Trustees say Medicare exhausted in 2026

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, center, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, right, and Acting Labor Secretary Seth D. Harris, speaks about Social Security and Medicare , Friday, May 31, 2013, at the Treasury Department in Washington, DC.

WASHINGTON — The government said Friday that Medicare’s giant hospital trust fund will be exhausted in 2026, two years later than projected last year, while the date that Social Security will exhaust its trust fund remained unchanged at 2033.

The latest projections were included in the annual report of trustees of the trust funds. The new report warned that despite the small improvement in Medicare, both it and Social Security face significant funding challenges as the giant baby boom generation continues to retire. Currently, 58 million Americans are receiving Social Security benefits.

“Under current law, both of these vitally important programs are on unsustainable paths,” Robert D. Reischauer, one of two public trustees, told reporters at a news conference.

The reasons given for the improved financial outlook for Medicare were an overall slowdown in the rate of increase in health care spending, particularly on skilled nursing care, as well as lower projected costs for popular insurance plans available within the Medicare program.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, the chairman of the trustees, said President Barack Obama is committed to working with Congress to put both programs on a stronger footing.

“Protecting Social Security and Medicare is one of the most significant challenges we face today as a nation. And it is a challenge that we can and must meet,” Lew told reporters.

With almost 10,000 baby boomers reaching retirement age and qualifying for benefits each day, those dates have been creeping closer, but Washington has been unable to reach consensus on an agreement to strengthen the finances of the government’s biggest benefit programs, which together accounted for about 38 percent of federal spending last year.

Depletion of the reserves in the giant trust funds would not end the benefit programs but would trigger sharp reductions in benefits. For Social Security, retirees would continue to receive about 75 percent of benefits once the Social Security trust fund was exhausted in 2033. For the Medicare hospital trust fund, the depletion of that fund in 2026 would mean a cut in benefits to about 87 percent of the full level.

While the combined Social Security trust fund was projected to be depleted in 2033, the trustees warned that the funding threat to one of the component trust funds that makes payments for workers on disability is much more urgent. It was projected that the disability trust fund would deplete its reserves in just three years in 2016. That date is unchanged from last year’s report.

Charles Blahous III, one of two public members of the trustees group, said that while Congress could decide to correct the shortfall in the disability program by moving tax revenue away from Social Security, that would only worsen the funding problems facing the Social Security retirement program.

A solution to the funding problems for Social Security and Medicare has proven elusive because of the political dangers posed by any agreement that would trim benefits for millions of Americans or raise taxes to cover the projected shortfalls.

Obama has already offered to break a pledge he made in his 2008 re-election campaign not to trim Social Security benefits. Twice in negotiations with GOP leaders, he agreed to adopt a new measure of inflation that would result in smaller cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for Social Security recipients. He formally put forward that proposal in the budget he sent to Congress in April.

His proposed change in the COLA, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old recipient of Social Security benefits.

Obama and Republican leaders in Congress have held off-and-on talks about various other possible fixes for the entitlement programs since 2011 as part of their efforts to reduce the government’s soaring budget deficits. But both sides remain far apart. Republicans insist any budget agreement must include deep spending cuts, while Obama is seeking what he calls a balanced deal that would include not only cuts in government spending including reductions in entitlement programs but also higher taxes.

Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of the 37-million member AARP, said in reaction to the trustees report that her organization would continue to oppose Obama’s suggested reduction in cost-of-living increases and similar proposals, which she said would jeopardize Americans’ retirement security.

“Washington needs to get its budget under control without breaking the promise of Social Security,” she said.

Many Democrats in Congress have also expressed strong opposition to the COLA trim that Obama has put forward.

House Republicans earlier this year passed a budget that would eventually turn Medicare into a voucher-like program for people younger than 55. But Obama and other Democrats reject that approach.

Obama’s approach to Medicare savings would trim payments to drug companies, hospitals and other service providers. He has also proposed having a growing share of seniors pay higher premiums over time, based on their incomes. In addition, Obama would have wealthy taxpayers pay a higher Medicare payroll tax.

Associated Press reporters Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

DOJ ON GAYS: SILENCE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS DISAPPROVAL

Matt Barber
Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.

The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT pride,” employees are ordered:

•“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)
That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/doj-on-gays-silence-will-be-interpreted-as-disapproval.

This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still believe in objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

•“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”
Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

•DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
•DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”
Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to compel managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

•“DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”
Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

•“DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”
In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

•“DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
•“DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”
Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/doj-on-gays-silence-will-be-interpreted-as-disapproval/#AzH0770MPuBQEItz.99

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/doj-on-gays-silence-will-be-interpreted-as-disapproval/#AzH0770MPuBQEItz.99

NYT: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION KNEW OF IRS SCANDAL 5 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION

by JOHN NOLTE 17 May 2013, 12:33 PM PDT 896POST A COMMENT

In no uncertain terms and with no hedging, The New York Times reports that the Obama administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

We still don’t know for sure what the President knew or when he knew it, but this does confirm that the administration was aware of the fact that Obama’s political enemies were under fire by the IRS and covered that fact up during an election year.

As Lisa Meyers of NBC News told “Morning Joe” today, “Imagine if we — if you can — what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different.”

The first time President Obama was asked when he found out about the IRS scandal, he told the media that he learned of the news last Friday, the same way the rest of us did — from the news media.

Thursday, a Bloomberg reporter asked the President when he or anyone else in the White House learned of the scandal. The President dodged the question.

With this latest news confirming when the Administration first learned of the IRS scandal,  we now know that, along with Benghazi and the unfurling Associated Press scandal, there were three scandals brewing and unfolding in the White House during an election year. But we are only now hearing about them — six months after Barack Obama was safely re-elected.

This fact says as much about the failure of our lapdog national media as it does about President Obama. Why just this morning the Times itself dismissed the IRS scandal on its editorial page.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC