Security, but now have other "means" of support so they don't "need" Social Security — is illegal under US Supreme Court ruling in MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
424 U.S. 319, because it would deprive individuals of their property interest in Social Security, which is unconstitutional.
It may come as a shock to most of you, but Social Security is PROPERTY and thus protected from unlawful government seizure.
Here is an except from that case.
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of "liberty" or "property" interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.
The Secretary does not contend that procedural due process is inapplicable to terminations of Social Security disability benefits.
He recognizes, as has been implicit in our prior decisions, e. g., Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 80 -81 (1971); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 -402 (1971); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611 (1960),
that the interest of an individual in continued receipt of these benefits is a statutorily created "property" interest protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Cf. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 166 (POWELL, J., concurring in part) (1974); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576 -578 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S., at 539 ; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S., at 261 -262.
Rather, the Secretary contends that the existing administrative procedures, detailed below, provide all the process [424 U.S. 319, 333] that is constitutionally due before a recipient can be deprived of that interest.
This Court consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 -558 (1974). See, e. g., Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 596 -597 (1931). See also Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 124 -125 (1889).
The "right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society."
@ jtfane —
I want to make clear that the point of my comment above is not only to illustrate that it is illegal for the government to seize personal property without due process (which I am sure they are well aware of), but that encouraging Congress to do so is a VERY "slippery slope".
In reality, Social Security is only a "down payment" on our debt problems, since it will not resolve the real problem of out-of-control military spending, NOR the lack of revenue from taxes.
So, when Social Security fails to be enough to feed the maw of military spending, YOUR property may be seized next "for the good of the country", of course.
Once the government begins to ignore our constitutional rights to unlawful seizure of private property, "Pandora's Box" has been opened, and it then becomes easier to justify their acts going forward.
History shows a government under stress is capable of many things.
Be VERY careful what you urge Congress to do.
Maybe we should add the title Mythbuster to David Cay Johnston.
I imagine that he will now be added to the Tenth Percenters' Hit List along with Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman.
So, it is Class Warfare.
Social Security retirement payments are capped along with taxes. The very high income earners get the same checks after retirement as those workers that just reached the top salary taxed. It was not designed to be a progressive taxation mechanism that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor. If anything, Social Security currently transfers wealth from those with a short life span to those with a long life span. If you turn Social Security into welfare, then it will be treated as welfare.
My recent reading indicates that Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security Disability are the programs that are struggling with demands growing much more rapidly than revenue. The retirement portion of Social Security is projected to run a surplus for quite a while. You can lump them altogether, as many in the media do, but the demands and revenue are not the same.
Having wasted money on past wars does not change the untenable growth in entitlements that the US now faces. Since the bottom 47% of income earners pay zero federal income tax today, I suspect that they are paying less federal income tax now than in 1961.
The first problem to address with Social Security is the issue of disability checks going to those who are not in need. The disability side is where demands are far outstripping revenue. There has been some very good reporting about problems in both West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Then we should consider raising again the retirement age again, which would impact me personally. Increasing the the Social Security taxation rate will not lead to more jobs with which to right the ship.
GPS, Run flat tires, cell phones, ham radios, satellite tv/communications, dehydrated food products, space travel/exploration, countless medications, mammagrams, etc. All from military spending and thats just the stuff off the top of my head. Military spending is watering the crops, Entitlement spending waters the weeds that encroach and ruin the field. And forget AL Gore, we know the US Military invented the internet.
@ alignedinterest —
Raising the retirement age would be a MAJOR MISTAKE, primarily because the current higher average life span today compared to the 1930s is based mainly upon the availability of proper health care for the elderly!
If you remove the ability for elderly people to access proper healthcare, average life expectancy will drop quickly and dramatically.
This is a SERIOUSLY ignorant idea that will lead to a humanitarian disaster.
After enough people died prematurely due to lack of proper healthcare to force the average life expectancy back to what it was in the 1930s, what would you suggest then?
Would you demand that we lower the age again until it began to rise with better health care?
Somehow I doubt that would ever happen, since once the benefits are taken away, they will never be restored.
This idea is a completely naive and moronic "Catch 22″ proposal by people who clearly don't understand what they are talking about.
Columnist here,
A little civility goes a long way to bringing forth light, not wasted heat.
David —
I stand by what I said.
This is a dangerous, stupid idea about Social Security that keeps spreading as though it were the most natural thing in the world to keep increasing the retirement age because people are living longer now than in the 1930s.
The reality is that the human species has not suddenly become much healthier than we were since the 1930s.
Better healthcare, education and working conditions have contributed to this, and if they should be taken away — which is EXACTLY what this government wants to do — the average lifespan will immediately plummet.
The whole problem with Social Security is the government doesn't WANT to pay Social Security for a lot of reasons that are both monetary and social.
For that reason, ANY erosion in Social Security benefits will rapidly lead to more reductions.
We cannot give the government ANY chance to destroy Social Security or its associated programs because they will do absolutely that — AND as rapidly as possible, ESPECIALLY IF THEY CAN GET PEOPLE TO BUY INTO FALSE IDEAS ABOUT IT.
And thus far, the government has been TOTALLY DISHONEST about Social Security, deliberately allowing the egregious rumors to keep spreading, so that the very existence of Social Security is now in doubt.
That is NOT without a reason.
At a minimum, raising the retirement age assumes:
(1) that a person's health will continue unchanged until the person is "ready" to retire at some indefinite age, and will not become too sick to work, AND
(2a) even MORE importantly in this society, because healthcare benefits are inextricably linked to employment, it assumes you will be able to remain employed until that nebulous date — thus, loss of a job means loss of healthcare as well.
(2b) the problem is that as workers age, their employers tend to find "reasons" why a once-valued employee is no longer a viable worker, who must then be laid off. Of course, these "reasons" have nothing to do with the fact that the employee is simply getting old and is costing the company more in terms of both direct labor costs and healthcare benefits — right?
NEITHER of these ideas — continued good health or employment until retirement age — are remotely true!
Meanwhile, the government, in order to avoid paying Social Security, WILL keep raising the age limit.
I am nearly 70 years old — a retired CPA/MBA who worked for several multinational high-tech companies (primarily as a Plant Controller and Finance Manger) since I was 40 — and I too never intended to retire.
In my particular case, I barely made it to "early retirement" at age 62. If, as these people want to do, the minimum retirement age had been any higher at all, I would have lost everything I worked for my entire life (even then I had to take "reduced benefits").
The reason?
When I turned 60, my employer moved all of their manufacturing facilities to Asia — believe me, at the age of 60 it doesn't matter how much education and experience you have on you resume, you won't get a job.
Indeed, all things considered, I am VERY lucky to have made it the two years to "early retirement", and even then it was a VERY close thing, which just about wiped out my retirement savings.
Most people would not have the personal resources (including a working wife) to make it years without any income or healthcare benefits.
I other words, I once held EXACTLY the same stupid, short-sighted ideas that are now being spread by the government as a viable "solution" to fix Social Security.
What is dangerous is that people in general are buying into this line of BS without even thinking what it means, either to others or to themselves someday.
BUT raising the age is NOT a solution — it would be an unmitigated disaster that falls the heaviest on those who can least afford to bear the burden.
Raising the retirement age, for reasons I have stated, and a lot of others that can't be covered in this venue, is a disingenuous idea from the government that will force elderly people out into the streets to starve to death, since the US has NO "safety net" as do most European countries — PLUS whatever minimal safety net we have, such as welfare WILL disappear shortly.
THAT is why it is an incredibly stupid idea.
If that means a bit of rude language to make my point, so be it, because I am getting VERY tired of telling people this is a bad idea and simply being ignored.
THIS is one of the major issues that we, as a nation, cannot allow to have happen here, whatever that takes.
BUT most people don't even understand it IS a problem, and not a solution.
It is CRITICAL that people understand what a disaster this would bring to our country.
That is why I stand by what I said in my other comment — the only way to get a person's attention these days is to shock them and force them to reevaluate their position.
Granted, it may not work, but then neither has telling the truth about ANYTHING ELSE regarding Social Security. Not even the news media are willing to tell the truth about Social Security, which is why I commended you for your courage to do so.
However, your article is little more than a miniscule beginning that will probably never go much further because the American people have been sold a "bill of goods" by the government, and at this point they don't want to hear the truth.
David —
Your tax approach, which consumed about 99% of your article, is MUCH too narrowly focused.
Especially, since you yourself admit:
"But there is a much bigger problem that needs our attention. If we continue national security spending at current levels, with no future increases, the total cost would be $63 trillion, based on the figures in President Barack Obama's latest budget. Unlike spending on Social Security, much of the national security spending goes overseas. And that makes us worse off."
I understand you specialize in taxation, but THAT is where the real economic issues of this nation lie. If we go into 2013 with the reduction in taxes and no increases in revenues that are pre-planned right now (i.e. induced austerity), the US economy WILL crash as the eurozone is doing right now.
I wonder how many people even "saw" the last paragraph, which contained the most information of all? The taxation issues are simply "noise" that drown out the real message.
If you could apply your future efforts to examining the issues of "forced austerity" that will be upon us in a few short months — ALL of it, including cuts in "entitlements" (which used to be a good thing), just so the US can continue to spend egregiously on military programs — THAT would be a subject worth reading about.
The yield on the treasury bonds owned by the SS trust is pathetic. We are being robbed blind. We could double our average yield by taking just 10 or 20% of the fund and investing it in the stock market via a simple low cost index fund (S&P linked). Alternatively one of the managed funds of a nonprofit like the TAA-CREFF foundation would do the trick. One should also invest some fraction of the money with in a more diversified bond portfolio selected by PIMCO or by some similar competent manager. If we had done minimal prudent things like these over the last 30 years SS would currently be rolling money and there would be no need for the current discussions. If a private retirement plan were run like SS the managers would have been fired 20 years ago (assuming they could stay out of jail).
What degenerate would speak of the topic, without discussing the fact that the government has lowered the "take" from every individual from $6,600 to $4,800 per year.. and that simple fact seems to escape the "journalistic" article…Only a Stooge can believe that 6-2=6…. If you believe that Donkey can make magic…. you will be surprised when the Magic Donkey looses his power.
If Republicans say something is bad, you best believe it is good. What is good they say is bad. They make Entitlements to Medicare a bad thing but the real Entitlements are the millions of dollars they give to rich Fortune 500 Oil Companies. It is more than an Entitlement, it is also a rape & theft of the American people.
If the Social Security Administration since 1977 when the vast majority started their work careers had invested the baby boomers contributions into US Treasury -0- coupon bonds up to 2007, more than 100% of future obligations would have been easily funded.
Just realize, in the early '80s -0- coupon 30-year Treasury bonds were yielding over 10% – that is a locked in return of 10% on an annual basis. Instead Reagan with his henchman Alan Greenspan raided the piggy bank to lower taxes for the 1% and corporate America.
This investment opportunity that existed in the early 80s was not lost on some top investment managers who bought treasuries and still hold them. Seems like our past Fed Reserve chairman was too busy preaching Ann Rand and the new age of deregulation and financial engineering. We will be suffering the consequence way past our life time.
One facet of this thread that is being overlooked is that Social Security is not a tax. It was originally passed as retirement insurance and was subject to actuarial rules and underwriting based on demographics, one of which was supposed to be cohort life expectancy. The fact that the SS fund has been raided by the federal gov't and IOU's left in their place leaves a large gap in the claim pool. This is also another reason the the "tax" is limited to a cutoff, just as any insurance policy does not have an unlimited premium rise with a limited return. Otherwise, why would anyone ever agree to participate. It becomes a Ponzi scheme in those circumstances.
Social Security ran a cash flow deficit of $49 billion in 2010, and the 2011 trustees report indicates such deficits will be the norm by 2017. The report also reveals that Social Security's unfunded obligation stands at $9.1 trillion, in net-present-value terms; in other words, it owes $9.1 trillion more in benefits than it will take in through taxes. The program will experience further financial strain as the worker-to-retiree ratio keeps falling.
Thank you for your spirited reply. Please keep in mind two other items in my first comment. First, SS retirement is not going broke anytime soon. Second, I believe that addressing fraud on the SS disability side would go a long way toward sustainability in the program. So, changing the retirement age might not be necessary.
Good constructive criticism requires that you provide a better alternative. I attempted to meet this challenge by bringing up the fraud issue, as an alternative to raising the SS contribution rate. I would welcome your comments on a better alternative to raising the retirement age.
Exactly. SS is forced retirement insurance and therefore property, as pointed out by PseudoTurtle.
My concern with means testing SS payout in retirement is that the system is slowly being corrupted into welfare. The IRS already taxes SS benefits if you have adjusted gross income over a certain level. So, means testing is already creeping in.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,i d=179091,00.html
If you think the SS system is being attacked now, just wait until it looks completely like welfare. Yes, I realize that ROI from SS is very, very low, but at least it still looks more or less like property/insurance and keeps paying when the market is down.
David Cay,
Please address Medicare. SS may not be insolvent but Medicare is the true problem on the horizon.
Liberals have their hands tied on this one because they, of course, cannot run a platform that reforms entitlments such as Medicare. They have to run on a platform that bashes the GOP for trying to address our projected unfunded Medicare liabilities and thus nothing will be done about it if Obama is re-elected.
In fact, not much of anything will happen if he is re-elected; a four year lame duck session.
The President,as leader of his party, once again expressed that every American should pay his fair share in taxes. One sizable loophole in the Federal Tax Code is TAX EXCLUSION INCOME. It is time to do something about this unfair tax revenue placed disproportionately on small business & especially the self-reliant. The President is correct we are all in this mess together. It is time to correct the inequity of Tax Exclusion income for some rather than for all workers earning income & paying taxes on all received income. There is no reason for this inequity especially after the President many request for equity.
@ alignedinterest —
Your state "Good constructive criticism requires that you provide a better alternative. I attempted to meet this challenge by bringing up the fraud issue, as an alternative to raising the SS contribution rate. I would welcome your comments on a better alternative to raising the retirement age."
You are right, of course, so here is my solution (which I have stated many times in the past, but without any success):
It is EXTREMELY EASY to make Social Security (and all its associated programs, many of which have never been funded by Congress), solvent.
The answer is to force Congress to:
(1) remove Social Security from the General Fund where it does not belong, back to a stand-alone insurance fund as it was designed to be,
(2) Remove the artificial cap on income subject to earnings, which would immediately and dramatically increase the cash flow going into the Social Security Trust Fund, thus permanently fixing its current insolvent status, since the tax can easily be adjusted each year by Congress to ensure enough revenue is coming in to support all the programs, and
(3) since government manipulation is the real problem, force government — by whatever means necessary — to stop "borrowing" from the trust fund.
Those three steps WOULD immediately and permanently fix ALL the problems of Social Security and return it to the social insurance program it was originally designed to be.
AND no age adjustment is necessary.
I realize the major objection would be to remove the earnings cap, but there are many reasons for doing so.
Here are just a couple off the top of my head:
(1) Even though the wealthy believe they will retire in the "lap of luxury", in fact the future holds no such guarantees for anyone.
(2) If everyone pays into it, the fund will remove the intolerable burden on those least able to afford it right now and spread the risk at the least cost (which is how insurance is designed to work), and while this may seem unfair to the wealthy, it would provide them with a more stable government and consumer demand — contrary to popular belief, seniors do NOT suddenly stop spending when they retire — would increase among the retired, so much of the money will be recycled back into the economy, mainly as purchase of healthcare.
Notice NONE of this is based on "fairness" or some scheme to "distribute wealth", but on solid economic principles, which apparently the wealthy cannot seem to figure out due to their own short-sighted greedy blindness.
@ alignedinterest —
This is in regards to your answer to @kr.trader, but each comment requires a separate reply, so bear with me:
You state, "My concern with means testing SS payout in retirement is that the system is slowly being corrupted into welfare."
Apparently, you (and many others) are concerned that Social Security benefits are being corrupted by those who evade the law, which is a reasonable stance and should concern everyone, including those who receive Social Security benefits — they are not your enemy and should not be punished by the few who abuse the system.
Getting the Social Security/Medicare system working again is the priority, then dealing with the "cheats" is an enforcement problem.
These are NOT at all the same issue.
You state "The IRS already taxes SS benefits if you have adjusted gross income over a certain level. So, means testing is already creeping in."
Actually, you are incorrect. The additional tax is being imposed due to massive actuarial errors made by the government regarding the amount of Social Security payments that were made during the 1970s. The current tax is an attempt by the government to recover the amount of money they mistakenly overpaid to Social Security recipients decades ago. I won't comment on the rationale, or lack of it, of having current retirees pay for a mistake the government made in overpaying Social Security decades ago, but it is NOT "means testing".
Means testing would be a violation of the law, whereas recovering overpayments of benefits is not.
You state "If you think the SS system is being attacked now, just wait until it looks completely like welfare."
As I pointed out and you acknowledged agreed to my comment that Social Security is property, Social Security is a social insurance fund that is supported by taxes on those who have worked, and therefore cannot "look completely like welfare".
Since you bring up welfare, you should be aware that the US Supreme Court has also ruled that welfare is "property" as well.
For your convenience and ease of access, see this article in Wikipedia: "Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits (welfare) can be deprived of such benefits. The individual losing benefits is not entitled to a trial, but is entitled to an oral hearing before an impartial decision-maker, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a written opinion setting out the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for the decision."
So, if Social Security as an "entitlement", you need to understand that Social Security is not remotely a problem. The social welfare system in this country is far more ingrained than you realize.
You state, "Yes, I realize that ROI from SS is very, very low, but at least it still looks more or less like property/insurance and keeps paying when the market is down."
You are incorrect in applying ROI to Social Security, since it is NOT a retirement plan, but a social insurance plan. The two concepts are not at all the same.
I apologize if I have offended you, but the continuous stream of misinformation about Social Security has grown into a "feeding frenzy" as people look for a convenient scapegoat, and I am getting quite tired in stating the same things over and over.
Instead of simply expressing opinions, which have absolutely no merit whatsoever, it would be better to do a bit of research as I have, before expressing those inane opinions.
If I overreacted to your "age" comment, I apologize.
I haven't checked this column for several days, and did not realize anyone had responded to me.
If I could ask a favor of you, please just let me know you have read my response to you, so I know I have not simply wasted my time again.
@ Carly_EngAmer —
You are absolutely correct that "The program will experience further financial strain as the worker-to-retiree ratio keeps falling."
This is a "dual function" of decades of:
(1) "job outsourcing" (i.e. a massive workforce size reduction) that results in fewer workers paying into Social Security, thus forcing the burden upwards on those who are left, and
(2) importation of cheap labor for positions that cannot be conveniently outsourced (i.e. cheap labor means lower wages, which results in lower Social Security taxes — or in many cases, total evasion of Social Security taxes).
While we seemingly cannot stop this insane exportation/importation of American jobs for ever-cheaper labor, it is yet another excellent reason why we should remove the income cap on Social Security.
It is primarily the wealthy who benefit from this cheap labor at the expense of the American people, but by doing so they are destroying the
US economy by passing this "hidden tax" — David Cay Johnston are you listening? — to the American people as a "transfer cost" that adds debt to every single US taxpayer.
In effect, the wealthy, by avoiding Social Security taxes, are forcing the American people to pay their taxes for them!
Why has no "economist" seen this issue?
The amount of money the wealthy avoid by not paying Social Security taxes has to be astronomical, yet no one has done a study to determine the deleterious effects of continuing this artificial earnings cap.
Since they currently evade this social insurance tax, it is only "fair" they pay the taxes they expect everyone else to pay for them.
The CBO has studied how a variety of minor tweaks affect Social Security's 75-year actuarial balance. They found several essentially wipe out the long-run (75-year) deficit of 0.7% of GDP. If detractors want to overhaul the system, they need another rationale besides its fiscal health. See below for details:
http://www.verisi.com/resources/decision 2012.htm#s6
Gee, if you didn't call it "Social Security" tax, and, indeed, just lumped all of the taxes into a category called "Tax", then let the IRS sort out where each penny goes (instead of the micromanaging, armchair quarterbacks), maybe the "Government" could function as it is designed.
This really isn't Wartime and the Congress shouldn't have the ability declare Martial Law on the Treasury or to rearrange "the arrangements" that have already been arranged, at least, not without the benefit of majority vote. Minority factions within our Government and politics are constantly trying to usurp control over the wishes of general Public, "for our own good". We need watchdogs to watch the watchdogs who watch the dogs.
In simpler words, this whole process is getting ridiculous.
How much the SS tax has gone up is just one part of the equation. I read an article over 10 years ago in USA TODAY, that the US government took (and takes??) Billions out of SS to finance budget shortfalls. Has anything been paid back??? Noooo!!! I am surprised the author opted not to discuss this pertinent fact.
IDIOTS! There is no fund. The money was simply spent. It was not invested anywhere. The Federal government already owes the surplus to us via the social security obligations. Saying thats ok because the Federal governent can get this money from its treasuries …. that is, the
Federal government can get it from the Federal government…. Is circular reasoning.
How can you miss something so obvious? It is bad enough for the government to attempt to perpetuate this fraud. How can you be so gullable?
I'm sick of hearing old people whine about how they can't live off of it. Excuse me but why does someone footing the bill for some old fart's ignorance know more about the fact that Social Security is a SUPPLEMENTAL WELFARE program, meaning it's supposed to be used as a secondary source in addition to money you were supposed to be saving? I'm worried about my generation because we're footing the bill for invalids AND raiding our own private savings. I'm stressed out being forced to pay into a program that I hear won't be around and to top it off I may have no choice but to raid my own IRA I worked so hard to fund. My generation is screwed three times over. We fund the old people's welfare, supplement the poorest through higher health care costs, and we have to care for our own aging parents. I'll never have kids or get married because I'll be taking care of my own parents thanks to greedy old parasites in office. My father was told his 401(k) from his job was being cut 40%. Now big corporations are screwing people who worked their butts off and saved to boot. Just WTH is going on?!
The fact that the government has borrowed lavishly from the SS trust and collateralized all that with treasury bonds means that one of the United States's biggest groups of creditors is its own citizens–particularly older Americans.
Like Me, for instance–I'm 63. I'm not by nature a violent man. If I were, every time I heard some smug conservative pundit speak derisively of "entitled (i. e. spoiled) "baby boomers", I'd be seriously inclined to punch the son of a bitch in the mouth. You bet your damn britches we consider ourselves "entitled" to those benefits–we've worked hard and paid for them for the last fifty years! It's OUR money, not Congress's or Wall Street's–and by golly, we want it back!
Wealthy and highly paid people take their cut of social security, when they retire. Why not just remove the cap? Then they too will pay the same percentage of their income as most Americans do. Many experts agree that one answer to any fear of social security running out of money in 20 years is by equaling the playing, or paying, field.
Bankrupt? Not anytime soon.
But our current college grads are looking at paying into a fund that WILL be bankrupt by the time they're retiring. Even those who have only 20 years until retirement may not receive benefits and those who have 30 years until retirement won't see any payouts, assuming things remain the same.
Increasing employer or employee SS taxes will just do what any good austerity does – hamper growth, therefore reducing the effectiveness of the taxes in the first place. Just look at Greece or Spain as perfect examples of the "benefits" of increased taxes.
A better solution that reduces waste, prevents our wonderful government from "borrowing" the funds, and guarantees that our current workforce actually receives benefits would be to create privatized accounts that are unraidable by whichever administration is in power but still require a minimum contribution by the employer and employee. Then the individual chooses where their money goes, not the government (who ends up funneling it to their wealthy campaign supporters).
Dave needs to define his use of the word "surplus". He suggests there is a $2.7 Trillion pile of money somewhere, ready to pay social security benefits.
In fact, our federal government made operational expenditures with Social Security payroll taxes, then wrote itself IOUs. Dave apparently thinks these IOUs will be helpful in paying SS benefits. In fact, money must be borrowed in future years – or taxes increased – to pay SS benefits. The IOUs will NOT be helpful in any manner to fund these benefits.
Dave – get a clue.
Four solutions??? I don't see any.
#1 raise the cap. Well that would help, but only if you also changed the formula for benefits. I, for one, would love to see this happen. It would socialize Social Security, and that would be the end of the game. Does the author realize that the conservatives are praying for Congress to do as you suggest?
#2 2% SS tax increase. This ideal has not one chance in hell of passing. Just forget anything that starts will , "Let's raise taxes…"
#3&4 Wage increases/more jobs. This is a dumb suggestion. Yes, if by some miracle the economy started booming and unemployment fell and wages were rising the pressure would ease off of SS. But this is completely outside of the control of Congress and the President, (much less SS). This is like saying, "If the price of gas falls to $1, then the economy will improve". True, but irrelevant.
There is every indication that the economy will remain stuck in a slow growth mode for another five years (at least), #'s 3 & 4 should be taken off the list as this is just fairy dust that is being discussed.
1&2 are non starters, 3&4 are just a joke, so really nothing has been proposed here at all.
Where exactly is this supposed $2.7 trillion surplus?
What an ingenuous article:sure Social Security is in profit on paper, but in reality the money has been squandered in wars, useless social programs, bailouts, and government waste.
It is gone, finished, the cupboard is bare so Johnston can spin it all he likes, but there will come a day real soon now with the Spender in Chief really turning on the spending spigots when America will not have enough money to pay Social Security.
And what good will it do then to say, "You know SS has lots of money – on paper – it's just that, well, the government has none".
Quite a few here incorrectly believe that the SS Trust Fund has been "raided" by our government, that the "money is gone" and that the "cupboard is bare". A couple of others incorrectly believe that SS is insolvent and will pay nothing to younger workers. These are all lies spread by paid lobbyists for Wall Street interests who are hoping to skim billions in fees by turning SS into a private retirement system.
Here are the uncontroverted facts:
1. SS used to be "pay as you go", as the above article explains. In other words, there was never any trust fund because there were never any surplus taxes to put into a fund. Instead, each year's benefits were simply a line item in the government's list of expenses, and the money to pay each year's retired beneficiaries came from that year's tax and borrowed revenues.
2. Again, as the above article explains, Reagan increases SS taxes to "pre-fund" the Boomers' benefits. Now that there were surplus funds at the end of each year, SS needed a place to invest these funds. The Greenspan Commission recommended that the surplus funds be invested in the safest investment available: non-marketable Treasury bonds. This was a bi-partisan decision and not at all controversial.
3. For the "cupboard is bare" folks, please note that the cupboard is full of these Treasury bonds. Yes, the government spent the money it received from the SS purchase of these Treasury bonds — what would expect them to do, borrow the money and bury it? Those bonds bear interest, just like regular Treasury bonds. They are assets, just as good as the cash that was used to buy them (in fact, better than cash because the bonds earn interest).
4. For the "they spent all the money" folks, what do you think would have happened if SS bought private stocks or bonds instead of Treasuries? Yup– those private corporations would have "spent all the money", leaving the cupboard with just "promises to pay", i.e., corporate stock certificates or bonds. I am trying to be tactful here, but if you believe that investing in U.S. Treasury bonds is "spending all the money", that the SS bonds represent no asset that is still in the SS Trust Fund, or that the Government "raided" the SS Trust Fund when the SS Trust Fund simply followed the law and invested in Treasury bonds, you need to return to grade school and sharpen your critical thinking skills.
3. Some now suggest that had the surplus been invested in stocks, the surplus would be greater. In other words, if the cupboard was full of stocks and bonds of private corporations, the value of those stocks and bonds would be greater than the value of the Treasury bonds that are presently in the SS Trust Fund.
This is an argument made by Wall Street because it hopes to turn SS from an insurance program into a retirement account.
Here is the difference between the two: With insurance, you pay a fixed premium in exchange for a retirement income. If you die too early, you get nothing, just like you get from your fire insurance policy if your house never burns down. If you live to 100, the policy keeps paying regardless of what you invested. If SS were a retirement account, your premiums would be invested and you would receive upon retirement whatever growth (or loss) the SS Administration made from those invested premiums. If you died early, your account would go to your heirs. But if you outlived the value of your account, you would run out of benefits and be on welfare at whatever age that was. This age could well be soon after retirement if, for example, the stocks and bonds in your account suffered severe losses just as you were retiring. Just ask anybody with a 401k or IRA in the last decade how that worked out for them.
In any event, I prefer that SS remain an insurance policy, leaving me free to fund by own retirement account as an IRA or 401k. I don't view my SS taxes as "my money" anymore than I view by fire insurance premium as "my money". If my house never burns down, or I don't make it to 67, I will not be disappointed that those insurance policies never paid out. But if I do make it to retirement age, as some of you here have done, I will certainly demand that the policy be paid, no differently than I would demand my fire insurance carrier to rebuild my home after a fire. And, no, such a benefit is not an "entitlement" that can be re-negotiated any more than a Treasury bond is an "entitlement" to the investor expecting a return of his investment with interest. Both are promises of future payment in exchange for the payment of present value. Our government cannot default on one promise — SS benefits —without defaulting on the other —U.S. Treasury bonds. So, for the young readers here, you should feel confident that your benefits will be there when you retire.
I'm so thankful that congress didn't spend the social security trust fund surplus and replace it with IOUs which can only be funded by more government deficits or new taxes. Sarcasm off.
This debate serves the right by making yet another diversion to rape the elderly of their _earned_ benefits. After paying taxes for decades the right is happy to suck us dry to fund yet more programs to benefit business and the wealthy. Trickle down? i don;t think so – not a reliable stat to show that is how it works – but many stats to show the uber-wealthy have become even more uber-wealthy. America is now failing democracy 101 by lying to the voters, who are gullible enough to believe. A bit of truth now and then is refreshing.
I do like Reuters' and Mr Johnson's focus on financial reality. Good job.
I'm sure we will all get the dollars we are supposed to get, but I worry that the dollars won't buy much when I retire. The universal complaint I hear from my elderly patients is when they were contributing it sounded like they would have enogh, but now prices have all increased and the benefits won't cover things.
I am late to this discussion but after 4 decades working with retired clients, am fascinated that no one sees the obvious problems under the current system:
1) Double taxation of Soc Sec benefits..we have the computer technology to trace the precise payments into the pool.. they have already been taxed. No SS payments should be taxed until they are paid out.
2) More critically, ditch the antiquated and deeply unfair system that pays high Spousal Benefits when nothing has been contributed for same. If a spouse wants their wife/husband to have their benefits, then the SS payment should be reduced ..just as every other pension system demands.
In this day asking me as a single parent to pay Anne Romneys benefit is obscene.
I would like to see the projections based on both scenarios How do you think we can begin this conversation in the country?
I like positive articles that aren't all doom and gloom. But I will say I do have some concern about where Social security will stand in 20 years based on trends in employment in the USA. I want the younger generation to succeed and prosper so they will pay into the system that will be helping my social security payments remain on solid ground. Looking at the demographics of what our workers will be like in 20 years, I hope things do a 360 otherwise we are going to be faced with low paid, service worker employees funding our pensions!
$200,000???? OMG with Police sargeants getting paid over $250,000 in San Jose let's get real. The ceiling should be more like $750,000.
David, I would have to question the accuracy of this statement
"One effect was to finance tax cuts for those at the top, whose highest tax rate fell during the Reagan years from 70 percent to 28 percent, and for corporations, whose rate fell from 50 percent of profits to 35 percent. Those with less subsidized those with more."
Reagan cut taxes in 1981. At that time, Social Security's Trust Fund was in negative cashflow. Social Security's Trust Fund financed exactly zero of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. The 1986 tax package was revenue neutral so again, Social Security didn't finance any of the tax cuts. Social Security didn't generate really much cash flow until Reagan's last year.
Can you comment on this new article I find it flawed. Thanks
FACT CHECK: Social Security adds to budget deficit
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_21 296385/fact-check-social-security-adds-b udget-deficit
Social security will eventually go broke as all ponzi schemes do.
According to factcheck.org, SS now collects less than it pays in benefits. The surplus is only on paper. During the years that it collected more than it paid, the excess money was used to purchase government debt. My understanding is that the government owes SS about 5 trillion of the 16 trillion dollar national debt. Yes it is true that the government pays interest on that debt. Of course those interest payments come form somewhere, either taxes or more borrowing. The question now that SS no longer collects more than it pays out and the government will have to start paying that debt back so SS can meet its benefit obligations, where will the government get the money. There are only two choices: borrow it or raise revenue. Borrowing it is like like using one credit card to pay another. Raising revenue through tax increases forces tax payers to pay back SS the money we contributed that the government borrowed. In other words, we are paying twice.
First, the SS Trust Fund is a bookkeeping device. Treasury issues all the checks from the GFRA, and if the SS Trust Fund were bone dry empty the checks would go out simply because the Federal Government, in its sovereign capacity, can pay any obligation denominated in dollars. Treasury checks never bounce.
What Mr. Johnson conflates is the bookkeeping function with the actual payout function. Look what's happening right now. All Federal government expenditures whether Trust Fund or not are payed from the GFRA. Technically, the GFRA is paying the 2% of the FICA suspended in 2011. This fiction, of the SS Trust Fund as paymaster, is compounded by the fiction that tax receipts are used to pay for Federal Expenditures.
They are not per se used to spend. They are in fact a tool used to manage, among other things, inflation, not to pay bills.
Why then would an autonomous Federal government issuing its own currency need to have income/revenue to spend. It simply issues more of its fiat currency. When it taxes it reduces consumption, demand, income. But, it also guards against inflation since it can issue all the fiat currency for which there is an appropriation.
So there is no operational threat of insolvency for the Federal government or any of its programs. Only political, self imposed constraints prevent funding for to meet the nation's obligations. Self imposed constraints like the debt ceiling, prohibition against Treasury overdraft authority, Congress's failure to legislate and/or appropriate,
So, Mr. Johnson, we can't run out of money, can't go broke operationally, and can afford to pay any obligation denominated in dollars. All the other stuff about Trust Funds and such are distractions. Social Security doesn't need fixing, not now or ever.
Thanks, David, for putting historical context and truth to this debate. You might have also mentioned that many of the lawmakers who cry wolf about SS and want to "privatize" it now, presumably to save it, are the same who could have done, but failed to do, something long ago to protect it, such as putting the trust fund into marketable US Treasuries in a "lock box" instead of raiding it for the general budget. The average interest rate would also have been higher than what was given to the nonmarketable bonds in the trust. Last, but not least, if you've read the Ryan plan to privatize it, you'll find that the plan would actually create a giant government investment operation to regularly invest all the tax receipts on Wall Street that would be the worlds greatest opportunity for graft, insider trading and front running. Curiously, most of the advocates believe government can't do anything right, and we need to scale it back whereever possible.


text:
Flaxseed, or linseed as it is called in some parts of the world, consists of the dried, ripe seeds of the fruit, a globular capsule about one quarter of an inch long. The flat, brown and glossy seeds contain up to 10 percent mucilage, as well as very high levels of linolenic acid (an omega-3 fat) and lignans, in addition to some protein.
You are here: Home / Archives for flaxseed flour
Lets talk about the organic benefits of the herb Flax
December 17, 2012 by admin / 3 Comments
Filed Under: Beet the high cost of Herbal Supplements, Gardening, General, Healthy Lifestyles, Liver Health, Natural Health, Stress Management, The Power of Certain Herbs / Tagged: American Consumers, American Organic Consumer, Ancient Egyptian Tombs, Bakery Products, Blue Flowers, Breast Cancer, Canada North, chronic gastritis, Colon Cancer, Early Civilizations, Eddie Smith, Edward Smith, elevated blood cholesterol levels, Flax, Flaxseed, flaxseed flour, Flaxseed Oil, Food Additives, gastritis, Ground Flax Seed, HDL "good" cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, high blood cholesterol, High Priests, inflammations, LDL ("bad cholesterol), LDL cholesterol, Lets Talk, Lignans, Linen Cloth, linolenic acid, Linum, Mild Laxative, mucilage, Natural Health, Natural Health Products, Nutty Flavor, Old Testament, Omega 3, Organic Herb, Organic Products, organically in tune, organically in tune.com, Poultice, Ripe Seeds, Vibrant Life

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Cyclospora is a parasite that infects the small intestine, causing cyclosporiasis. Cyclosporiasis became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States in 1999, and was reported in 37 states in 2008.1 As Cyclospora is not endemic to the United States, it is most commonly acquired through travel to tropical or subtropical regions and through consumption of contaminated fresh produce imported from these areas.2 Although cases can be reported throughout the year, April to August is when the majority are reported, with the height of reports coming in May to July.
Fresh produce, such as raspberries, basil, snow peas and mesclun lettuce have been identified as vehicles of transmission for past cyclosporiasis outbreaks in the United States. In 2004, approximately 96 people became ill after eating pasta salad containing raw snow peas at a residential facility in Pennsylvania.3 The largest recorded outbreak of cyclosporiasis occurred in 1996, when more than 1,400 people became ill in the United States and Canada after consumption of Guatemalan raspberries.4 Most recently, in the summer of 2013, at least 535 cases of Cyclosporiasis were reported in a multi-state outbreak. Epidemiological study in two of the eighteen states where victims reside implicated salad mix, but this has not been confirmed elsewhere. Further updates are available from the CDC7 and FDA.8
After consumption of Cyclospora, symptoms occur in an average of seven days. A typical cyclosporiasis infection is characterized by watery diarrhea. Other symptoms include loss of appetite, weight loss, cramping/bloating, nausea, body aches, fatigue and, less common, vomiting or low-grade fever.1
Cyclosporiasis infections can be treated with antibiotics. However, infections are usually not life-threatening, and if left untreated, the infection will usually clear up on its own in a few weeks to months.
Cyclosporiasis cannot be transmitted from person to person. An infected person sheds non-infective Cyclospora oocysts, which then needs days or weeks in suitable environmental conditions to become infective.5 Only after the oocysts have become infective can they cause illness when consumed. This mechanism could make imported produce an ideal host for Cyclospora oocysts because it generally travels for many days before consumption.
Cyclospora oocysts are resistant to common disinfectants such as chlorine and iodine. Despite this high resistance, Cyclospora is relatively rare. In 2012, 15 cases of Cyclospora were reported through U.S. Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network; this compares to a reported 7800 cases of Salmonella and about 1000 E. coli.6 Even though slight, the illness potential emphasizes the need to be aware of the origin of produce as a primary control technique. Making sure produce suppliers follow Good Agriculture Practices, such as proper cleaning and sanitation procedures during growing, harvesting and packing produce, help reduce the likelihood of contamination.
1. Surveillance for laboratory-confirmed sporadic cases of cyclosporiasis - United States, 1997-2008. Hall, Rebecca L, Jones, Jeffery L and Herwaldt, Barbara L. April 8, 2011, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 60(2), pp. 1-11.
2. Update on Cyclospora cyetanensis, a food-borne and waterborne parasite. Ortega, Ynes R and Sanchez, Roxana. Jan 2010, Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Vol. 23(1), pp. 218-34.
3. Outbreak of Cyclosporiasis associated with snow peas - Pennsylvania, 2004. September 24, 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53(37), pp. 876-8.
4. An outbreak in 1996 of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries. Herwaldt, Barbara L, Ackers, Marta-Louise and Group, Cyclospora Working. May 1997, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336(22), pp. 1548-56.
5. Parasites - Cyclosporiasis (Cyclospora Infection). CDC Home. [Online] [Cited: May 4, 2011.] http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/cyclosporiasis/.
6. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a2.htm?s_cid=mm6215a2_e#fig1 [Online] [Cited: August 12, 2013.]
7. Investigation of an Outbreak of Cyclosporiasis in the United States. CDC Home. [Online] [Cited: July 24, 2013.] http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/cyclosporiasis/outbreaks/investigation-2013.html
8. FDA Investigates Multistate Outbreak of Cyclosporiasis. [Online] [Cited: August 5, 2013.] https://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/recallsoutbreaksemergencies/outbreaks/ucm375868.pdf


text:
miniOrange SSO (Single Sign-on) product provides ready integrations with number of leading providers. SSO for SocialText provides you secure auto-login to your app. It allows enterprises to quickly increase security of information and resources without worrying about time for initial set up or future upgrades.
Using our SSO product you can login to SocialText app with a single click.
miniOrange SSO provides ready solution for any mobile platform including iPhone, Android and delivers SSO with same ease-of-use as your personal computers. Users can sign in once and gain access into other mobile resources, including native mobile apps.
miniOrange's Single Sign-On product is not limited to corporate apps only, you can add your own personal apps.
Click here to see our step by step guide for Single Sign on.
If you dont find what you are looking for, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com or call us at +1 978 658 9387 to find an answer to your question about Single Sign on or Strong Authentication.


text:
In 1972 a small group of graduate students at Syracuse University began meditating together once a week. Interest in zazen increased when the Venerable Eido Tai Shimano Roshi, then abbot of the Zen Studies Society's International Dai Bosatsu Zendo in the Catskill Mountains and New York Zendo Shobo-ji in New York City, was invited to lecture at the university by religion department professor Richard Pilgrim. Read more »
Sitting Schedule
Sittings at SU
Visiting our Zendo
Deep Presence
Conscious Stress Reduction
Dharma Kids
Teisho (Dharma Talks)
Recent Grants
Honors and Recognitions
Photo Galleries
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Zen Studies Society


text:
Rock n Roll and a ton of events and it's all begun! The teams have rolled into town, the sponsor tents are set up and Jack Link's Beef Jerky, Frank's Red Hot, Icebreaker chewing gum and Durex Condoms are now staple items in festival go-ers pockets. Let the games begin.
The Festival began on Friday and to kick it all off Fort Knox Five lit up the AXE Canada Mainstage and rocked the party at the iconic Garibaldi Lift Company bar. The State of the Art presented by Bench urban art show was the talk of the town with a mind-blowing array of artistic talents showcased in the Grand Foyer of the Whistler Conference Centre. Today marks the beginning of The Show, Monster Energy's line-up of anti-comp snowboarding events and night time parties.
The Grand Opening, an intricately designed world-class Slopestyle competition, was be the first major event on the schedule for the snowboarders and was held at the base of Whistler Mountain on Saturday evening.
Featuring music by "Whistler's favourite DJ", Mat the Alien, followed by Trouble Andrew, this was an assault on the senses, in the best possible way. Whistler's Craig Beaulieu took first place for the third time at the TWSSF main event in the village. 2nd went to Matts Kulisek and 3rd to Mikey Pederson and giant cheques sealed the deal for these Monster Energy Grand Opening winners.
The Mogul Mash, Monster's hardcore version of a downhill moguls competition, features a full set of moguls on the dauntingly steep Davies Dervish run on Blackcomb, with a couple of jumps interspersed for good measure. Both time and tricks factor into the end result, creating an event that demands more than just pure luck to succeed. The qualifiers were held yesterday and the finals attracted a wide range of snowboarders and interested spectators. Travis Williams from Vancouver took first place. For the full line up of The Show athletes visit http://www.wssf.com/event/show-snowboarding-event
Iconic Canadian band Spirit of the West played on the AXE Mainstage after Delhi 2 Dublin and local band Brother Twang. Multimedia extravaganza 3PO presented by Pique Newsmagazine, celebrated all things digital, and was an incredible showcase of music, film and digital imagery at the Whistler Conference Centre at 8pm. The night showcased short films (3-5 minutes) from Brazil, Russia and Canada and the Grand Prize of $3500, along with the People's Choice Award, and a swag of prizing, went to Nathan Gilles from Vancouver, and his incredible film entitled Man & the Mammoth. Chronicling the cave-man's discovery of the ski, the clay-mation based tale was humorous, emotive and intricately produced. A true gem to watch and perfect example of what 3PO aims to showcase; mixing multi-media's for an impressive and astounding result.
The weekend wrapped up with a free performance from Delhi 2 Dublin at Merlin's Bar and Grill and with a deep breath in preparation for the coming week of free concerts, arts showcases and sports competitions to thrill, impress and enthuse. Be sure to check out www.wssf.com/schedule for the full itinerary.


text:
Free Shipping on Orders Over $99
Proof Platinum Eagles - Released in 1997, the Proof Platinum American Eagle coin is one of the most beautiful Platinum coins on the market. Minted by the United States Mint, the Proof Platinum American Eagle has a .9995 fine Platinum purity and is available in 1 oz, 1/2 oz, 1/4 oz, and 1/10 oz varieties. APMEX offers Proof Platinum Eagles to add to your collection. We sell these coins in both current and backdated issues. Proof coins are struck on specially prepared planchets multiple times to provide a unique finish that appeals to collectors. The dies used in this process give the coins a mirror-like appearance, in which the coin's device appears to be floating over the liquid of the field. With their stunning finish, Proof Platinum Eagles sparkle and shine! Guaranteed by the United States Government for weight, content, and .9995 purity, the Proof Platinum Eagles are Platinum treasures that can complement any Platinum coin collection or Platinum investment portfolio.A tribute to the patriotism and spirit of freedom of the United States, the designs of the American Platinum Eagles give the coins an elegance that attracts collectors and investors alike. The obverse features the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of freedom to the United States and all who see her. However, while the obverse has remained the same since the introduction of the coins, the reverse changes each year. In fact, Proof Platinum Eagles are the only U.S. bullion coins that have a reverse with a yearly changing design. From 1998 to 2002, the reverse of the proof versions of the Platinum American Eagle featured designs that were part of a program called "Vistas of Liberty." In this series, the reverse designs featured a bald eagle in various regions of the United States. From 2006 to 2008, designs from a new series called "The Foundations of Democracy" graced the reverse of the Proof Platinum American Eagles. The designs in this series paid tribute to the three branches of American government. Beginning in 2009, the Platinum coins began to feature designs from a series showcasing the concepts of democracy and the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Offering a wide selection of Platinum products, APMEX can help you begin setting up a Platinum portfolio. Start building your Platinum investment today!To view available Proof Platinum American Eagles, click on the image representing the Platinum coins of your interest:
Last Updated: 6/25/2019 10:08:01 PM ET
All Prices In USD
View Platinum Price Chart
There are no items in the cart.


text:
Police making progress in fight on drugs
Illegal drugs are a problem, here, just as they seemingly are everywhere in the world now. That much is made clear by the fact that a child took a syringe to elementary school last week.
I don't think it is a rampant problem, and I don't think it is necessarily worse than in other parts of the state or country, but it is definitely a problem when a child can get his or her hands on a syringe that has been used with methamphetamines. Fortunately, we have local law enforcement who are working hard to combat the problem. In a week and a half, police and sheriff's deputies executed four search warrants that resulted in 10 arrests and the seizure of what Sheriff Rob Craft said were pounds of drugs.
Marion Police Chief Tyler Mermis told me he has made fighting illegal drug use one of his top priorities. I applaud that, because drug use doesn't only hurt the users. It hurts the children, like the child who took the syringe to school or the six other children taken into protective custody in two of the cases. It also hurts our community by introducing criminal elements associated with the drug trade. Drug use doesn't happen in a vacuum — it comes with dealers, growers, and manufacturers. These are often outsiders with no concern for the well-being of others, certainly not when it clashes with their bottom line.
The arrests in the past two weeks send a clear message that law enforcement won't sit idly by or look the other way, and they won't wait for a case to fall into their laps. Three of the four cases came together based on persistent police work, working on leads and suspicions until enough evidence is ready for a search warrant to be issued.
Our law enforcement officials deserve our appreciation for being proactive in fighting the influence of illegal drugs in our communities.
Last modified May 1, 2013


text:
You've just added this product to the cart:
{{var product.name}}Continue shopping
You've just deleted this product from the cart:
{{var product.name}}Continue shopping
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Please sign in if you are trying to retrieve a cart created in the past.
Choosing the correct ring size
Please feel free to contact us with any special requests or questions.
Regular Price: $45.99
Special Price $38.95
Save: $7.04
Regular Price: $79.90
Special Price $74.90
Save: $5.00
Regular Price: $84.90
Special Price $74.90
Save: $10.00
Regular Price: $74.90
Special Price $69.90
Save: $5.00


text:
There are those who use data to figure out the truth.
And there are those who use data to tell stories they want to tell.
These two objectives are very different.
And whether you're interested in using data to figure out the truth--or in using it to tell a particular story--you should be aware of how easily data can be manipulated.
Estelle Metayer of Competia tweeted this great screenshot from a presentation at the World Economic Forum.
The presentation is by John Maeda, the president of design school RISD (Rhode Island School of Design).
The screen shot shows clearly how the same data can be presented to tell two completely different stories--in this case just by changing the scale.
On the left:Government spending is going through the roof!
On the right:Government spending is stable.
SEE ALSO: Unboxing The Davos Swag Bag


text:
A flaw in a DSL home gateway could lead broadband users to divulge personal information over the phone to someone they erroneously believe is calling from their bank, according to a group of self-styled ethical hackers.
"We can tell your Home Hub to start a VoIP connection with any telephone number on the planet," said Adrian Pastor in a video posted on the group's blog.
Those at risk are subscribers using BT Home Hub firmware version 6.2.6.B with BT's Broadband Talk VoIP service, Pastor said.
For a successful attack, a person has to be lured to a website hosting the malicious JavaScript. That could be accomplished by sending a fraudulent email from the person's bank saying he should to click on the link, which launches the JavaScript, said researcher Petko Petkov, in the same video.
Clicking on the link starts the attack. The victim's phone rings, and the gateway then initiates a call to another phone number. The victim thinks he is receiving a call, but actually he is making a VOIP call from his home gateway.
There are at least a couple scenarios for how a hacker could capitalize on the flaw. If the broadband subscriber thinks he is receiving a call from his bank, the person on the other end could persuade the victim to give up his bank account numbers.
The attacker could also make the victim's computer call a premium-rate phone line controlled by the hacker, who would receive a fee every time the number is called.
Pastor posted proof-of-concept code for the attack on a web page. However, it wasn't immediately apparent if it works, as visitors would have to use BT's Home Hub with the correct software version.
BT said it's unlikely that the attack scenarios described by Pastor and Petkov could affect its customers, and no customers have reported such an attack, a BT spokesman said.
Nevertheless, the company is in the process of rolling out a patch that is automatically installed by the Home Hub, the spokesman said.
Pastor's public disclosure of the flaw on the blog is "highly irresponsible," the spokesman said.
How vulnerabilities are disclosed has often pitted security researchers -- and other proficient coders who drift more toward the hacking side -- against companies whose products or services are affected. GNUCitizen describes itself on its website as an "ethical hacker outfit."
Efforts to reach Pastor were unsuccessful.


text:
Patrick Peterson couldn't help but smile at the four-year, $56 million contract extension that Seattle handed Richard Sherman last week.
The Cardinals cornerback told reporters Monday that he's worth even more than what the Seahawks paid their All-Pro defender and hopes that Arizona realizes that, too, per ESPN.com.
"We'll see," Peterson said. "Got to ask the Cardinals. I mean, I think I am but at the end of the day both sides have to agree to terms and we'll see what those terms are and hopefully sooner than later."
Set to earn $2.88 million this season and $10 million in 2015, Peterson acknowledged that his camp is in early talks with the Cardinals over an extension of his rookie deal, adding: "I'm making OK money right now, but I'm just not making his money right now."
After the Cardinals picked up Peterson's fifth-year option, there's plenty of time to work out a new pact, which we expect to exceed the monster deal that made Sherman the NFL's highest-paid cover man.
"I think cornerbacks are definitely worth the dollars that they get because now this league is a passing league," Peterson said. "You need that shutdown corner to lock down one side of the field, or like myself, go out there the entire field."
Peterson -- who also shines on special teams and was used on offense last season -- doesn't see himself playing anywhere else, saying: "That's a definite guarantee, I'll be here for a while."
Around The League ranked Peterson right alongside Sherman at the end of last season. He's the beating heart of Arizona's defense and arguably the league's best athlete. We'd have no problem with the Cardinals making him the richest corner around.
The "Around The League Podcast" wrapped up the draft by picking our winners and losers.


text:
The Museum has been running an inspiring schools activity under the "How Science Works" strand of the National Curriculum, in which children carry out their own microfossil research project. In just over an hour, they investigate the microfossils in some Gault Clay collected from Folkestone, and learn the processes behind research including how scientists collect data, use it to solve problems and publish their findings.
Feedback from the school groups shows that it is a fun and engaging way to learn about science away from the normal classroom environment. After completing the exercise, many children indicated that they were more enthusiastic towards a career in science and some even felt that they were already scientists!
Sally Collins and Jamie Robinson about to start a "How Science Works" session with a school group at the Museum.
The activity was developed by Sally Collins, currently part of the Museum Content Development Team, and Dr Craig Koch, while he was studying for his PhD in the Palaeontology Department. It can now be run entirely by Museum educators, while the use of commonly available kit such as washing up bowls and plastic screw topped bottles means that there is potential for holding this schools exercise in locations away from the Museum.
The 'How Science Works' activity
Before the exercise, Gault Clay from Folkestone is crushed into 1-2cm lumps while still wet, and subsequently left to dry. At the start of the class, approximately 100g is then placed in a plastic screw-topped container and boiling water added. After the container has cooled down a bit and some cold water added to bring it down to a safe temperature, it is shaken rather like a cocktail shaker.
While the sediment is soaking, there is time for the class leader to explain the exercise and how micropalaeontology is used in earth science research. A video is shown, featuring Craig and his supervisor Dr Jeremy Young on a research cruise and working in the laboratories at the Museum.
Sieving sediment in the classroom.
After soaking for 15 minutes, the sediment is sieved, dried in a microwave and rehydrated before a final sieving and drying. The microwave heating and subsequent drying ensures that the process can be carried out in a short period of time.
The small microfossil residues produced are then examined under a microscope by the children and a chart is provided to help them identify the microfossils present. By analysing the geological ranges of all the species present, it is quickly possible for the children to determine the age of the clay.
This is similar to the work that a micropalaeontologist might carry out on a well site, where age information could be used by the drillers to decide to continue drilling or stop. Drilling a well too deep can be a costly mistake so sometimes the micropalaeontologist on a well site is put in a major decision-making position!
The chart used by the students to identify their microfossils and decide on the age of the clay.
There is still time for a final class discussion of the results obtained by each group and how scientists communicate their findings by publishing their data. The session I attended recently ended with a very entertaining discussion amongst the children about how the 'peer review process' effectively makes sure that scientists' results are checked before they are published.
Teacher and student feedback
Some of the school class teachers have provided feedback, including:
'Perfectly engaging, challenging and inspiring
'The students were pretty curious and asked a lot of questions which in my opinion shows that the workshop had a stimulating effect on them.'
Children taking the exercise have also had the chance to feedback. Here is a selection of answers given when participants were asked if taking the class had affected their plans for taking science:
'I was thinking about studying science for A-level beforehand - my visit today has reinforced that'
'Yes makes me want to study science more'
Yes, I'd love to do something related to micropalaeontology'
Yes because now I am thinking of becoming a scientist'
Yes, I will go home and purchase a microscope!'
'I will take my science lessons more seriously'
'No it has improved my desire to study science more. I am inspired.'
The foraminifera Epistomena spinulifera; one of the age indicative species of microfossils in the clay.
When the children were asked to say what they 'didn't know or never realised' some answers were:
I never realised that ...
'you could have so much fun with clay'
'there were microfossils in clay'
'I do actually like biology'
'that rocks could be dated!'
'science facts had to go through a long process before getting published'
Finally some general comments that I think sum up the impact of the exercise nicely:
'We got to do our own experiment and discover things and come to a conclusion which made us feel like scientists'
[I enjoyed it very much] 'because it was really fun and I learnt more than I probably would in a normal science lesson'
'I enjoyed looking at the fossils from millions of years back and it makes me feel special to realise that I am the first one to see them'
[I enjoyed it very much] 'because we could be scientists and actually find the results on our own. Rather than a classroom where you are told what happens and told the results.'
This positive feedback from previous "How Science Works" schools vists shows that it is a very successful format for learning. Unfortunately it is not currently being run by the Museum due to lack of bookings and staff resource issues. Sally Collins reports that 'we could only run it for half a class at a time due to the space limitations of the Earth Science Teaching Room and the need for everyone to be able to access sinks and electricity. The trend in the past couple of years has been for secondary schools to bring larger and larger groups.'
The exercise has been modified to use washing up bowls instead of sinks and the use of microscopes in other spaces in the Museum such as the Earth Lab mean that larger groups could be accomodated in the future.
The Gault Clay exercise is currently being run successfully at Peterborough Museum. My colleague Dr Steve Stukins has been working with Peterborough and the Natural History Museum's Real World Science Officer Hannah Pritchard to develop a similar hands-on activity using local Oxford Clay. I look forward to hearing about the Oxford Clay exercise and hope to see the successful Gault Clay schools activity running again at the Museum soon.


text:
Grower Kent Lock found a win-win solution when he planted a field of rye on his Avon, IL, farm. First, he harvested the rye for silage to feed to his cow-calf herd. Second, the rye suppressed a nasty waterhemp problem in the field. Lock planted soybeans into the rye stubble just hours after harvesting the rye, and no weeds were in sight.
Alternative crops like rye are still rare in many parts of the Corn Belt. But the benefits of these crops are attracting interest among growers like Lock. He'd heard that rye is an allelopathic crop, meaning it has the ability to chemically suppress weeds. Plus, he knew it is an excellent forage for livestock.
Lock decided to try planting rye on a 10-acre field near his silo. He purchased 20 bags of rye seed and planted it last November into soybean stubble. He used his John Deere 750 drill with the seed meters wide open to plant. He used about 2 bu. seed/acre.
The rye grew about 1 in. before the ground froze. This spring, the rye grew well. By mid-June, it was ready to harvest. Lock had to select a couple of the few dry days to mow and chop the rye. He added a lactobacillus bacteria culture to the silage during harvest. The bacteria produces lactic acid to improve silage quality.
Immediately after harvesting the rye, Lock fertilized and planted soybeans directly into the rye stubble. No sign of waterhemp or other weeds were evident, he adds.
Lock also considered harvesting the rye as grain to sell as seed or to a distillery. He says he had his eye on a rye whiskey distillery in Iowa but ended up using the rye as silage.
Although Lock planted rye for feed, rye also is considered a good cover crop because it contributes organic matter to the soil, reduces soil erosion and enhances water penetration.
For more information about rye for weed control, visit www.topcropmanager.com.


text:
Buildings Go Green…in the Cloud
March 22, 2013 | By Microsoft blog editor
As I listened to U.S. President Barack Obama's second inaugural address in January, I was struck by the emphasis he placed on addressing global climate change and the need for clean energy. "The path toward sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult," the president said, but he also noted that it will spawn technology that "will power new jobs and new industries."
Those statements had special resonance for me, as I had recently sat in on discussions of one such new technology: a set of next-generation architectural design tools that will use cloud computing to simulate a future building's energy consumption. Researchers at Microsoft Research Connections and the Royal Danish Academy are collaborating with Green Prefab, a small startup in northern Italy, to develop these eco-friendly civil engineering tools.
The technology to perform energy-use simulations—parametric building performance simulations, to use the precise terminology—has been around for a while. But despite its potential for optimizing building designs, these energy studies are rarely performed, because complex parametric analysis models require simulation on a scale that is nowadays only attainable in research laboratories that are equipped with enormous computing power. After all, architectural design firms, most of which are small or medium-sized companies, cannot afford the supercomputers that would reduce the simulation time to a manageable level. Happily, cloud computing has the potential to change this.
Green Prefab is developing a library of prefabricated green building components that can be used to design eco-friendly buildings. During the design phase, architects will be able to access civil engineering services in the cloud to produce energy efficiency reports, conduct in-depth structural analysis, and view photo-realistic images of the building—long before the actual groundbreaking. Green Prefab is collaborating with Microsoft Research Connections to develop some of the first tools in the Windows Azure cloud computing environment. And the Institute of Architectural Technology of the Royal Danish Academy has conducted an experiment that proves the potential of this approach.
The Academy's experiment used Green Prefab's prototype web-based tools and cloud computing to execute parametric energy simulations, enabling an experienced architect to use 220,184 variable combinations for creating an energy optimization of a hypothetical office building. The objective was to show how architects could use cloud computing to do what heretofore had required extremely large-scale computation clusters. In a parallel experiment, the same architect used the business-as-usual approach on the same building, conceiving and testing 50 design options with a standard dual-core PC.
In the end, the cloud-based approach achieved about twice the potential energy savings: 33 percent, compared to only 17 percent for the conventional method. And using the cloud reduced the computing time to a manageable level: running the 220,184 parametric simulations on a standard dual-core PC would have taken 122 days; running those same energy simulations in the cloud took only three days.
Microsoft Research's collaboration with Green Prefab leaves little doubt that new cloud-based tools have the potential to aid in the design of buildings that consume substantially less energy than most buildings today. Scientific breakthroughs like these are helping researchers make great strides worldwide in achieving the overall goals of green building—and puts us one step further down that path toward sustainable energy that President Obama envisioned.
—Dennis Gannon, Director of Cloud Research Strategy, Microsoft Research Connections
Learn More