WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Treasury on Tuesday started dipping into federal pension funds in order to give the Obama administration more credit to pay government bills. “I will be unable to invest fully” the federal employees retirement system fund beginning Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter to Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on Wednesday on the Obama administration’s request to raise the country’s legal debt limit to $16.394 trillion. However, unless the lower chamber and the Senate are able to shore up enough votes to block the White House request, the debt limit will be increased by $1.2 trillion next Friday and a repeat of last year’s debt ceiling debacle will be averted. The Treasury Department has already tapped another seldom-used fund in order to allow the government to continue borrowing without running afoul of the country’s laws.

I guess the real story is Obama will raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, with nary a peep from anyone.



  1. LibertyLover says:

    Peep, peep!

  2. Roasted Peanuts says:

    Ron Paul 2012!

    Paul leaves campaign trail to vote on debt ceiling – http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/17/4193976/paul-state-rights-to-trump-federal.html

  3. Phydeau says:

    As long as senators and congressmen are elected because they “bring home the bacon”, America will continue to spiral downward.

    My congressman works hard for his district, your congressman is an irresponsible spendthrift!

    • msbpodcast says:

      The problem is systemic and the system is electioneering.

      Get rid of elections and replace them with selection and the issue disappears, as does all the lobbying, favor buying and selling, insider trading and the assorted perfidy that the system enables.

      Wanna scare a politician?

      Tell him “Democracy is coming to the USA*”

      The free portion is over. Keep your ams and legs inside until this ride has come to a full and complete stop.

      *) Apologies to Leonard Cohen.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Well, since representatives are only there to represent those from their districts, it’s not unreasonable to expect the types of behavior we see.

      The ultimate problem is that Keynesian economics, however misunderstood it may have been, opened the flood gates for the politically expedient push for perpetual deficit spending in both good times and bad.

  4. Phydeau says:

    And of course, the ones getting the most out of the public treasury are the rich people and corporations — the ones with the fancy lobbyists.

  5. msbpodcast says:

    Now they’re going to legalize pot as a source of tax revenue because its the only way left to raise money that will avoid the massive shit storm that would come as the civil service would become very surly when retirement rolls around.

    Obama’d better get his hand out of that till or be prepared for it to be chopped off.

    • spsffan says:

      Civil service is already surly. It’s about time that they learned how it feels to have the funds you put away for retirement disappear like the rest of have. Ha ha!

  6. Rick says:

    Last time I looked, the Executive branch was not in charge of the money, Congress is. Congress originally represented the will of the people, though now it represents the interests of its funders, and those funders are 90% composed of the 1%. So who’s exactly the beneficiary of the increased debt limit? In all such issues, follow the money, not the name-calling.

    • dusanmal says:

      Who started dipping into retirement funds – Congress (who has rights to do so) or Executive branch/Treasury (who has NO rights but is doing it anyway in power grab lasting as long as Obama Administration)?
      Problem is Progressivism. Part of it is power-grab. Part of it is spending as drunken sailors to remain in power.
      As for Congress-critters – which was the strongest block fighting further spending and debt? Not Democrats (who are now almost 100% Progressives). Not establishment Republicans (who are majority Progressives). Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010. The only group who has in its charter NOT to be re-elected first but not to compromise on fundamentals. I remember many crying about this uncompromising stand, the only stand in the interest of The People. Debt limit should never been raised in first place.

  7. Richard says:

    I suppose when they default on the pension system, they will use the old bromide that it is the Union’s fault.

  8. Dave says:

    Stop comparing the idiots in Congress to Drunken Sailors.

    My friends and I were drunken sailors in our younger days and when we ran out of money, we stopped spending.

  9. Reagan says:

    When did Republicans start worrying about pensions?

  10. DrWally says:

    Ok, time for the stop-the-spending crowd to step up and tell us just what spending they would cut. Don’t start the “waste-and-fraud” nonsense, nothing significant there (in terms of trillion dollar cuts). It is also popular to cry “welfare”, but there isn’t much there either. Nothing much in foreign aid (and the wingers won’t let you cut the billions going to Israel anyway), nor much else in domestic spending — assuming things like food inspection, immigration and such are still needed. I guess if dirty air and poisoned water are OK, then you could kill the EPA, although that doesn’t get you trillions.

    So what’s left: Medicare/Medicaid (that won’t sit too well with the “keep-your-government-hands-off-my-medicare” tea-party crowd) and Defense (good luck with the “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran folks).
    (Social Security has it’s own problems, but right now it IS NOT hitting the Federal Budget — that trust fund thing, you know — so you can’t use cuts there to help balance the budget.)

    I am so sick of the “cut spending!” chant, with absolutely NO specifics of what to cut and how, much less a path to consensus that will get lots of people on board. Simpson-Bowles was a good start, but you see how many folks got behind that. Besides, any realistic solution involves decreased spending AND increased revenue (yeah, raising taxes). The people riding the Goofy Grover “no taxes!” pogo-stick have their hands over their ears and won’t acknowledge that last bit.

    By all means, lets have the Republicans jump and block the debt ceiling increase, it worked so well for them before. Check the polls — people HATE Congress. They haven’t quite made the bridge to which party they hate more, but a stunt like that would help….

    • LibertyLover says:

      Eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

      • jpfitz says:

        Hear, hear.
        The Department of homeland could use a haircut also. F’in Janet and her forever hunt.

      • DrWally says:

        Sounds so easy, doesn’t it? Lets look at just one of these: Dept. of the Interior.

        “The Interior Department’s subagencies include the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Service.

        The agency has a $15.8 billion budget and manages 500 million acres of federal properties, about one-fifth of the United States. It employs 67,000 people and has 236,000 volunteers working out of 2,400 locations.

        • Provide services and management to 562 federally recognized Indian tribes.

        • Oversee mining, grazing, energy exploitation and other commercial enterprises on public lands.

        • Provide recreational access and opportunities for the public.

        • Conserve and protect fish and wildlife.”

        So you want to shut down the national parks, fire the rangers, sell off the land to be exploited by whoever and tell the Native Americans “Ummm, you are on your own!”. All the “huntin’ and fishin'” folk are gonna be peeved as well.

        Since you can’t be planning to turn all this over to the states (that just moves the cost around), maybe you plan to “privatize” it, since those guys would have the best interests of the American People as their guiding motive. And you are going to somehow magically do this in short order, dump it all and save 15 billion — the cost of 3 or 4 new fighter jets.

        Gee, the details SUCK, don’t they? Thought this through, have you? Guess not…

        • soundwash says:

          I bet ya the Indians would be pretty friggin happy in the long run to finally be left alone and “back on their own” ;p

          -s

          • DrWally says:

            Ask New Mexico if they would like to have the Reservations revert to ordinary state property and pick up the tab for administration, health, education, etc.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Thought it through quite thoroughly. You had the answer but you can’t seem to grasp the concept. Obviously you haven’t thought it through sufficiently enough.

    • Thomas says:

      Ok, time for the stop-the-spending crowd to step up and tell us just what spending they would cut.

      The question is framed wrong. The right question is “what are you willing to give up to keep the current spending and have a balanced budget?” It isn’t about whether we *should* spend on project x, y or z. It’s about having a finite set of financial resources and spending no more than that. Don’t spend if you don’t have the money.

      The problem is that we’ve blown way past the balanced budget for over 50 years and now people are wondering why would cut spending on anything.

      I am so sick of the “cut spending!” chant, with absolutely NO specifics of what to cut and how, much less a path to consensus that will get lots of people on board.

      The problem with this thinking is that it completely ignores the fact that we were already spending beyond our means before BO got in office and he took our overspending to stratospheric levels. We are spending 115% of revenue **every year**. That isn’t sustainable.

      So, here’s a better question: what spending would you keep if the government was forced not to spend more than revenue?

      • DrWally says:

        Ah, an advocate of “zero base” budgeting! — start with zero then add things in until you run out of money. Great idea, but in practice one faction argues that “x” must go in unchanged and another won’t allow that. It ends up being the same problem.

        Another approach is cascade budgeting: every large functional area is told to come up with 20% in cuts and they cascade that process down through their organization. That fails when turf wars break out and gridlock ensues. (I have been though corporate quests like both of these. Painful)

        However no one wants to look at the obvious — there is simply too little revenue. Clinton’s budget surplus promptly got spent with the Bush tax cuts. When the recession hit and revenues shrank, of course the deficit skyrocketed. Here you go Mr. Obama, good luck with this mess.

        Increase revenue: surtax the very wealthy, tax capital gains as ordinary income (why is it special?), close egregious loopholes like oil and gas subsidies. Re-regulate.

        • Thomas says:

          > Ah, an advocate of “zero base” budgeting!

          There, I fixed that for you. It’s not “zero based” budgeting; it’s just budgeting. Real budgeting means spending no more than you make and that involves actually choosing where to spend and not spend. There is no budgeting if you simply continue to spend as if you make twice as much as you actually do. It isn’t that you start with zero. You start with what you make and spend no more than that. It is never about whether you should spend money on some project or other, it’s all about what you are willing to give up.

          > Great idea, but in practice one faction argues
          > that “x” must go in unchanged and another
          > won’t allow that. It ends up being the same problem.

          As long as combined spending between both factions is mandated by law to be less than revenue, then let the factions argue it out all they want as far as I’m concerned. At the end of the day, someone has to give or the budget is rejected.

          > However no one wants to look at the
          > obvious — there is simply too little revenue.

          “Yeah, I bought five flat screen TVs but the problem is that there is too little revenue”. Yes, increasing revenue would help but it won’t solve the problem by a long shot. Increasing taxes on the upper .01% (which I think at this stage is necessary) would only bring in an estimated $400 B. We spend about 1/2 that each year on interest alone. The deficit is 1500 B. So, yes it will help, but the root issue is that we’re spending more than we make and no one is willing to sacrifice spending. At some point, you must accept that you simply do not have the money to continue spending.

          > Clinton’s budget surplus promptly got spent with the Bush tax cuts.

          First, there never was a Clinton budget surplus. The “Clinton surplus” is a myth. Clinton robbed SS to pay down the public debt. Proponents of the Clinton surplus only ever look at the public debt and not the intergovernmental debt. In no fiscal year of Clinton’s administration was total spending less than total revenue. The last time that happened, Eisenhower was in office. Second, we were already heading into a recession near the end of Clinton’s term (dotcom bust anyone?). Whether the Bush tax cuts softened the blow is open for debate, however, most statistics that talk about the “lost” revenue due to the Bush tax cuts ignore that we were in a recession and had been bombed and that the tax cuts actually helped. Now, the question is whether they Bush tax cuts went too far or were maintained too long. Both are reasonable arguments to be made.

          > Here you go Mr. Obama, good luck with this mess.

          Who promptly turned around and made Bush’s deficit spending look like child’s play. Obama overspent more in the first three years than Bush did in his eight years in office. The porkulus bill alone was nearly the equivalent value of both the Afghanistan and the Iraq war combined across all years. When Obama had a majority in both houses, he could have repealed the tax cuts then. He could have decided to be fiscally responsible then. He did neither.

    • Mextli: ABO says:

      What do you do when you can no longer increase revenue and spending continues to increase or do you think that’s not possible?

      ALL elected politicians have one goal, staying in office and lining their pockets. None of them give a crap about the Country or the “Working Man”.

  11. Kevin says:

    How soon till we hear that the current pension system is unsustainable and must be changed? There is not enough money in the system to cover future retirees, we must raise the retirement age and employees must contribute more.

  12. Anonymous says:

    This is like that dumb blonde joke where the bank calls the dumb blonde and tells her that she’s overdrawn on her checking account. The dumb blonde replies,” I can’t be over drawn cause I still have checks!”

    Our government is like that dumb blonde!

  13. John S says:

    I guess this is still all Bush’s fault right? Of course the Liberals will always blame the GOP for their spending. But I blame the GOP for giving the Liberals an excuse.

  14. jpfitz says:

    Everyone should admit that OBL accomplished exactly what he said he would. We are tumbling into the abyss, or it’s just some bad dream filled with wild conspiracies.

    What’s another trillion more? It’s insanity, that’s what. This nation will never climb out from under that much debt with Obama or the Ken doll. Sorry, it’s not gonna happen, f”in depressing.

    Hey, why not ask the FED to just print more dollars! peep, peep, peep, peep!

  15. LibertyLover says:

    The debt is gonna be raised. Congress abdicated the authority to control the limit in last year’s budget, giving Obama the authority to do it on his own.

    The only way it will NOT get raised is if both houses pass a resolution saying he shouldn’t (fat chance of that happening) OR should it pass, 2/3 of both houses overriding his veto of a resolution.

    Pass it on down, please.

  16. deowll says:

    In the private sector the misappropriation of retirement funds would be a crime and the creep would be sent to prison however since he and Holder are on the same team I guess this crime will go unpunished.

  17. NewFormatSux says:

    >Social Security has it’s own problems, but right now it IS NOT hitting the Federal Budget

    Not true. The Social security surplus is shrinking, and in some months it has been gone altogether. This means that the government has to borrow more money every year to make its Social Security and other payments.

    • DrWally says:

      Check your facts. What you wrote is absolutely not true. Can you can give a credible source for your accusation? Anything? Hmmmm…thought not. (For Future Reference: Wishful thinking is no substitute for actual facts. No matter how much you WANT something to be true so it matches your preconceived conclusions, that doesn’t make it so.)

      Specifically, the Social Security Trust Fund — from which SS payments are made — is indeed shrinking, as incoming funds cannot replenish amounts required for current benefits. But the Trust Fund is STILL THERE and making payments and will until sometime like 2035. The Federal Government DOES NOT have to borrow money to make SS payments. They have to borrow lots to pay other bills, but NOT Social Security. Therefore, monkeying around with SS will have NO BENEFIT toward reducing the Federal deficit.

      • Thomas says:

        Technically, not true. If they increased the retirement age and removed the ceiling on contributions, the trust fund would again expand. Given the Federal government’s voodoo accounting, they would count this influx as revenue and thus the (assuming we don’t keep increasing spending), would technically reduce the deficit.

      • LibertyLover says:

        The “Trust Fund” is filled with nothing but government IOUs. It is not flush. It is running on credit — which is rapidly being downgraded.

  18. Glenn E. says:

    Are US Congressmen and Senators pension payments connected to the Government Employee Pension system? Or are they a separate thing? If the former, I say hell yes, loot the muther!

    And even if the latter, it will probably effect Congress’ staff, who do all the work for them, in transferring lobbyists’ proposals into Bills. So hell yes, loot the GEP anyway. Teach them that there are consequences for spending America into a hole. While they get paid to help various corporations do the looting. Only when they start feeling the pinch themselves, will they think to do otherwise.

  19. soundwash says:

    Cutting spending wont make a hill of beans difference. -nor will raising the debt limits, or 700% tax increases on everyone and everything. (if they could get away with it)

    The problem is the Duality of, -and the wholesale corruption and sellout of the entire system of government, (across the planet, no less) -those elected to run it, -and the current debt-based fiat monetary system in use. (along with possibly half the people on the planet)

    Until this obvious fact is broadcast everyday for like, a YEAR until everyone “gets it” -nothing will ever get fixed or resemble any kind of sane, sound, fiscal system. -currently, anyone who even attempts to do this is bombed into submission. (oil and so called “terrorism” has nothing to do with the recent wars -it has always been about monetary “policy” -as a means to wholly control the entire globe)

    Stop finger pointing and bickering over meaningless, petty (and party) issues, unite, and take back control of (yours) and our destiny.

    -sheesh, get a clue already.

    -s

  20. Stephen says:

    Easy solution to this entirely fictional “problem” with the debt ceiling. ELIMINATE IT. There is no need for it. It is a completely arbitrary number, conjured out of thin air by politicians looking for something to argue with each other about. There.

    Now we can stop talking about the retarded debt ceiling and start talking about getting spending under control.

    • JaredTheGeek says:

      Good idea, its not like credit run amok has ever caused any problems.

    • Rick says:

      You can’t ignore the interest on that debt that we have to pay….we have to pay it, its not an option. Right now we are able to pay it off through the strength of our economy, but we won’t be able to do that for much longer.
      Thats why a default will happen and happen FAST, faster than you can make a run to the bank, because all the rich people will have electronically taken their loot out even before you put your key in your car’s ignition to drive to the teller.

  21. gus guts says:

    Everyone gets a government pension. In the private sector it is called Social Security. In the public sector it is called a pension. Most people do not know that government workers do not get Social Security… So lets take their pensions and pay them through social security.. real smart


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 3856 access attempts in the last 7 days.