"What the advocates of the reserve program fail to see is that the principle of full reserves, indispensable to private insurance, is not only inapplicable to social insurance programs established by the government but that, reserves or no reserves, such governmental programs can never escape being on a 'pay as you go' basis.
As we near a government financing crisis (two, actually, but the larger one quite overshadows the smaller one), I am reminded of a criticism during the Reagan years. Republicans used to attack "the Democrats' tax and spend policies," but they only substituted their own "borrow and spend" policies. For their wealthy backers, this has the great advantage of further enriching those rentiers rather than removing a small portion of their sometimes vast wealth for the betterment of the hoi polloi.
"So the rentier class and our global creditors get theirs while, for the rest of us, it’s a long way down. I guess if you’re a reactionary, there’s not much not to like in that: it is, for all intents and purposes, their prime, unstated policy plank."
It's not clear that prioritization of payments is even feasible. Treasury makes millions of payments. Trying to sort them out is a gargantuan task for which they are not prepared. That's what Jamie Galbraith says, at any rate.
Treasury wants to be unable to prioritize payments. Prioritization of payments is technologically feasible, but it is an enormous IT project, with large up-front costs and relatively slow development. Therefore, Treasury is incapable of prioritizing payments on the time scale of a Republican snit. Which is just the way Treasury likes it.
So then, we were mislead back when Reagan and O’Neil raised SS rates and set up the trust fund?
Yes and no. The impact of increased revenue was political, not financial. It bolstered the politics of maintaining benefits.
As we near a government financing crisis (two, actually, but the larger one quite overshadows the smaller one), I am reminded of a criticism during the Reagan years. Republicans used to attack "the Democrats' tax and spend policies," but they only substituted their own "borrow and spend" policies. For their wealthy backers, this has the great advantage of further enriching those rentiers rather than removing a small portion of their sometimes vast wealth for the betterment of the hoi polloi.
Quoting a reader of Talking Points Memo's "What Defaulting On Our Debt Would Actually Look Like" (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/debt-default-house-republican), commenting on the discussions of "prioritization":
"So the rentier class and our global creditors get theirs while, for the rest of us, it’s a long way down. I guess if you’re a reactionary, there’s not much not to like in that: it is, for all intents and purposes, their prime, unstated policy plank."
It's not clear that prioritization of payments is even feasible. Treasury makes millions of payments. Trying to sort them out is a gargantuan task for which they are not prepared. That's what Jamie Galbraith says, at any rate.
Treasury wants to be unable to prioritize payments. Prioritization of payments is technologically feasible, but it is an enormous IT project, with large up-front costs and relatively slow development. Therefore, Treasury is incapable of prioritizing payments on the time scale of a Republican snit. Which is just the way Treasury likes it.