Sustainable Aging

Japan is the oldest country in the world, and 32000 people are going to turn 100 this year. I see long lives as a good thing. People can share their experience and knowledge with younger generations and help in material ways as well.

The issue with this starts with how we have managed how people get wealth in their latter years.  Historically of course this had meant that seniors get a pension from their company which pays them out of future profits until they die. This is the classic putting your all of your eggs in one basket. Fortunately the future of this is knocking to last forever the old pensions of your our dying as people have pensions die. In the future my of the generation born in the 1950s and 1960s is going to see billions of seniors across the world owning capital in corporations across the world this a going to be at least 1 billion people within a few decades as they are retiring. The difference of this is going to make is first of all the more distribution of wealth because many pensions are not inheritable upon someone's death and you can't really say I have Y amount of money in the pension the way you didn't say I have X amount amount of stock in Google or some other company. The reality is that the richest families of in the world have become rich because they own capital. And the middle class until the 1980s did not have inheritable assets beyond maybe their house, and even in the 2000s the cost of Housing did not go up as much as the stock market, and has not recovered at the same rate since the great recession. All of this means that in 30 years we won't have the same pensions coming up for seniors at the rate we are having today. This is caused because in the 1930s when these programs were made they didn't expect such a huge revolution in healthcare, which is due to things like antibiotics chemotherapy and countless other medical discoveries and inventions over the last 50 years. This has made it so that life expectancy has increased from 59 to 79. Programs were designed with the idea that less than half the population would retire, however today most people will retire yet our Public Safety nets have not evolved to face this massive change.

In the long run assuming that we continue to have technological growth this problem will go away because of this change in retirement plans. The question today is how do we survived with this existing system over the next 30 years as people born between 1920 and 1950 are in retirement. I do not know how we are going to survive as pensions stop being paid out to people. It is going to be a very difficult time for developed countries with such systems. If we chose to front load the pension plans in capital which will grow in value until they die we will be pulling money out of current Investments into the younger generation. This will have gigantic long term costs as we have less money for education or be pulling money out of the economy today for people who are not currently working for creating any real value. That is the problem as I see it. It is not that's we cannot afford to pay pension retirees but more that we are pulling money out of current economic growth to support people who have never consulted a financial advisor or Economist in their lives. This reduction in investment is why pensions reduce our GDP growth. At least with modern retirement plans that's money is being used by the private sector to invest in the future which is why it is fundamentally different from pensions and why 401k plans are sustainable while pensions are not.

In most of my posts I and with an uplifting note of a solution to the problem. The solution has been found and it is that retirement is now based on capital, but in this case I do not know how we can take care of the promises made by my great great great grandparents generation without massive costs to my generation and my children and grandchildren's generations. The private sector already solve the problem as best as is possible today (as I see it) without breaking the promise and leaving seniors out on the street without what they were promised by their grandparents.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/32000-people-in-japan-turned-100-this-year-and-the-economy-cant-keep-up-a7315001.html?cmpid=facebook-post

How Social Security Works

Social Security is lauded by liberals across America as a great accomplishment, and a signature accomplishment of the American social safety net. It has become a third rail of American Politics, where any attempt to change it gets the AARP and other senior advocacy groups railing against it as betraying the working class and then their members kick out the politicians who propose changes which keeps conservatives from attacking it and others from criticizing its flaws. Since turnout among young people is routinely low and senior usually vote in large numbers this protects the program from any changes that would benefit younger people or the nation as a whole.

I am a progressive, I want to have a public option at a bare minimum for health care, ideally expand the number of people who can enroll in Medicare and Medicaid, allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, and increase equality in access across states. I want to see an investment in education for all students and help bridge the rich/poor funding divide in our schools which is reflected in resources. Creationism should NEVER be taught in science classrooms. I use and respect the science method and its findings, and change my views to fit its findings. I want to build a massive increase to inner-city mass transit and inter-city mass transit to reduce our reliance on cars and make our cities more liveable. I believe inner-city mass transit should be free to the rider. We need to have programs to help the homeless become housed and stop incarcerating drug users and the mentally ill.

I also want to kill Social Security Old Age Insurance. Yes, that's right. I want to kill OASI and replace it with a basic minimum income for people of all ages. First of all, here are the reasons why I want to kill OASI.

The biggest reason I want a radical reform to Social Security is because OASI always gives less than 100% back for the contributions people make. For the poorest Americans they receive 90 cents on the dollar for Social Security contributions up to $856 a week ($21.40/hour or $42800 per year) and then it goes down from there. These earnings are so low that putting a worker's social security benefits into bonds would yield more money. SSA and proof

I would like to have a universal basic income replace OASI. For those people who have paid into Social Security we would still get the benefits we have bought into, but for workers younger than me they would never pay into the fund. In 2015 the fund stood at $2.857 trillion dollars. At the same time OASI cost $740 billion for the year. The first issue is the investments of Social Security are not getting a good return on their investment, and we should allow the Social Security Administration to seek out any investment they deem appropriate so that we can get a better return on our investment. We only got a 0.9% return on the Investments the SSA has been able to make. If they bought longer-yield bonds from the Treasury we could get a much better return for our money and it could be enough to make the program self-sufficient at this point. The American people lost 30 billion dollars in Social Security Trust money last year because of this decision. Over a long period of time the difference of how much money the trust fund should have has become very large. With an aging population and hundreds of millions of people betting on Social Security being there for them when they retire this has become a very big issue where the Trust Fund is barely making any more money compared to the 1980s and 1990s which has made it stagnate in comparison to the amount it should be making today. history

So, if I had my druthers, I would have Americans stop paying OASI taxes, allow the trust fund to be invested freely by the Administration so that OASI can be paid out of the interest its massive reserves make every year. People who currently are owed Social Security benefits will be paid out of the interest which will be enough to cover the difference. Disability and SSI will not be changed.

The replacement of Social Security OASI will then be a Universal Basic Income. This will be a direct stimulus to poor economies across the country. People can use this money in any way they want. I would give every American $5000 when they file their taxes as their UBI every year. The payments will be given to the person as cash, and they can do whatever they want with it.

If people stop paying social security taxes and instead invested their UBI into 30 year government bonds averaging 4% annually over the long run will yield a bigger benefit to people than OASI provides. A $5000 basic income will have the benefit of people being able to invest into interest bearing assets which will grow into a far larger sum than Social Security will ever provide in a lifetime. The other benefit to Basic Income is it will help young people get a foothold on life by being able to purchase what they need to get their lives started, versus people who are in their senior years and have had decades to invest for their future. I would rather get people started on a good foot than step in at the last moment. Another advantage is if someone dies soon after retiring than the money that they have paid into Social Security will not be recovered by their families, while having assets helps families accumulate wealth. If more families had access to that then we could see less inequality. It also will not matter as much how much money your family has because young people will have the funds they need to start life on a good foot.

The total cost for my Basic Income would be $1.5 trillion, which would and in part replace less efficient programs. We spent $1.3 trillion on pensions this year, and most pensions do not perform as well as a strong index fund, and many cannot be inherited which is essentially stealing from poor and middle class families. I would rather spend money on getting everyone on a good foot to the point where people can take care of their own retirement which then will be inheritable and not transferred back to the rich. Most people I know who have financial stability have no formal training in economics. These plans are accessible if people are willing to look and have basic math skills.

One final note on my counter proposal is that the $5000 per person Basic Income would go to adults in cash to their bank account (or cash if they are dinosaurs) and it is theirs to use as they want. However, for minors half of their money will go to their legal guardians, and half of it will go into their trust fund. It will receive interest over time like how I want to change the OASI trust fund, and when they turn 18 they will receive the sum in the way they choose. This money would come out to be around $50,000 if it didn't collect interest, but if it collects 2% interest will be around $62,000 and $75,000 at 4% interest. This would make a big difference for young adults with less supportive families and make a big impact for people when starting families, particularly for those who would invest what they don't use. Everyone would have the opportunity to start their own business, take a risk, and our economy would grow significantly by the increased spending in poor areas. This positive shock to demand will create the opportunity for new businesses which will create new jobs and a better economy for everyone.

The funding for the basic income will come by treating capital gains as regular income. I have already written about that here. This will be an overall better safety net for American from which everyone will ultimately benefit.

Priorities: Education and Social Security

In the United States we have made unusual decisions in what we have funded. We do not fund preschool for all, yet we fund planes which don't fly and the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't want. We do not fund free annual check ups, but we do fund us spending money on chapels on military bases, which should be left to the religious organizations to bear the cost. What can and cannot be considered pork is always going to be up for debate (is protecting a local environment for a few hundred thousand dollars pork? Is making easier access to public scientific information bad for America?) even though some like the two I list here are likely to benefit society, determining whether that is true can become complicated.

However, when it comes to one of the biggest issues in America's budget perhaps no bigger one is who the government gives handouts. The Federal Government redistributed $850 billion ($2700 per person), $705 billion went to the elderly ($2238 per capita), and $144 billion went to disabled people ($457 per capita). This is also one of the most re-distributive programs in America since people get a larger percentage of the amount they put in at lower income levels.

While it is re-distributive the bigger issue is everyone pays in more than the amount of money they get out of social security. Compared to investing in assets this is clearly a worse plan than if people were to invest their money in a diversified index fund. According to Politifact, the average couple will pay in $722,000 in taxes to Social Security and get back $966,000 in benefits, for a return of about 33%. On the other hand, someone who deposited $4000 a year, increasing at 1% a year (even at an income of $40,000, this is reasonable if not on the low side if you have an employer matching Roth 401k program) starting today for the next 40 years and got the average rate of return on capital (which is 8% based on the last 40 years of the S&P 500) would retire with $1.2 million saved on a $201,500 deposit for a 600% return on investment. Here is my work. Even assuming in Compared to an index fund which performs at market rate Social Security does not come close to comparing. If people invested wisely Social Security Old Age Insurance would be completely pointless, even for people near the poverty line.

The bigger issue with this is what we do not fund which is education. Education is the lifeblood of the American economy. If people are not educated it doesn't matter how many computers we have because people won't know how to use them. Education is so important that when it is put into the Solow-Swan growth model it almost completely explains economic differences between countries. If countries are to grow they need both access to capital and education, meaning high quality education is one of the most important issues to economics. Despite this, the gap in educational opportunity in the United States is extremely wide. Schools start with their funding from their local communities which are extremely unequal in terms of resources to start with and the amount which state governments equalize the inequality varies significantly state to state. Students end up at the mercy of their state governments in how much help the state provides to fix the inequality. The Federal government does little to help equalize this inequality in funding available to children (to no fault of the children) despite the amount it would cost would not be a lot. There are currently 50.1 million students in the United States in K-12. If the Federal government were to give an average of $3000 per student to help equalize the inequality between students (which could be used to get extra training for teachers, new computers, whatever they need) this would only cost us $150 billion, which would be only 25% of what we spend on military and 3.8% of the budget. Even $6000 per student would be only half of what we currently spend on military and 7.6% of the budget, assuming that spending comes from other programs. The per capita cost would also be only $476 or $922 per person, which of course would be paid more by the rich than the poor. We can afford this, in fact, we can't afford not to prepare our next generation for the technology of the future. The economic impact of an educated population is far larger than the cost of that education. If I spend $36000 on a student over 12 years and end up boosting her salary from $30000 a year to $60,000 per year it is easy to see what an impact this would have on the economy as a whole.

So, should we get rid of Social Security to pay for better education for young Americans? I'm not sure this is really a choice we have to make. One option we could do is eliminate the cap on Social Security income, fix the system so people at get at least the same amount of money than they put in on average, and use the added revenue to invest in America's education in the form of Treasury Bonds, which is what we already do with Social Security's $2 trillion surplus (and counting). This would guarantee Social Security will essentially never run out of money and provide education to those who desperately need it. Combined with the rest of my tax code this will mean that many people will have credits in Social Security but not end up paying taxes under such a system. This will help protect people, because if your parents don't end up with enough when they retire it will be the children and grandchildren who pay without a program Social Security, and it helps directly redistribute money to the people who need it. Ultimately, the choice between Social Security and education is a false dilemma as long as we are willing to tweak the Social Security program. This is possible, and this is what we must do.

The Real Social Security Crisis

I just figured out why Social Security is in a crisis. There is a crisis, but it is not a governmental crisis, a senior crisis, or any of the other things that would concern the average American. Whether there is a crisis depends on your point of view. The crisis is that Social Security reduces the interest rate that the US Government pays on bonds.

When you look at who owns the national debt, Social Security is the second largest owner at just over $2.7 trillion, or about 1/8 of all debt the government owes. The second largest holder is the Federal Reserve at $1.66 trillion currently. Social Security has run a surplus for over 30 years now, and that surplus is reinvested in government bonds which over a long time has added up to a large surplus.

By providing the government easy money to cover the deficit we have run since the Bush tax cuts in 2001 (before which we had 4 years of a growing surplus) it diminishes the interest rate. Here is a chart I made demonstrating a constant demand rate, but a diminished supply, the simplest of economics graphs:

Basically, by having social security run a surplus year after year, which I have already blogged about, the US government pays less on the debt which means that we have easy access to a large amount of credit annually. This is good for the tax-paying American.

However, there are some people who don't benefit from such an arrangement, which is every Amrican who borrows more in bonds than he/she pays in taxes. Mostly finance people who work at banks who get easy money from the US government by selling bonds, at almost no risk. The money that they get from the government comes from taxes and future bonds. If the government was to run a surplus the government would not need to sell bonds and the interest rate would collapse because the supply would be 0, which would force banks to invest in other ways. Since the government routinely runs a deficit, there is always a need for bonds to be sold in order to cover expenses, so bonds will pay people money so the government can continue providing services that Americans rely on. If the government was to balance the budget or run a surplus this easy money would be gone.

By eliminating social security, as some Republicans want to do, or by reducing the tax rate and payments little by little until nothing is left, the government will lose this revenue that diminishes interest rates and income taxes beyond the level they would be otherwise. If Social Security was eliminated we would see that the interest rate the government pays on bonds would rise because they would need to sell more bonds to the private market in order to raise enough revenue, and the banks that buy large amounts of bonds will make more easy money.

If we eliminated the Federal Reserve as some Libertarians want to do, the government would lose the other major holder of American debt which further decreases interest rates. A lot of Tea Party Republicans claim how it is "monetizing the debt" which they say is a bad thing. While I agree that debt shouldn't be used in all times I recognize as a Keynesian that during recessions it is worth taking on debt to get the demand curve up to where it was to end the recession. But I do understand that if too much money is printed beyond the demand for it you could create runaway inflation which looking at a number of countries where inflation is out of hand is clearly bad for the economy. The people who would have the most to gain out of eliminating the Federal Reserve would be the people who would benefit from controlling monetary policy directly. I don't usually read CNBC, but they wrote a really good article on how creating a central bank under the executive or legislative branches would create endless problems of politics here that I don't feel like I need to duplicate. The system we have now is the best we are going to have in terms of monetary policy. Their leaders are appointed by Congress and are able to make quick decisions without needing constant political debate within their mandate. In other words, between the money it provides to reduce interest rates on American bonds and stabilization, ending the Federal Reserve would be a very bad idea.

Source on who owns the debt: http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

Social Security Surplus by Year

Obama's Social Security proposal's flaws, with myths

In light of President Obama's announcement that he will use a "chained-CPI" for social security benefits means he is using the same sort of scare tactics the Republicans have used for the past 30 years, and puts him to the right of Ronald Reagan in economics, from the Keynesian camp to the voodoo laissez-faire Chicago School of Psuedoeconomics.

First of all, there are multiple consumer price indexes. Wikipedia lists 4 different indexes, one of which Social Security uses. Social Security uses the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) to calculate the cost of living adjustment for social security benefits. The CPI-W is a very good measure, and it is defined here:

Obama's Chained CPI is a real measure, and Investopedia shows how it is a wildly different measure which assumes that people will use less expensive products all the time, which presents a few problems. First of all, since Medicare doesn't pay for all Senior health expenses (like nursing homes) they have a lot of medical expenses that they cannot get cheaper for a different price, and comes out of their paycheck. They cannot get a cheaper product and the Chained-CPI is a bad measure for determining that group's cost of living. Second, it is a real dilution and not very useful, because it is never an accurate adjustment because people don't always buy the least expensive thing, either for moral reasons (like how I never shop at Wal-Mart given a choice) or personal choice. (something made by Apple as opposed to another product) Third, it purposefully dilutes the consumer price index by not accurately representing the increase of price of the items in question, which shows how it should be abandoned. CPI-W is a good measurement which calculates inflation based on over 8,000 items, which makes an accurate measure which doesn't allow any one item to throw off the COLA for Social Security which insures that social security payments will be adjusted accurately.

There is no reason to change the payments that Social Security makes every year, it continues to run a surplus and if Obama's plan passes seniors will find that their payments will drop considerably, which will hurt the economy.

First you attack the seniors, then you attack the students, and nobody screams

I just read a summary from CPB on the President's budget for education, and he is going to set student interest rates to the market rate. This is bad for several reasons:

1. Sallie Mae is government corporation, and whatever money they make is extra. They don't need higher interest, and making lower interest is a good idea.
2. Tuition has risen so much at state schools over the past few years that college is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The least the government can do is decrease the interest rate which will save middle class families millions of dollars, but putting the rate at such a risk is a terrible idea.
3. The only motivation I can see to tying Sallie Mae interest rates to the market rate is that it will now be easier for large banks to steal a significantly larger share of the student loan market, by offering "discounts" which people will flock to. If everyone uses private banks than it will make it easy for Republicans (or as seems more and more likely, Democrats) to attack and dismantle Sallie Mae.
4. Eliminating Sallie Mae (which currently gives decent interest rates) and forcing people to go to banks which might then raise their rates for students will give a lot of free money to the big banks that practically own our government.

The Democrats ran last year on a platform to defend the middle class, it was practically the theme of their national convention. "Trust us, we are the defenders of social security, the givers of Medicare and affordable education" yet the past week has seen the Democrats leading the attacks on both education and Social Security.

If there ever was an appropriate time for a third party that represents the interests of average Americans to appear, the time is now.

BEDA 2013 post number 10!

Social Security, the imaginary crisis.

I am offended that President Obama is attempting to cut Social Security benefits by changing the way that inflation is calculated. I volunteered for my local representative's campaign (Democrat), supported my new governor (another Democrat), and have followed the President like every other political junkie. He got my vote last year, and right now I think I should have voted for the Green Party.

The numbers for Social Security don't match the rhetoric of the Republicans, or now the Democrats. Social Security has run a surplus every year that it has been in place and if the cap for social security income was raised and we made it a national priority to get more Americans to work (the percentage of Americans actually working is now less than at any point since the 1940s) which will strengthen our economy, social security, shrink the deficit, and many other things that need to happen. The Democrats are falling into the corporatists trap now. Thinking back over my knowledge of American history, the last time the Democrats passed a massive bill that created real reform that made our country better was in 1968, when my parents weren't even in school yet, which was the Civil Rights Act. Every bill the Democrats have pushed for since then has been weakened before it hits the floor hoping that the Republicans will vote for it "as is" (haha) after which the Republicans dilute the bill even more, slash taxes, slash spending (except our massive corporate income tax breaks for large corporations) and our country is the worse for it.

I have a real historical example for why governments need to boost employment in recessions. When President Franklin Roosevelt was President the economy improved from 1933 to 1937, when the economy shrank, and than increased after his second New Deal came into place. In 1937 the President and Democrats decided to focus on the deficit, after which the economy took a short tumble, until President Roosevelt got his second New Deal in place which helped the economy grow until it became a war economy. Once the changes in his reforms took hold which took some time, unemployment dropped before World War II even began. Source

Obama should not attack social security by trying to fix what isn't broken, he is doing what President Franklin Roosevelt did right now by abandoning his base in 1937 afterwhich the economy will suffer if we take that money out of senior's pockets and increase Social Security's surplus  which is bad because that money won't be in the economy helping people. When and if social security runs a deficit, the first thing is it has over $2 trillion worth of treasury bonds to cash out, so if it ran a small deficit it wouldn't be a problem for a long time.

If the government chooses to increase revenue as opposed to tap into the vast reserve of cash that has accumulated over 70+ years that is reserved for Social Security it could last for a while without changing anything (it is a complicated analysis because it is dependent on state of unemployment, wages, distribution of wealth, etc.) which wouldn't mean immediate doom, and there have been times in past where Social Security ran a deficit from 1975-1981 and nothing terrible happened. The easiest way to increase the amount of money Social Security makes would be to increase the cap that taxes are paid on, which could cover the deficit given our current distribution of income for a very long time. The alternative is to present more incentives for businesses to hire people which would reduce unemployment payments from the government and increase social security payments to the government. Given our unemployment crisis right now as a country this is my preferred approach, and that it would be sustainable assuming nothing drastic changes (like a stock market run which creates layoffs followed by a depressed economy like happened in 1929 and 2008).

Blog Every Day April 2013 post number 9

Tearing us apart from the inside

Anarchists, might sometimes sound amusing at what they say, but the system of government is the scariest of all the systems. Of 195 countries in the world 1 has what could be considered an anarchistic form, and that would be Somalia. Every other nation has the government involved in many things, infrastructure, education, public utilities, public goods, and other things that directly help the People. They currently have been eliminating funding for programs that go directly to the people, education is getting the axed with the saying of "budget" all the while people's incomes are being sucked up by health care more than anywhere else in the world (World Health Organization) and places where actual waste happen are not being targeted. We spend more money on military than any other nation except Israel (which is understandably spending a lot being in a region in complete turmoil and instability) while we are in the safest part of the world. This goes back to my previous previous post "Of, By, and For the Rich" where the rich can buy these "fiscally conservative" tea party members to get billions of tax payer dollars sent to the politically powerful.

But what actually disturbs me about this is that they do not focus a lot of energy into making government more efficient. Every American should look at the US Immigration system which is I hope the most convolved part of the law. Also, why does the tax code have to be 16000 pages long? That seems bloated and if it were simplified by removing the lobbyists' sections the government would not have a deficit and everyone's taxes could go down, stimulating the economy, and decreasing the amount of bookkeeping necessary to keep the government running. If they really were proponents of small government they would have this on their platform. They don't which tells me that this isn't what they are concerned about. They then must be the lobbyists' best friend.

One idea I have is that Social Security should not be mandatory. Many people do not want the paychecks. If they do not want the help they should not be forced to have it. It should be a voluntary basis though because some seniors live on social security paychecks and they keep them from being a burden on their families. Those seniors' families benefit greatly by the paychecks for their years of work and the seniors live better lives.

Also, on welfare, there is a lot of waste in the system. Many people get their welfare checks and spend it on things that should not be covered, such as big luxuries, cigarettes, drugs, and other things that should not be covered. Welfare should be designed to give people enough money to live when they are down on their luck so that they can recuperate from an injury, or some other condition. Welfare should be designed so they can buy things that they need and other things that give them the information they need to stay on top of the news. Things like food, newspapers, internet, cable, books, toiletries, pet supplies, fuel, basic insurance, and inexpensive electronics so that they can stay on top of current events and developments, but do not buy luxuries that they wouldn't afford otherwise. It should be seen as an intermediate step and they should spend their welfare dollars on a debit card. They should be allowed only $100 of cash from the debit card and an upper limit of the current cost of living so that they cannot overspend or purchase things that are not necessary. This would eliminate the waste that happens saving billions of dollars that are wasted.

Education should not be cut. Education is the one part of government services where I do not see any real waste because, excluding teacher's salaries, every penny goes directly to maintenance and education. It should be the last to be cut because it is where students should learn the skills necessary to succeed in the modern world. Education should be looked at as the greatest investment of them all because through it our economy becomes stable through our future leaders and professionals, no matter what their career, get the jobs they need to keep our country running. It should train students to be active members in society and know how society works, which it has not been designed to do with the emphasis on testing and the removal of High School Civics several decades ago. The reforms have made the curriculum less preparing for what we are going to need as adults with many concepts, like economics, psychology, and political science being removed to dumb down the curriculum. An attitude change is needed here. Children are brought up by our culture to think that school is a chore and not supposed to be fun. It should be more focused on preparing children for being world citizens than passing tests and going to college. The culture of high school sends students to college who then go on to do careers that do not require college education for their entire lives, which forces up the demand curve for college, making those of us whose careers require advanced degrees have to spend more than we should. Many of the "college-bound students" should go to trade schools. Most programmers for instance should go to trade schools because they are prepared for their careers. Once high school prepares people for the responsibilities of citizenship and adulthood, career training would be all that is required for productivity and full societal participation. This would save society billions of dollars for society and save years of time and tens of thousands of dollars each for many young adults in unnecessary college tuition.
     Also, school districts across the country should get the amount of money that they need to have state of the art equipment, up to date textbooks, up to date school buildings, and an environment that tells students that America cares about their futures. Rural school districts have to scrounge for money to replace out of date equipment all the time while rich school districts get their computers replaced all the time. Every school district should have the same high standard of education that is appropriate for the richest nation in the world. China is still a long ways behind us in GDP.

What they are doing is eliminating the very programs that allow the people who are not rich to not go bankrupt, the same programs that raised the United States from an agrarian nation to a first-world industrialized superpower are being put first for cutting. These things are so ingrained in society that many do not realize the impact these have on our society today. This makes the number of lobbyists fighting for them small, while the corporate interests in the military-industrial complex are very interested at more arms sales, because they get richer.

This would look like corruption but it also shows a purposeful lack of care for what happens in the future and a hatred for government. Some civilizations fall from invaders and some fall from revolution. Others fall from internal vandalism to society's structure. They are destroying American's acts of citizenship through a massive propaganda machine spreading fear through lies, i.e. the so-called death panels. By destroying all of the things that our country is built on they are effectively destroying our country by bringing our society from the level we share with Western Europe to the only country on the face of the planet that does not provide any services for its citizens, Somalia. This is treason and must be stopped.