Social Security: As usual, the people want a pony, daddy

81% support taxing income beyond $147k to shore up the projected Social Security trust fund shortfall, Republicans by 79% and Democrats by 88%.

81% also support cutting benefits for those same earners whose Social Security taxes would soar.

Meanwhile, 64% support increasing the minimum monthly benefit from $951 to $1,341.

More.

 

Equity used to mean everybody had a reasonable expectation of receiving what they put into the system, but that stopped being true for high income earners in the 1990s.

Last year, a person making $200k taxed at the current 6.2% rate for 30 years would have to live 10 years beyond full retirement age of 67 to recoup all his contributions at a 2021 maximum benefit level of $3,113 per month, or to age 77.

Life expectancy in the US fell to 76.6 years in 2021. 

Oops, Bernie Sanders in 1996 advocated the Social Security tax increases and benefit cuts for which he now criticizes Joe Biden

Also, Venezuela is a model of socialism we should emulate. Also, let all the prisoners vote. Also, well, you get the idea.

Chris Jacobs for The Federalist favors the status quo on Medicaid in exchange for Obamacare repeal

It's uncanny how similar Chris Jacobs' overarching point is to the one we expressed here in June when we said that the status quo ante Obamacare was not the way forward, and that the way forward involves getting a buy-in from moderates and liberals on reform, but not repeal, of the Medicaid expansion in exchange for repeal of Obamacare root and branch.

The difference is in solving the funding problem. Jacobs admits his plan precludes "repealing all of Obamacare’s tax increases." Our idea doesn't, in exchange for a broadly based Medicaid payroll tax to democratize the costs. 50 million participants in the small group and individual markets are bearing the burden of funding "health insurance" for the poor, i.e. Medicaid, through grossly more expensive premiums and deductibles than before Obamacare.

As others have observed, the growth of the uninsured post-Obamacare is in this group because they can't afford it anymore.

The way forward is a compromise which keeps the Medicaid expansion, funds it fairly, retains state control of the program (federalism) just as now, and repeals Obamacare. 

Jacobs, here:

In both the House and the Senate, debate focused on a push-pull between two competing issues: The status of Medicaid expansion in the 31 states that accepted it, and what to do about Obamacare’s regulatory regime. During the spring and summer, congressional leaders attempted messy compromises on each issue, phasing out the higher federal match for Medicaid expansion populations over time, while crafting complex processes allowing states, insurers, or both to waive some—but not all—of Obamacare’s regulatory requirements.

But rather than constructing substantively cumbersome waiver arrangements—the legislative equivalent of a camel being a horse written by committee—Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler, cleaner solution: Preserving the status quo (i.e., the enhanced federal match) on Medicaid expansion in exchange for full repeal of Obamacare’s insurance regulations at the federal level.

A “grand bargain” in this vein would give Senate moderates a clear win on Medicaid expansion, while providing conservatives their desired outcome on Obamacare’s regulations. 

If Trump wants to win on Obamacare, he should propose a Medicaid tax in exchange for repeal

If Trump wants to win on Obamacare, he should propose a Medicaid tax in exchange for repeal of Obamacare's individual and corporate mandates instead of the stinker bill now being proposed by the Republicans in the Senate.

That way those of us who can obtain real insurance like we did before will obtain it again but at a cheaper cost than now, and those who can't will still have Medicaid, but funded by dead certain payrolls instead of the hodge podge of state and federal funding now.

Because of Obamacare, those who have insurance are subsidizing at enormous expense to themselves those who have become covered since 2009 under the plan, mostly under Medicaid. Medicaid alone has swelled by 25 million people thanks to Obamacare. It's a massive income redistribution scheme from those who have insurance to those who don't, which is manifestly unfair. There are easily 48 million people in this country making less than $15,000 a year who have no skin in this game yet qualify for Medicaid.

The answer, short of returning to the status quo ante where millions are kicked off of Medicaid, is to make more people pay their fair share. This means taxing every dollar of compensation with a Medicaid tax, just like we do with Medicare. The burden should be born by everyone, including those now receiving Medicaid.

Currently we have about 55.5 million enrolled in Medicare, supported by a 1.45% payroll tax. It isn't enough support, but there it is.

Medicaid on the other hand has exploded under Obamacare to coverage of 75 million, but state budgets, like individuals' budgets under Obamacare's outrageously expensive health insurance, are breaking badly under the burden. 33 will fall short of revenue targets in the current fiscal year.

The proportional Medicaid payroll tax rate implied by 75 million program participants is at least 1.95%.

This is Trump's opportunity to put Medicaid on a sounder footing.

Republicans won't like this plan because it involves a new tax, even though many people are already paying this tax to one degree or another depending on their tax obligation in their state of residence. The revenues, insufficient as they are, are already collected at the state level, but variably.

So it's not really a new tax. It's a new collector.

Democrats ought to love this idea, for the obvious reason. It codifies the nation's "obligation" to the poor's healthcare in the form of a tax, just as Medicare codifies the nation's obligation to the elderly's healthcare. With it they can claim Obamacare is still the law of the land in some form.

Pelosi and the House Democrats are well positioned to deliver this in the form of a bill to send to the more evenly divided Senate because Paul Ryan and a coalition of 75 or so liberal Republicans could get it over the goal line, just like they did so many times before in league with the Democrats, making an end run around the House conservatives.

The Senate would go for the bill because it is simply more liberal all around. Democrats there would vote for this, along with liberal Republicans.

Trump needs to get this done and off the table.

We've been arguing about it now in earnest for 8 years already and are just plain sick of it.

Enough already!

Repeal Obamacare root and branch, and institute a Medicaid tax.

Krauthammer thinks Trump might go for single payer in the end, in which case Americans should get it, good and hard

Think of it as socialism with Republican characteristics.

Krauthammer, here:

Obamacare may turn out to be unworkable, indeed doomed, but it is having a profound effect on the zeitgeist: It is universalizing the idea of universal coverage.

Acceptance of its major premise — that no one be denied health care — is more widespread than ever. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan avers that “our goal is to give every American access to quality, affordable health care,” making universality an essential premise of his own reform. And look at how sensitive and defensive Republicans have been about the possibility of people losing coverage in any Obamacare repeal. ...

As Obamacare continues to unravel, it won’t take much for Democrats to abandon that Rube Goldberg wreckage and go for the simplicity and the universality of Medicare-for-all.

Simplicity? Draco's laws were simple. The penalty for every crime was death.

I wonder if Krauthammer has a clue what he's talking about.

Total Medicare outlays in 2015 came to $632 billion.

Total Medicaid outlays in 2015 came to $552 billion country wide (read the Notes).

Total Social Security and Disability outlays in 2015 came to $897.1 billion.

That is a total of $2.0811 trillion from 2015 total net compensation of $7.4158 trillion, or 28%, without even talking about "universal coverage" yet.

Yet all your typical American pays now for this is 10.63%:

6.2% in Social Security tax and 1.45% for Medicare, plus whatever taxes are paid at the state and local level toward Medicaid, which federal law mandates must account for at least 40% of program revenues. So $221 billion from 160.8 million wage earners across the country in 2015 represents another 2.98% paid by them at the state level.

The status quo therefore is funded only 38% by its beneficiaries, at best. I say "at best" because many beneficiaries pay NOTHING because they don't work and never have. But I digress.

So bring about Krauthammer's revolution, for that is what he's talking about, and reset the table as follows.

Total healthcare outlays in the United States in 2015 came to $3.2 trillion. Add in $897.1 billion for Social Security and Disability, and you now have a "universal" obligation bloated to $4.097 trillion, which represents 55% of net compensation that year.

That's your tax.

You've become France, Germany, Denmark or some other Western European paradise which depends on the United States for its defense.

And that's before even talking about funding the $1.2 trillion part of the federal budget which is discretionary, like defending ourselves against that little fat kid playing with hydrogen bombs in North Korea.

Of course there's another chunk of money out there being made in the United States apart from net compensation, about $8 trillion in 2015. The recipients of this income typically pay the lower capital gains tax rates, not the payroll and income tax rates which are for the chumps.

It's a nice little system which isn't paying its fair share for socialism in the United States, even though it is rich guys who typically shout the loudest on behalf of it. They do this because they know it will keep the little guy down, from whom they don't want the competition some day. But tax that system equally to net compensation and you cut that 55% tax in half, to say 27.5%. That, however, means a big fat tax increase on the rich, and on everybody else. I doubt they'll stand for that any more than they open their checkbooks now to make patriotic voluntary donations to the US Treasury.

We live in a fantasy land where no one wants to pay what it costs for anything.

We think we can have our cake and eat it too.

We want infrastructure spending, and a tax cut dammit.

Social Security tax rates have been raised 20 times since 1937, they can be raised again and the world won't end

Commentary Magazine's Jonathan Tobin doesn't even read what he cites, making a hash of Obamacare story

Jonathan Tobin here:

"This is something of a misnomer because, as the Heritage Institute pointed out in a paper published last month, almost all of these people were simply added to the rolls of those receiving Medicare. If you only count those who are actually receiving insurance outside of Medicare, the net increase of those with coverage (the number of those buying these policies is offset by an almost equal reduction in the number of customers who have employer-based plans) is only 260,000 people."

Ah, no.

First of all the paper was from the "Heritage Foundation", not the "Heritage Institute". Perhaps he's heard of it? It's only been a Washington fixture since like the Reagan Administration. He does remember Reagan, right? Well, he is a neoconservative.

And it was the rolls of Medicaid which were expanded, not Medicare. What kind of a dummy gets that wrong? Medicare is for older Americans. Medicare is supposed to be paid for through payroll taxes, and it's blowing up as we speak, but that's another story. Medicaid used to be health coverage for the poor and the indigent, provided by the States. Leave it to Obama to expand it from DC and call it insurance.

The middle class of this country will end up poor and indigent and on Medicaid, too, if someone doesn't put a stop to this train wreck called Obamacare and soon.

Middle class people have just had their taxes raised dramatically to provide coverage and subsidies to pay for that coverage to about 9 million people who didn't have it before or didn't have what they're getting now. Middle class taxes went up in the form of health insurance premium increases, raised deductibles and skyrocketing pharmaceutical price increases. Middle class people buying the cheapest of plans now can expect to shell out over $13,000 in premiums and deductibles before their plans pay out one red cent of a big healthcare bill. The incentive for them is to avoid care even when they need it in order to save money.  

All Tobin had to do to get the article moving in the right direction was to actually read the title of the Heritage paper and the accompanying abstract, but apparently he didn't do even that. One wonders if he even wrote the story himself. He is Commentary's "editor" after all.

What a putz. 

Backgrounder #3062 on Health Care

October 15, 2015

2014 Health Insurance Enrollment: Increase Due Almost Entirely to Medicaid Expansion

By Edmund F. Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski

Abstract

Health insurance enrollment data for 2014 shows that the number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million during the year. However, the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls. While enrollment in private individual-market plans increased by almost 4.79 million, most of that gain was offset by a reduction of 4.53 million in the number of people with employment-based group coverage. Thus, the net increase in private health insurance in 2014 was just 260,000 people.

CBS News claims Trump keeps the EITC

Here.

For the current 5-year period 2012-2016 the Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated the annual cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit to be about $64 billion.

That's actually less costly than the food stamp program was in 2014: $74.2 billion.

Keeping the EITC means keeping what amounts to a welfare program, but one which rewards only those who work. The transfer payments to such individuals basically rebate the Social Security taxes they pay even though they generally make too little to pay much in the way of federal income taxes, if they pay any at all.

Trump's claim that his plan will be revenue neutral is already taking incoming because of things like this.

Of course we don't know what spending Trump plans to cut. He might go really big and call for shuttering some cabinet level departments entirely. The Department of Education, for example, costs $77.4 billion.

Trump's tax plan released to the public today is ambitious and pro-growth

The Trump tax plan can be reviewed here.

Notable features include exemption from federal income taxation entirely for up to about 73 million households who make up to either $25,000 individually or $50,000 jointly.

This is in the spirit of the original income tax law, which for its first few years, that is until the demands of World War I and the bureaucratic state came into play, taxed the incomes of no one except the very wealthiest.

It is unclear whether the plan retains the child tax credit or the earned income tax credit, two programs which effectively transfer welfare to lower income families who pay no income tax anyway and who receive through these two vehicles what is effectively a rebate of Social Security taxes they pay as employees, eliminating its regressivity.

For the rest there are just three tax brackets of 10%, 20% and 25%, kicking in at joint incomes up to $100K, up to $300K and beyond $300K. Presumably, but not stated, short term capital gains are taxed at these ordinary rates. Long term capital gains tax rates are 0% up to $100K of joint income, then 15% and 20% up to $300K and beyond $300K of joint income.

Business taxes are slashed to 15% no matter the size, which is YUGE for American competitiveness.

The AMT is eliminated entirely, along with the marriage penalty and . . . the death tax. It's going to be unbelievable!

Deductions are capped for the richest Americans, but deductions for charity and mortgage interest are retained.

We'll see what the dynamic scorers will have to say about it for revenues, as time goes by.

Conservatives give thanks for the achievements of John Boehner, libertarians, the ignorant and the stupid just snarl

• Saved taxpayers $762 billion over ten years by making the Bush tax rates permanent for 98% of all filers beginning at the dawn of 2013
• Saved taxpayers $1.8 trillion over ten years by finally fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax for all victims of bracket-creep
• Saved taxpayers $339 billion over ten years by maintaining the 15% capital gains tax rate for incomes below $450,000
• Saved families $354 billion over ten years by maintaining the child tax credit
• Cut average annual federal deficits of $1.3 trillion 2009-2012 by 57%, to $556 billion on average 2013-2016 by ending the emergency Social Security Tax reductions and instituting the sequester spending cuts
• The S&P 500 immediately responded with total returns in 2013 of 32.39%, the fifth best year since 1970  
• The moribund US Dollar rose 19%, from below 80 to 95 today as overall fiscal rectitude improved
• Causing oil prices to plummet from an average of $95/barrel 2011-2014 to $52/barrel on average in 2015 
• Causing average US gasoline prices to fall from $3.34/gallon one year ago to $2.28/gallon today
• Helping to keep the all-items consumer price index year-over-year nearly flat, rising just 0.2%

The libertarian free-traders in both parties have killed the American middle class: Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Obama

From Patrick J. Buchanan, here:

The average U.S. family has not seen a rise in real wages in 40 years. This is directly traceable to the loss of more than one-third of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. And that loss, that deindustrialization of America, is directly tied to the $10 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Writers who celebrate how U.S. imports have risen in this month or that year almost never mention the trade deficit for this month or that year. Perhaps that is because the United States has not run a trade surplus in four decades, whereas, in the first 70 years of the 20th century, we never ran a trade deficit. Trade surpluses add to GDP; trade deficits subtract from GDP.

And when in a company town the company closes the factory, the town often dies. And all the little satellite businesses—bars, diners, food stores, pharmacies—that rose around the factory, they die, too. The tombstones of countless dead towns across America should read: Killed by Free Trade. Tenured economists on college campuses call this “creative destruction.”

The stagnant wages of two generations of U.S. workers also help to explain the crisis of Social Security and Medicare. For, as workers’ wages fail to rise, or fall, so, too, do their contributions in payroll taxes. If, as Simpson-Bowles contends, our largest entitlement programs are heading for insolvency, free trade played a lead role in that American tragedy. And where is the liberal morality in passing laws to ensure U.S. workers a living wage and clean and safe conditions, and then, through fast track and free trade, signaling their bosses that they can evade these laws by shutting factories here, moving their plants to Asia, paying coolie wages, and subjecting Asian workers to conditions that would earn a U.S. industrialist a tour in Leavenworth?

--------------------------------------------------------

I've checked Buchanan's math and he's exaggerating a bit. The total is precisely $9.5 trillion . . . if you go back as far as 1982 under Reagan, but you get the point.

The Number Of Wage Earners Is In The 5th Year Of Depression, Still 1.95 Million Fewer In 2012 Than In 2007

The jobs depression is now 5.67 years in length.

The number of wage earners counted by the Social Security Administration reached a peak in 2007 at 155.57 million, and the long-awaited number for 2012 is just out here in the last couple of days: 153.63 million.

2012 marks the fifth consecutive year we have fallen under the 2007 record high for the number of employees earning income subject to Social Security taxation.

The 2012 figure is just under the 2006 figure of 153.85 million wage earners, so you might say things were closer to 2005 levels in 2012 than to 2006.

Vindictive CNSNews.com blames Speaker Boehner for $3 trillion jump in total public debt

Here:

Thus, all spending and borrowing by the federal government are the de facto and de jure—n.b. constitutional—responsibility of the House of Representatives that John Boehner leads.

Well, yeah, and the Bible says "Judas went and hanged himself" and "go and do thou likewise".

The author of the posting, Terence Jeffrey, never once places the spending and borrowing in their broader historical context of the economic depression which ensued in 2007, long before John Boehner took the reigns as Speaker of the House in 2011.

Never once does Mr. Jeffrey mention the revenue side, which dried up like an old prune in consequence of the panic which saw home prices crash and a record 29.5 million people file first time claims for unemployment in 2009. Nor does he bother to mention the deliberate, bi-partisan decision taken to reduce revenues to relieve the American people in this situation by temporarily cutting their Social Security taxes by 33% for back to back years in 2011 and 2012 when nothing else seemed to be working to revivify the economy. Revenues constrained by declining tax receipts due to depression-like conditions all over the economy coupled with these tax cuts, after peaking in fiscal 2007 at $2.568 trillion, for the next five fiscal years never once got above that level after reaching their low in 2009 at $2.105 trillion. What did Mr. Jeffrey expect to happen given that, the debt to decline?

One suspects Mr. Jeffrey isn't interested, however, in any of the facts and their context, only in slamming John Boehner. Otherwise he'd have mentioned them, and that Boehner's predecessor Democrat Nancy Pelosi increased the debt at a rate 63% faster in 2009 and 2010 than Boehner has in his nearly three years as Speaker.

Really bad form, old boy.

Nolan Finley Of The Detroit News Wants To Junk The IRS, And The Income Tax

THIS IS NOT NOLAN FINLEY

Here:

"[R]eplace the income tax with a national sales tax. You’d pay tax on the money you spend instead of the money you earn. That would eliminate the need for an IRS that audits tax returns, hands out non-profit status and enforces a tax code that is egregiously complex and unfair. If the national sales tax isn’t the answer, then a similar outcome might be achieved by drastically lowering current income tax rates in exchange for eliminating all deductions and credits. With no reason to examine returns, the IRS could be much smaller. Without auditing power, it’d be less intimidating."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not do both? A low flat sales tax and a low flat income tax? We already have one flat tax, called Social Security. And we already pay an average state sales tax of 5+% everywhere. Just abolish the income tax and augment the current flat Payroll Tax with the new one. Business everywhere is already set up to collect that and withhold, so dovetailing that with a corporate flat tax should also be easy to do. Presto. No IRS needed for America's 151 million wage earners and the millions of businesses who employ them.

Herman Cain's more or less revenue neutral 999 plan looks better and better with every passing day of the IRS scandal targeting Obama's political enemies: a flat 9% federal sales tax, a flat 9% tax on all income, and a flat 9% corporate income tax.

A man before his time.

Depression In Real Retail Sales Finally Ends, Beats Old 2006 High

The old high in Dec. 2006 was $180.016 billion. The depression low was $155.927 billion in March 2009, a decline of 13.4% in inflation adjusted retail sales. The new real gain in monthly retail sales, however, is barely $350 million, with an "m".

It remains to be seen if the new higher level of real retail sales can be sustained with increased payroll taxes factored in, presumably taking money out of retail circulation. Velocity of M2 and MZM were already at historic lows in Q4 2012 in the post-war period at the temporary lower payroll tax rate.

Gasoline prices were last consistently below $3.00 a gallon in 2010 and since then have averaged about $3.50 a gallon. At roughly 10% of total retail, sudden spikes in gasoline prices can produce expenditure on gasoline which represents a phantom increase to sales, and also mask the fact that miles-traveled remain in depression, a more concrete, so to speak, decline in velocity caused chiefly by enduring low employment by historical measures.

Update, 4-15-13: While the above graph shows real retail, that is, retail level adjusted for inflation, I have found a better representation of reality by Doug Short, reproduced and referenced here, which also adjusts for population growth and removes gasoline because it is really a form of taxation which obscures the underlying level of true retail activity. Bottom line: real retail is actually still about 8% off the 2005 high measured the same way.

Between Sequester Cuts And Payroll Tax Hike, Expect 41% Hit To Nominal GDP

Between the sequester spending cuts and the payroll tax rate going back up by 2 percentage points, I'm expecting a decline in nominal GDP of as much as 41%.

The sequester cuts come to $85 billion.

The payroll tax hike will remove conservatively $96 billion from American paychecks. Based on payrolls in 2011 of $6,239 billion, about $1,459 billion was exempt from Social Security taxation. Taking 2% of the remaining $4,780 billion yields a payroll tax hike of $95.6 billion using 2011 payrolls, the last available from SocialSecurity.gov.

Nominal GDP increased between October 2008 and October 2012 by $1,769.5 billion. That's been an average of $442 billion a year, nominal, over the last four years.

Subtracting the sequester cuts and the payroll tax increase (conservatively $181 billion) from that means cutting nominal GDP by about 41%.

Barack Obama: Chester The Sequester Taxpayer Molester

According to The Des Moines Register here, Pres. Obama told two of its editors just two weeks before the 2012 election that he was COUNTING ON the sequestration cuts which he now says are going to hurt middle class Americans, and that he was COUNTING ON the expiration of the Bush tax rates, in tandem "to implode the partisan gridlock" referred to by his interlocutor at The Register (full transcript at the link), to which the following was part of the reply by the president:

"In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?

"So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business."

In other words, Obama said he was counting on the sequestration gambit and the expiration of the Bush tax rates gambit to accomplish his "balanced approach", which is tax rate increases combined with spending cuts "to reduce the deficit". Notice how he likes "force" especially when he can distance himself from it, and how that force can impose an ideological conclusion for which he otherwise is reticent to take responsibility. The man isn't really up to being the tyrant.

President Obama all along has wanted this sequestration event to occur, and any tax increase he could get along with it. The forced spending cut idea was his idea from the beginning according to Bob Woodward, but Obama could only welcome the forced expiration of the Bush tax rates idea. He's just sorry he was not the author of it. As it turned out, he got some tax increases on the rich in the year end tax deal ($60 billion annually), but more importantly he got the reset of the Social Security payroll tax ON EVERYBODY without so much as a shot being fired by anyone in Washington. The latter comes to about $100 billion annually. Add in a few spending cuts now on the backs of all these people he's been parading as victims, and Obama is as happy as a clam.

Yes, some of the American people are being actually molested by the president's policies, but they just don't know who the perp is because the creep can make himself invisible. Unfortunately for them, because they are mostly denizens of government, private sector Americans who have been living in greatly reduced circumstances for four years now because of Obama's on-going depression just aren't sympathetic to their plight.

The trouble is, neither is Obama.

Second Estimate Of Q4 2012 GDP Revised Up To 0.1%

The BEA reports here, with the big takeaway that the average upward revision of 0.5 utterly failed to materialize this time, meaning the economy is really in the toilet already in the fourth quarter, pre-Social Security tax rate resumption, pre-tax increase on the rich, pre-ObamaCare taxes starting to kick in, etc., etc., the economy having hit a huge brick wall after Q3 GDP of a more respectable 3.1%:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP declined 0.1 percent. The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP is smaller than the average revision from the advance to second estimate of 0.5 percentage point. While today’s release has revised the direction of change in real GDP, the general picture of the economy for the fourth quarter remains largely the same as what was presented last month . . ..

Obama Has Had 3 Recessions In His First Term, And May Get A 4th To Start His Second

If a recession is two quarters back to back with GDP declines, the second decline worse than the first, then Obama has had three recessions in his first term, and is likely to begin his second term with a fourth recession. "A fall in GDP in two successive quarters" remains the dictionary definition of a recession despite what trimmers everywhere say.

After Q4 2009, GDP declined from 4.0 to 2.3 and 2.2 in the first two quarters of 2010.

After Q3 2010, GDP declined from 2.6 to 2.4 and 0.1 in the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.

After Q4 2011, GDP declined from 4.1 to 2.0 and 1.3 in the first two quarters of 2012.

That makes three recessions at the ends of each of the first three years of Obama's first term, and the pattern appears to be repeating again at the end of the fourth year, going from 3.1 to -0.1 from the third quarter of 2012 to the fourth. With taxes rising dramatically in 2013 from the payroll tax reset, the increase in taxes on the rich, and the new ObamaCare taxes, and with spending cuts through sequestration looming, I'd say the odds favor a 4peat on the recession front because these factors are very negative for GDP, as are the employment rules for ObamaCare which will subdue incomes and thus spending.

Given the pattern of repeated recessions beginning already in 2010, what we have been going through since 2008 when GDP declined 0.3 and 2009 when GDP declined 3.1, a depression in fact all by itself, is actually better called an extended depression even though annually speaking 2012 represents a climb out of the pattern. Unless, that is, Q1 2013 isn't worse than -0.1 and future revisions to 2012 GDP aren't downward.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Quit Complaining: Here's How Social Security Taxes Have Increased Over The Years

View the table here.

You got a break for two years, now your rate goes back to what it was starting in 1990.

Quit complaining.