Independent Caucus

Pelosi's and Democrats' Credibility Taking Another Serious Hit

Any of us with difficult and ongoing jobs - that of mother, for instance, or congressman, or whatever job or career, the challenges to which must be met head-on each day - have days where only by application of the greatest discipline and courage do we not throw up our hands and say, "What am I to do?  This is hopeless.  This will never change."

That's how I felt this morning listening to the beginning of what will be 36 hours of debate in the Congress on a Democrat resolution expressing a lack of confidence and support for the President's troop surge in Iraq.

I felt this way, because the complaints and criticism I heard coming from the Republican members was a mirror image of the complaints I had heard time and again from Democratic members not long ago when they were in the minority.

They complained then, loudly, as the Republicans are complaining today, loudly, both correct, that they have been shut out of an important national debate, and the ability to weigh in with suggestions and alternative solutions on the issue of Iraq and other important issues.

Our Congress is horribly broken, sadly and pathetically broken.

One thing about the Republicans, though, is they never promised the Democrats that they would operate in a bipartisan manner.  They should have, don't get me wrong.  That they didn't is why our legislative branch is broken, because in no democracy where the two dominant parties are split nationally nearly 50/50 should representative government bind and neuter the almost 50% minority from doing its job, and representing its constituents in debate, resolution and law.

But at least the Republicans never promised the Democrats such.  So while wrong, they did not lie.  The Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, are now blatantly and conspicuously lying, and breaking their promise given before the elections of bipartisan government, and giving the Republicans the freedom to introduce legislation and debate bills as a matter of "regular order", meaning the minority is free to introduce amendments, and have them voted upon.

I was a little hard on then newly Speaker Pelosi when I criticized her for supporting Representative Murtha instead of Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader, given that her pre-election credo pledged bipartisan as well as ethical government, and where support for Murtha given the latter seemed inconsistent with his involvement in the ABSCAM scandal some years ago.  I also criticized her for not supporting Jane Harmon as chair of the important Intelligence Committee, acknowledged by everyone as an expert in intelligence matters, but never among Ms. Pelosi's favorites.  I was hard on her because, at the same time, the rest of Ms. Pelosi's pre-election manifesto was laudable and courageous, such as her support for raising the minimum wage, cutting the interest rate on college loans, passing lobbying reform, and so on.  She said she would pass those things in her first 100 hours as Speaker, and she did, to her credit, give or take a few hours.

And while some Republicans complained that the bills comprising "the first 100 hours" were not the subject of regular order, and did not allow Republicans full involvement to offer alternatives and amendments, there was tacit acknowledgment that such was necessary in order to meet the 100-hour deadline.

But now we're past the 100 hours and we're back to regular business.  And one of the earliest matters of regular business now is responding to President Bush's troop surge.  The Rules Committee, with Speaker Pelosi's support, voted in direct conflict with the Speaker's promises for bipartisan government by not permitting Republicans to either offer an alternative resolution nor amendments to the Democrat resolution, and have those amendments voted upon by the full House.

She - is - lying.  And it makes me so sad.  I wanted her to be Speaker.  I believed her.  She is letting me down, and all of us down who believed her criticisms of the Republicans as respected their refusal to allow Democrats to participate in much of the work of Congress when in the minority, who believed her promises of cooperative, bipartisan efforts with Republicans to give us a "new direction" (her words) and leadership in the Congress.

The 100 hours is over.  And our Congress is fixed in debate on the most pressing and important issue of our time, and Speaker Pelosi has shut out the Republicans from offering their solution, and in doing so, blown up representative democracy for the nearly 50% of America those Republicans represent.  And she has done so in a matter of weeks after her pre-election mantra of leading the House in the exact opposite manner should the American people make her Speaker.  It is a travesty, hugely disappointing, and further indication, were further indication needed, that the system is broken, that we can't count on any individual savior to show us how things should be done, that such savior, if there potentially for a time, becomes quickly - in Speaker Pelosi's case, astonishingly quickly - extinguished once in power.

Only Way to Lose Labels Is To Ignore Them

You know, labels are helpful in some areas, where the distinction informs in a concrete way, making possible the correct choice, e.g. fully-synthetic engine oil versus petroleum oil, cotton versus polyester, contains nuts, contains sugar, contains alcohol.

The truth of the matter is, you have a requirement for your car (what kind of oil) or a plan for your laundry (dry it on hot, the kind that damages polyester) and a desire for what to put in your body.  Labels which inform with respect to a real and practical choice are, therefore, helpful; and it's why we use them.

But if the above labels said, "Scientific" instead of "Fully-Synthetic", "Bohemian" instead of "Cotton", "Euell Gibbons" (look it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euell_Gibbons), "Brazil", and "Rum Cake", they would be far less helpful to you.

I will submit that's what labels in the political realm like "liberal" and "conservative" and "left-wing" and "right-wing" do.  And it's why I further submit that you will help yourself and eventually our national political dialogue and decision-making by actively ignoring them - by that I mean turning consciously away from them and calling into question those who use them to characterize and describe others.

All of those terms I just gave which are so familiar to us have become pejoratives for those who use them.  It's legitimized (so far, and if you'll take me up on this idea, not for much longer), non-vulgar, non-ad hominem name-calling.  But it's name calling, make no mistake.

And why are they used?  For the same reason as any other critical name-calling - to dismiss something out of hand by a characterization which seems all-encompassing and inescapable.  And this is why racial name-calling - wop, nigger, kike, and the many, many others - have been so prevalent throughout time, because there is no escaping your own race.  If an entire race can be characterized negatively by a label, then we needn't concern ourselves with any of the particulars regarding that individual, what he or she is doing, supporting, and so on.

People who want their way, and not someone else's way, in the political realm, truly have no shame, whereby they will pursue and hopefully get their way by whatever means which do not cross a perceived line of vulgarity.  Certainly, they are willing to get quite close, like the commercial Harold Ford's opponent ran against him in the Tennessee senate race characterizing him as a playboy, or like the Willie Horton ad of some years ago against MIchael Dukakis.

They get close, because, truly, politics is a realm almost like no other in civil society, where such tactics are quasi-tolerated as "just politics". Well, in getting close, and in order to easily (without having to address specifics) dismiss someone espousing a view they do not agree with, politicians have ever more actively worked to turn "conservative" and "liberal" into pejorative name-calling as an efficient means of discrediting a policy idea, position, or bill, which they do not support, NOT by honestly debating its particulars in a public forum and allowing all of us to be beneficiaries of that debate, but, lazily, so that they don't have to.

While liberals might generally prefer an involved, activist federal government over one less involved, does that mean a given liberal's favored position on a particular bill is an activist position, or that an activist position isn't arguably the best solution for the particular problem at hand, but perhaps not for some other problem, or other problems in general?

But for a conservative to criticize such a position by saying, "So-and-so is a huge liberal, from the far left-wing of his own party.  He's not in step with mainstream America, and this is just another liberal answer which we should not go for and which I do not support....", that, simply, tells us nothing.  It tells us nothing at all about the position, the problem, about how other solutions might  perform better or have better outcomes.

It's not helpful to you, to me, and it's why I'm submitting in this post that you and I begin to actively, consciously, avoid, like a disagreeable person at a party, these characterizations, turn away from them, and those who like to use them and reach for them, and toward those who do not, and who answer or address the question, the issue at hand on the particulars, the pros and cons of the issue, and of the honestly differing approaches.

You will find it hard to find these candidates.  But I will submit, that we will all benefit from that search.  And it will catch on, over time, because of the simple, all-encompassing truth about politicians. What is that?  Well, I am no expert on Indian languages or names, but I remember a film several years ago called "Dances With Wolves".  And in that vein, I'll suggest that a similar tribe might have called politicians, "Wants To Be Re-elected."

In other words, politicians use those characterizations because they believe they "work" with you, i.e. have the desired effect they wish them to have on you.  Once you show clearly, over time, that they "don't work", that's when they'll stop, and not until then, whereby it's clear that a lazy hand-wave towards people and policies will not "work" any longer, and they will need to do better, work harder and explain themselves in detail, the way you or I must any time we promote or criticize a policy or idea at work, in order that they might avoid being called, perhaps, "No Longer Represents Us".

Super-Majority for Adding Debt

The Congress passed paygo, recently.  At least, I believe it passed.  It passed the House, in any case.

Paygo was a rule that was passed and adhered to during the Clinton / Gingrich years, where any revenue cuts (federal tax cuts, fee cuts, etc) had to be offset by an equal amount of spending cuts so that the impact on the national debt was neutral.

I was encouraged by it at the time.  I hadn't in my lifetime seen Congress take any such overt step toward fiscal responsibility, so it was at least interesting and topical then.  More fun, and more interestingly, it worked. During the Clinton years, the national debt, for once in a long time, grew at a decreasing rate.  It still grew, but in steadily decreasing annual increments.  Estimates - granted, pre-dotCom bust and pre-9/11, but with tax rates at a higher level than they are now after the Bush tax cuts - were for annual surpluses for some years.  And it was President Clinton's wish, and Al Gore's campaign promise, to apply the surplus - for once, dear God, and how fun that would have been - towards the principal balance.  Since paying the interest on the debt is an annual budgetary item, applying the budget surplus toward the principal would have, for once, actually turned the graph of our national debt....downward.  Here's the graph, if you're curious:  http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Since then, President Bush and our Congress, who vote on and approve all appropriations, have added (gulp) 3 trillion to the national debt. That's 1 trillion more than the record 2 trillion Ronald Reagan added, though, in Reagan's case his percentage increase was greater (300% to 150%) since the national debt was only 1 trillion when he became president, whereas with George Bush it was around 5.3 trillion.

But does anyone view paygo now with the same level of enthusiasm?  I'm happy for it, but I know I don't.  It seems to me, somehow, now, like the most trifling of public actions the Congress can take, that our government can take, to own up to the fact that it is running us into national bankruptcy.

They really are.  I will say that the problem truly is them, and not us, and this is new for me, as in a representative democracy I have generally maintained that they are us and we are them, that if we don't agree with them, then to vote them out.

Polls for some time now overwhelmingly show that Americans want the government to live within its means, to pay down and eliminate our national debt, to address our trade surplus, which is just another way of dollars leaving our country, like interest on foreign-held debt.

Polls show this, for a long time now.  Ross Perot received almost 20% of the vote on almost exclusively this issue.  For once, the enemy is not us. It is them.  Because we've had lots of elections; we've voted in Democrats; we've voted in Republicans; and none of these presidents and none of these congresses, with the historic (sadly) exception of Clinton / Gingrich did anything but turn a deaf ear towards us, and spend, spend, spend anyway, often while cutting taxes, accellerating further our accumulation of debt.

So the enemy, and here I feel like some retrograde voice from the 1960s, truly is them.  The thing bankrupting each of us, saddling us, our children and their children, against our will, is our representative government.  Another way to word that is, sounding like the 60s again, that the problem is the system.

I say that because we are doing our part.  Americans poll consistently against the entrenched fiscal irresponsibility of our legislative representatives and presidents.  We vote hoping that Ronald Reagan means it when he campaigns on smaller government, when George Bush campaigns on the same, but when both of them - since they are far and away the two most egregious offenders, and the congresses who supported them - act in a 180-degree reversal of those views.

It's not us.  It's not those who voted for Reagan. It was Reagan and the legislatures who voted with him.  It's not those who voted for George W. Bush, at least not the first time.  It's George W. Bush, and the legislatures who voted with him.

Paygo is a rule.  It may actually now have been passed as a bill, as a law.  I'm not sure.  But laws have loopholes, we know, and rules can easily not last, as they didn't last and extend from Clinton to Bush.

The system is broken.  Clearly.  And the system is the set of fundamental rules of American governance - our constitution.  There are some who react nervously to any proposed change in our constitution. This is a bias towards the thought that it's pretty good, pretty close to perfect now, and changing it is more likely to make it worse than better.  I don't believe that at all.  I don't think our founders would have believed that.  They would have wanted super-majorities to change it, as is indeed the case; but they would have recognized that its great strength is as a living document, reflecting over time the American people's prevailing and evolving view of government of, by and for the people.

Simply, and I encourage you to check out the link above and the graph of the national debt which it shows, our past several governments en masse have not reflected our wishes with respect to the debt and deficit spending.  Representative government, as currently provided for in our constitution, on that point, on that issue, clearly is not working, as no government of, by and for the people would have saddle its people with such an enormous commitment of debt, and particularly during a period of relative peacetime!!

Had we fought World Wars III and IV during the last 25 years, and thereby raised our debt from 1 trillion to 8 trillion and rising fast, then perhaps the system would not be broken, because we would have voted for that spending to defend ourselves and the world.  But the utterly broken nature of a representative government that can run up those debts over several presidents and congresses during a time of relative peace and given strong public disapproval for such actions is undeniable.

Under such overwhelming evidence, a constitutional change to correct the problem must be strongly pursued.  And the simple change, the amendment I would offer is this: "No appropriation shall become law where such appropriation shall cause an increase in the national debt but for a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate."

That's paygo - codified.  That's paygo, where now one more branch of the federal government - the federal courts and the Supreme Court - can be brought to bear as a check against any future presidents and legislators who attempt to increase our debt without a super-majority of our representatives approving it.  The super-majority is necessary, because, for instance, World War III might just come, and hopefully not.  But we still need the ability to deficit spend, but only where there is a strong, very strong national consensus, a consensus stronger than the strong consensus currently and for a long time ignored by past presidents and legislators to be fiscally responsible and not deficit spend.

If you approve of that amendment, please comment, and let us know.

Post to Biden '08 on Bravely Addressing our Larger National Issues of Debt, Warming

At present, the candidate I am leaning towards more than any other is Senator Joe Biden.  Some might say that's like rooting for Santa Clara to beat Arizona in the opening round of the NCAAs.  Well, if Santa Clara's prospects for victory depended on its ability to communicate its strategy and win public support, and if Santa Clara were a veteran and proven performer at that very exercise, then likely no one would see Santa Clara as an underdog.

The fact is that we have campaigns to decide who is our next president, and anyone who has heard Senator Biden think and talk knows two things - that he does both things exceptionally well, and that occasionally some loose talk can get him in trouble as it did recently in trying to offer a compliment to Senator Obama which fell flat and generated some controversy.  All that means, though, is he has that aspect of himself to work on and improve upon while he offers to the campaign and to us the benefits of his considerable other strengths and talents.

Ok, I'm not on the payroll, so that's as many panegyrics as I'll throw at Senator Biden for now.  But the remainder of this post is a post I made to his Biden '08 blog site (http://blog.joebiden.com), challenging the Senator, since he is running, to run boldly and bravely, and to talk honestly and courageously about the issues which threaten us like an asteroid moving ever nearer, and which until now a succession of past presidents and congresses have failed not just a little, but egregiously to address and solve through political cowardice and personal greed, elevating in importance their own seat or those of their party membership over us, over the next generation, over their own patriotism, over saving this great country, over putting country ahead of themselves and party.  And here I am reminded of the beautiful simplicity and awesome weight and rectitude of President Kennedy's inaugural quotation:  "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."

On the following very difficult issues, our past presidents and congresses have failed us so completely it is hard to even adequately describe and characterize the debt of failure, and it was the subject of my blog post to Biden '08.  The issues of which I speak are:  (1) our national debt, currently estimated, public and institutional, at 8.3 trillion, and over the 60% (at 68%) GNP threshold the EU expects member nations to remain under to be in good standing, and with an actuarially estimated present-value debt including entitlement commitments of, unbelievably, 46 trillion (see Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/em1004.cfm) and growing, or currently 380% of our 12.2 trillion GNP; (2) global warming, enough said; (3) rules within the economy which organically allow for the gap between the very wealthy and middle class and poor to ever widen as GNP increases instead of keep pace or even shrink by increasing the size of the middle class.

One point before the Biden post.  Many will like to assert that the 38 trillion add-on for entitlements is a red herring, because it hasn't happened yet.  If you worked for, say, an automobile manufacturer, and an outside accounting firm reported that the employee pension fund was currently underfunded to the tune of xyz dollars, say, maybe, 38 trillion dollars, would you be saying it's a red herring because the real-life employees it is intended to pay had yet to retire?

You would not.  You would be screaming long and loud.  So do yourself and your country a favor, in fact, look out for yourself and your parents and your children and start screaming long and loud about 38 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits which are currently unfunded under the current law of the land.

One more clarifying point.  The post refers to an 8.3 trillion debt, only 4.8 of which is "public".  What's that mean?  First of all, I've already pointed out that the 8.3 trillion does not reflect the actuarially projected (and trust me, these projections regarding birth and death rates, growth in the economy, etc, are estimates, but based on very real and empirical historical data, and are not at all "fuzzy math") 38 trillion underfunding of entitlements.  The 4.8 trillion public debt are U.S. T-bills that individuals have actually, tangibly in their possession, and on which and to whom interest must be paid.  So then what's the 3.5 trillion balance of the 8.3 trillion?

The 3.5 trillion is an entitlement liability as well (not part of the 38 trillion), but the part which, oddly, though not so oddly, the government is willing to own up to in its accounting.  It patently refuses to own up to the 38 trillion, which, again, a corporation could never do for what are its private entitlement programs, e.g. its employee pension program.  No, in fact, the law requires them to have outside accountants assess the actuarial adequacy of their pension plans.  Not only does the U.S. government (this is everyone, executive and legislative) not place the same reporting requirement on itself, but patently refuses to acknowledge even $1 of liability under existing economic conditions, tax law and entitlement law.  Still, then, what's the 3.5 trillion of entitlement liability the government is willing to own up to?

The 3.5 trillion are the actual tax dollars (and this is why they have to acknowledge this liability, because tracking tax dollars collected is an easy accounting matter) collected under the FICA and Medicare/Medicaid taxes (the dollars of which are clearly displayed on our pay stubs) which were spent by the U.S. government on other things, and no longer represent the cash they were for that short period between being collected and being spent.  But understand this, the monies are spent and gone - turned, some of them, into guns for our military, others into roads and bridges (some of them to nowhere), and so on.  But those taxes are no longer a cash or equity asset of the U.S. government to use later (and that's the key from the government's perspective) to pay the benefits the taxes are intended to fund, i.e. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Don't get me wrong.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments are going out all the time.  But at present, and not for much longer until the boomers retire, the FICA and Medicare/Medicaid tax rates are bringing in more money than we need to pay out at present under those programs.  There is a "surplus" only in the phoniest and least actuarially honest way, which says, quite irrelevantly, since Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are viewed by all to be entitlement programs we will have for a long, long time, that in the current fiscal year we collected more entitlement tax than we paid in the current fiscal year in entitlement benefits.  Such a defining and use of the term "surplus" does not look beyond the current fiscal year for programs which extend indefinitely into our future, and is therefore an entirely self-serving and dishonest use of the word.

But still, the government cannot deny two things:  (1) that X amount of entitlement tax was collected, and (2) that the tax dollars (cash) collected from tax payers no longer exists and has been entirely spent on other things which cannot under any accounting practice be categorized as either a liquid or equity asset of the federal government, but only assets of the most depreciating kind, e.g. the depreciating current value of a tank in battle or in storage, or the non-asset of a bridge or road, since in reality it will never be sold or converted into cash later and used to pay entitlement benefits.

Therefore, drumroll please, the 3.5 trillion is that amount X which we know was cash revenue into the federal government at the time it was collected from our paychecks, but which has been entirely spent on other things, and no longer exists as an asset on the federal balance sheet from which entitlement payments can be made in the future.  Remember that T-bills are an asset so long as you are not the federal government.  For John Doe or China a T-bill is an asset; for the federal government it is a promissory note, that is, a debt.

Here's the funny part.  The federal government can't help but acknowledge the 3.5 trillion, but it steadfastly refuses to include it in often mentioned statistics of economic health, like the ratio of debt to GNP.  Disingenuous representatives of the government will give that figure as 4.8/12.2 = 39%.  At the very least, they should add the 3.5 trillion in FICA and Mcare/Mcaid taxes they collected and spent, making the ratio 8.3/12.2 = 68%.  But that number might set off alarm bells in financial markets and with the public.

I hope this post is ringing those bells.  This post is already too long, so I'll add the Biden '08 post as its own post. Please begin to acknowledge the vast fiscal hole we have dug for ourselves, and to do your part, press your congressmen and president, and vote in those people, perhaps Senator Biden if he steps up to these issues, who will lead us to solutions, and ask from us that which as Americans and patriots we are willing to do for our country to solve these problems.    

At present, the candidate I am leaning towards more than any other is Senator Joe Biden.  Some might say that's like rooting for Santa Clara to beat Arizona in the opening round of the NCAAs.  Well, if Santa Clara's prospects for victory depended on its ability to communicate its strategy and win public support, and if Santa Clara were a veteran and proven performer at that very exercise, then likely no one would see Santa Clara as an underdog.

The fact is that we have campaigns to decide who is our next president, and anyone who has heard Senator Biden think and talk knows two things - that he does both things exceptionally well, and that occasionally some loose talk can get him in trouble as it did recently in trying to offer a compliment to Senator Obama which fell flat and generated some controversy.  All that means, though, is he has that aspect of himself to work on and improve upon while he offers to the campaign and to us the benefits of his considerable other strengths and talents.

Ok, I'm not on the payroll, so that's as many panegyrics as I'll throw at Senator Biden for now.  But the remainder of this post is a post I made to his Biden '08 blog site (http://blog.joebiden.com), challenging the Senator, since he is running, to run boldly and bravely, and to talk honestly and courageously about the issues which threaten us like an asteroid moving ever nearer, and which until now a succession of past presidents and congresses have failed not just a little, but egregiously to address and solve through political cowardice and personal greed, elevating in importance their own seat or those of their party membership over us, over the next generation, over their own patriotism, over saving this great country, over putting country ahead of themselves and party.  And here I am reminded of the beautiful simplicity and awesome weight and rectitude of President Kennedy's inaugural quotation:  "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."

On the following very difficult issues, our past presidents and congresses have failed us so completely it is hard to even adequately describe and characterize the debt of failure, and it was the subject of my blog post to Biden '08.  The issues of which I speak are:  (1) our national debt, currently estimated, public and institutional, at 8.3 trillion, and over the 60% (at 68%) GNP threshold the EU expects member nations to remain under to be in good standing, and with an actuarially estimated present-value debt including entitlement commitments of, unbelievably, 46 trillion (see Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/em1004.cfm) and growing, or currently 380% of our 12.2 trillion GNP; (2) global warming, enough said; (3) rules within the economy which organically allow for the gap between the very wealthy and middle class and poor to ever widen as GNP increases instead of keep pace or even shrink by increasing the size of the middle class.

One point before the Biden post.  Many will like to assert that the 38 trillion add-on for entitlements is a red herring, because it hasn't happened yet.  If you worked for, say, an automobile manufacturer, and an outside accounting firm reported that the employee pension fund was currently underfunded to the tune of xyz dollars, say, maybe, 38 trillion dollars, would you be saying it's a red herring because the real-life employees it is intended to pay had yet to retire?

You would not.  You would be screaming long and loud.  So do yourself and your country a favor, in fact, look out for yourself and your parents and your children and start screaming long and loud about 38 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits which are currently unfunded under the current law of the land.

One more clarifying point.  The post refers to an 8.3 trillion debt, only 4.8 of which is "public".  What's that mean?  First of all, I've already pointed out that the 8.3 trillion does not reflect the actuarially projected (and trust me, these projections regarding birth and death rates, growth in the economy, etc, are estimates, but based on very real and empirical historical data, and are not at all "fuzzy math") 38 trillion underfunding of entitlements.  The 4.8 trillion public debt are U.S. T-bills that individuals have actually, tangibly in their possession, and on which and to whom interest must be paid.  So then what's the 3.5 trillion balance of the 8.3 trillion?

The 3.5 trillion is an entitlement liability as well (not part of the 38 trillion), but the part which, oddly, though not so oddly, the government is willing to own up to in its accounting.  It patently refuses to own up to the 38 trillion, which, again, a corporation could never do for what are its private entitlement programs, e.g. its employee pension program.  No, in fact, the law requires them to have outside accountants assess the actuarial adequacy of their pension plans.  Not only does the U.S. government (this is everyone, executive and legislative) not place the same reporting requirement on itself, but patently refuses to acknowledge even $1 of liability under existing economic conditions, tax law and entitlement law.  Still, then, what's the 3.5 trillion of entitlement liability the government is willing to own up to?

The 3.5 trillion are the actual tax dollars (and this is why they have to acknowledge this liability, because tracking tax dollars collected is an easy accounting matter) collected under the FICA and Medicare/Medicaid taxes (the dollars of which are clearly displayed on our pay stubs) which were spent by the U.S. government on other things, and no longer represent the cash they were for that short period between being collected and being spent.  But understand this, the monies are spent and gone - turned, some of them, into guns for our military, others into roads and bridges (some of them to nowhere), and so on.  But those taxes are no longer a cash or equity asset of the U.S. government to use later (and that's the key from the government's perspective) to pay the benefits the taxes are intended to fund, i.e. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Don't get me wrong.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments are going out all the time.  But at present, and not for much longer until the boomers retire, the FICA and Medicare/Medicaid tax rates are bringing in more money than we need to pay out at present under those programs.  There is a "surplus" only in the phoniest and least actuarially honest way, which says, quite irrelevantly, since Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are viewed by all to be entitlement programs we will have for a long, long time, that in the current fiscal year we collected more entitlement tax than we paid in the current fiscal year in entitlement benefits.  Such a defining and use of the term "surplus" does not look beyond the current fiscal year for programs which extend indefinitely into our future, and is therefore an entirely self-serving and dishonest use of the word.

But still, the government cannot deny two things:  (1) that X amount of entitlement tax was collected, and (2) that the tax dollars (cash) collected from tax payers no longer exists and has been entirely spent on other things which cannot under any accounting practice be categorized as either a liquid or equity asset of the federal government, but only assets of the most depreciating kind, e.g. the depreciating current value of a tank in battle or in storage, or the non-asset of a bridge or road, since in reality it will never be sold or converted into cash later and used to pay entitlement benefits.

Therefore, drumroll please, the 3.5 trillion is that amount X which we know was cash revenue into the federal government at the time it was collected from our paychecks, but which has been entirely spent on other things, and no longer exists as an asset on the federal balance sheet from which entitlement payments can be made in the future.  Remember that T-bills are an asset so long as you are not the federal government.  For John Doe or China a T-bill is an asset; for the federal government it is a promissory note, that is, a debt.

Here's the funny part.  The federal government can't help but acknowledge the 3.5 trillion, but it steadfastly refuses to include it in often mentioned statistics of economic health, like the ratio of debt to GNP.  Disingenuous representatives of the government will give that figure as 4.8/12.2 = 39%.  At the very least, they should add the 3.5 trillion in FICA and Mcare/Mcaid taxes they collected and spent, making the ratio 8.3/12.2 = 68%.  But that number might set off alarm bells in financial markets and with the public.

I hope this post is ringing those bells.  This post is already too long, so I'll add the Biden '08 post as its own post. Please begin to acknowledge the vast fiscal hole we have dug for ourselves, and to do your part, press your congressmen and president, and vote in those people, perhaps Senator Biden if he steps up to these issues, who will lead us to solutions, and ask from us that which as Americans and patriots we are willing to do for our country to solve these problems.