White House uses WhiteHouse.gov website for fiscal cliff campaign

Our illustrious campaigner-in-chief is at it again, I see. Regarding the upcoming fiscal cliff, and debate over tax hikes on the rich -- which President Obama steadfastly supports and Republicans generally oppose -- the latest White House messaging has struck a much more campaign-type tone than leadership quality.

Go to the White House website -- you know, the one that serves the entire nation, regardless of race, political party or creed, as funded by American taxpayers, of all races, political parties and creeds -- and this is what awaits:

"What Does $2000 Mean to You?"

"If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, every American family's taxes will automatically go up and people from all over America are writing in to say what $2000 means to middle class families."

Flashing to the right are assortetd helpful answers by helpful Twitter users:

"#My2K will go toward paying for my children's daycare expenses."

"Groceries on my table for four months. Heating my home for a year. Two mortgage payments."
 
"#my2k 3 months of mortgage payments or groceries or an entire years property tax. 2k is a lot for some families."

"#My2k is diapers, wipes, food & gas for me and my 2 year old son need this"

And located directly beneath are handy buttons: Learn More. Add Your Voice.

Go to the Add Your Voice link and you get to tell your own story of woe. The intent, of course, is to cast blame for looming fiscal disaster away from the White House and onto Congress -- or, more specifically, on to Republicans in Congress. But where's the taxpayer funded message on the White House website that complains of Obama's stonewalling? Or, of Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility?

I'm a taxpayer; I pay White House salaries. I have a tale of woe to tell, too. Doesn't anybody at the White House want to give me a Twitter label and link?

See here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

More Big Brother data sharing comes to Congress

As if it weren’t hard enough to maintain privacy in this nation. Now along comes a new bill from Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. David Reichert, also D-Wash., that will ratchet up information sharing among governments and security forces nationwide.

The congressmen say the bill is aimed at improving communication among law enforcement, and tout it as a win-win for police and citizens. But like so much that hails from Washington, that’s bureaucratic speak. Rep. Reichert himself gives a hint to the true intent of the bill in his own statement, Nov. 29, posted on Smith’s congressional website.

“As a former cop and sheriff, I know that the more information law enforcement agents have, the better they can do their jobs,” said Reichert, the former Sheriff of King County who served 33 years in law enforcement. 

While more information for law enforcement may be a boon for law enforcement officials, it is most certainly not always a likewise benefit – or even welcome advance – for civil libertarians, or constitutionalists, or anyone with concerns about the onslaught of police-type regulatory controls that have been exerted by local, state and federal authorities in the past decade or two. So that being said – here’s  a quick snapshot of H.R. 6618, the Department of Justice Global Advisory Committee Authorization Act of 2012.

First, the committee makes recommendations to the Attorney General of the United States ways “to improve the administration of justice and protect the public by promoting practices and technologies for database interoperability and the secure sharing of justice and public safety information between local, state and tribal governments and the federal government,” the bill reads. But in plain language: Here comes another massive data-sharing program for law enforcement.

Second, the attorney general takes these recommendations and identifies “police and technical barriers to effective information sharing,” and narrows the list to a report of best practices and suggestions for Congress to consider. In plain language again: Here comes another massive data-sharing program for law enforcement.

It’s all in the name of security, the bill sponsors say. But at what point does Big Brother become too big?

Read here: http://adamsmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=313275

And here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.6618:

Socialism at the EPA: Using environmental justice to spread the wealth

The Environmental Protection Agency has just shelled out $1.2 million of taxpayer dollars so 50 groups around the nation can advance their environmental justice agendas. What’s that?

According to the EPA, environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race or income, in the environmental decision-making process.” The term came to being in the mid-1980s, but really ramped up usage a decade later as a proven method of advancing radical green agendas. Environmental justice fighters ponder such questions as, “Why do poor people have higher rates of asthma?” And based on the ensuing analysis and conclusion – that poor people may reside in housing that’s infested with cockroaches, whereas rich people do not – they then seek redress. What’s called for is some good old-fashioned income redistribution to level the playing field between the haves and have-nots.

Don’t agree? Well then, you’re guilty of environmental discrimination.

The EPA says its Dec. 6 grants will “enable non-profit organizations to conduct research, provide education and develop solutions to local health an environmental issues in low-income communities overburdened by harmful pollution.”

The money isn’t that much. One million is a drop in the bucket of federal coffers. It’s the agenda that’s problematic. Environmental justice is much less about promoting healthy air and water, and much more about pushing an elitist agenda using class warfare and socialist-minded politics.

Read EPA’s announcement here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/f31513d27709549b85257acc000447cd!OpenDocument

Losing our soul: The loss of God-given for government granted

Security or Tyranny? Are We Now a People With Government Granted Rather Than God-Given Rights?

Here are excerpts from my article, which is the cover feature for December's issue of The Blaze magazine.

George Orwell could have been a prophet.

On Aug. 16, Brandon Raub, a 26-year-old decorated Marine who served as a combat engineer in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sitting in his Richmond, Va., home. Out of the blue, law enforcement knocked.

“He was in his underwear, in his living room, he sees a group of [Chesterfield County] police, FBI agents walking up, he talks with them, he’s asked about some Facebook postings, they handcuff him,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil-rights law firm.

His crime? Officially—nothing.

If only Raub were an anomaly. Two thousand miles away, in Scottsdale, Ariz., all seven members of the city council approved taxpayer money on a new police station—while, at the same time, refusing to disclose the location of the facility. Why?

Kelly Corsette, communications and public affairs director for the city, said in a July e-mail: “A substantial number of police undercover personnel will work out of this building. Therefore, in the interest of the safety of our officers and the integrity of future undercover investigations, the city will not disclose its precise location.”

Interestingly, the building spans 17,827 square feet. In other words, it’s large enough that most residents of the community already know its location—but the point is the principle. As Dan Barr, a Phoenix attorney who does work for the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said, the CIA building isn’t hidden from public view. If the CIA doesn’t need to conceal its facility for safety and security reasons, why would a local Scottsdale police force? The message from government to citizens would seem clear: Shut up and pay.

The Founding Fathers would not be pleased.

Remember Benjamin Franklin, who said that “security without liberty is called prison,” as well as, “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Or Patrick Henry, who said the “liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Or Jefferson, in his “Notes on the State of Virginia”: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Henry could have been speaking his words directly to Scottsdale’s city council. But it’s that latter from Jefferson that’s perhaps most alarming for America, circa 2012. If our nation has lost its belief in God as the overall provider and has instead inserted government into that role, then the final frontier of American freedom is truly crumbling.

At stake is the very essence of our society, the very soul of our nation—the notion that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights; the notion that government is instituted among the people only to secure these God-given rights, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly, only with the consent of the people.

Are we still this nation -- or have we moved too far from this ideal? What's happened to God-given?

To read more, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-magazine-special-report-the-tyranny-of-security/

U.N. in talks for 'complete transformation' of world

Just in case there is any doubt left that the United Nations does in fact want to rule the world ... there's this, from Eagle Forum:

"The United Nations is meeting in Qatar to negotiate a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” explained Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a Monday press conference. “What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. It should happen much quicker, but it cannot happen overnight,” she added.

True, the U.N. didn't say it wanted a "complete transformation" of the entire world, but rather only a "complete transformation of the economic structure" of the entire world. So maybe the global body is not so power-hungry after all?

Except that whoever controls the purse strings controls the agenda. If the U.N. controls the world economy, it's pretty much the same as saying the U.N. controls the world's agenda, policies, politics and economies.

Figueres added that the U.N. is moving toward a Kyoto-type world climate change treaty with mandated 16.5 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, with implementation by 2020. For America, this speedy push for more global environmental regulation is not good news, given the political leanings of the White House and the Senate, the two entities that constitutionally control the fate of treaties.

See Eagle Forum's release: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/global-warming/complete-transformation-of-the-economic-structure-of-the-world.html

Taxpayers to bail out yet another alternative energy company

Alternative energy development has taken another hit as the world’s largest developer of wind turbines, Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems, trimmed its U.S. workforce by approximately 20 percent. Vestas says the reason for the layoffs is lagging revenues and the uncertain future of federal subsidies.

The company reported a 93 percent drop in its stock price during the past three years. Despite this failure, company officials say they expect to continue operations in the United States for years to come. The recent reelection of President Obama, who has championed taxpayer subsidies for alternative energy companies, gives failing alternative-energy companies like Vestas a glimmer of hope.

“Vestas is pleased the American public reelected many wind energy supporters, which includes both Republicans and Democrats,” said Andrew Longeteig, a communications specialist for Global MarCom & Corporate Relations, the firm that represents Vestas. “It’s a favorable step toward securing an extension of the Production Tax Credit. Vestas is confident the PTC will be extended because it has strong bipartisan support.

“Vestas is optimistic about the long-term future of wind power and intends to be in the U.S. market for a long time,” Longeteig added.

Read the full story here: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/11/27/vestas-wind-systems-cuts-workforce-20-percent.

Fiscal cliff talks: 'Right now, almost nowhere'

So far, so good. In a press conference on Friday afternoon, Speaker of the House John Boehner indicated the Republican Party is not going to agree to President Obama's fiscal cliff plan -- which is really a plan for unlimited tax hikes.

The president's plan calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, as well as authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. Never mind the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appropriate.

Boehner's response on Friday was blunt:

"Make no mistake about it," he said. "There is a stalemate."

He also characterized the state of fiscal cliff talks as "right now, almost nowhere."

For those who are sick of Capitol Hill's spend-spend-spend mindset, this is certainly good news.

Read a bit more here: http://times247.com/articles/boehner-standing-strong-on-tax-hikes

“There is a stalemate” between the GOP and the White House on tax talks, he said. “Most of you know me,” Boehner said, “and what you see is what you get.”

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/boehner-standing-strong-on-tax-hikes#ixzz2DjU42mXE

Morsi sees key to world peace in 'Planet of the Apes' movie

Ok, so Egypt's newest leader may have officially gone off the deep end.

First, President Mohammed Morsi declares himself de facto dictator by claiming absolute powers and maintaining that none of his decrees are subject to challenge. Then -- in the midst of national protests and judicial chaos over his power grab -- he says this:

"I remember a movie. Which one? Planet of the Apes. The old version, not the new one. There is new one. Which is different. Not so good. It’s not expressing the reality as it was the first one. But at the end, I still remember, this is the conclusion: When the big monkey, he was head of the supreme court I think — in the movie! — and there was a big scientist working for him, cleaning things, has been chained there. And it was the planet of the apes after the destructive act of a big war, and atomic bombs and whatever in the movie. And the scientists was asking him to do something, this was 30 years ago: “Don’t forget you are a monkey.” He tells him, “Don’t ask me about this dirty work.” What did the big ape, the monkey say? He said, “You’re human, you did it [to] yourself.” That’s the conclusion. Can we do something better for ourselves?"

The context for this reference? Morsi was talking about how humans can live together in peace and harmony.

From a Time interview, Nov. 28, 2012, by Richard Stengel, Bobby Ghosh and Karl Vick.

Thanksgiving: The time for prayer and thanks

From Newt and Callista Gingrich, via Human Events:

"It was 392 years ago this month that a small band of religious pilgrims from England agreed in writing how they would govern their new settlement at Plymouth. Their covenant began, “In the name of God, Amen.”

Today, we know their agreement as the Mayflower Compact, and these pioneers as the Pilgrims."

Good reminder.

I am thankful for my husband, for my children and family, for my dog and cat, for my home, for my gifts, talents and health. I am especially thankful Jesus died for my sins. And I am also very thankful for being born an American, and for all the God-given blessings that gift brings.

May our convenant with God endure, no matter who holds public office, no matter what media bias arises, no matter how loud the liberals protest.

Happy Thanksgiving!

So Romney and the GOP were trounced: What's next?

Nov. 6 was a sad day for conservatives -- too true. And while we ponder the all important questions -- why? what happened? -- we ought also look to the future. What's next?

And I don't mean who is the next GOP candidate for president. Think longer-term. Think higher altitude.

From 2 Timothy:
Do not fear. God is in control. Entrust and endure to the end.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

To me, that means the next time Stephanie Cutter opens her mouth, or Rahm Emanuel chimes in advice, or President Obama promises bipartisanship -- or John Boehner tries to walk both sides of the political aisle -- we have the assurance that God is in control. That such lies and spin and political sufferings are all part and parcel of a grander plan.

That's not to say conservatives shouldn't fight the good fight. But it does mean we can fight with dignity, with a calmness of spirit, armed with the righteousness of truth and with awareness that we are only working out God's sovereign plan.

That's the same spirit that drove the Founding Fathers. That's the spirit the liberals would have us believe is dead. But far from it: America is still -- very much still -- the shining light on the hill.

May God bless America and the undying spirit of Americans.

Facebook speech police hint at hidden bias

Last weekend, Facebook removed a meme posted by a political organization, Special Operations Speaks PAC, that criticized President Obama’s response to the murder of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The meme read: “Obama called the SEALs and they got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, they got denied.” And it came on the heels of media revelations that the White House had known and denied a request from SEALs for backup at the embassy.

Facebook removed the meme not once, but twice, within a 24-hour period. It would only seem natural to wonder why.

“Political speech is the most protected speech,” said Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center. Still, Facebook is a private company, and may be granted wider latitude than the government in regulating what can be posted as speech on its site, he added. But that latitude might one day shorten. “I really don’t have any sense of [political bias at Facebook] … but as social media becomes all-pervasive, they can become quasi-public … like a utility company.”

So if Facebook is taking on a semi-public role, what gives with the message clamp-down?

It was a mistake, said Andrew Noyes, manager of the company’s public policy communication. In an email, Noyes wrote: “This was an error and we apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of content a day and our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have.”

Richard Brauer, Jr., a retired colonel with the U.S. Air Force and a founder of SOS, raises a good point.

“It’s always possible it was an error,” he said. “But why’d they pull it down in the first place? Why choose that particular meme?”

Several emails and a telephone conversation later with both Noyes and one of his colleagues, and Facebook still can’t provide insight to that particular angle. Perhaps that’s because they wouldn’t answer specific questions, preferring instead to issue a single statement for attribution and go off-record with all other comments. That’s fine, of course. That’s Facebook’s privilege. But such tightly controlled public messaging doesn’t quell the curious. Or, the outraged.

“I think it’s absolutely unconscionable,” said Larry Bailey, a retired Navy SEAL and a founder of SOS. “It just gives you an idea how much the mainstream media, which includes Facebook, is in the liberal camp.”

Bailey’s supposition does have steam. In February, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg cozied to Obama at a dinner in San Francisco that was most definitely not – according to White House spokesman Jay Carney – a political fundraiser, but rather a casual get-together of the president and what happened to be some of the world’s most successful and wealthiest technology group executives. The dinner was hosted by John Doerr, a venture capitalist and top Democrat donor, who also happens to be married to another top Democrat donor. A couple months later, Zuckerberg hosted his own get-together with Obama at his Facebook headquarters in California. In the meantime, Facebook’s political activities have skyrocketed.

In February, the Center for Responsive Politics reported Facebook PAC had raised $170,000 in the last three months of 2011.

“And while it has yet to donate to a single politician on Capitol Hill,” the Center reported, “the company is capable of tapping a friendly and powerful network of donors to come up with a serious amount of campaign cash. Namely, its own employees.”

Facebook workers gave 67 percent, or $113,750, of all donations to the PAC in the fourth quarter, the Center found. Zuckerberg himself made a first-time political donation of $5,000, the Center revealed.

Not all the donations helped the Democrats, that’s true. But the PAC was a 2012 top contributor, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ rating system, to eight congressional members; of those eight, five were Democrats. So what’s it all mean?

Well, at the very least, Facebook can’t deny it’s an emerging political player. And it can’t deny that Democrats are often recipients of Facebook money. Take that with the ongoing and growing scandal involving the White House and Benghazi, the tick-tock of the presidential election clock, and the known and admitted abuses of the mainstream media to skew stories to their liking – think NBC’s creative edit to paint George Zimmerman as a racist -- and you’ve got a recipe for justifiable suspicion. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem so silly to suggest Facebook actually pulled a message to protect a political agenda.

Published here: http://times247.com/articles/24facebook-speech-police-hint-at-hidden-bias2 

Halloween scare: Al Gore gets on his climate warming podium

Just in time for Halloween comes this, from the premier global warming alarmist himself, Al Gore:

Hurricane Sandy is "a disturbing sign of things to come," he said, on his blog. "We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather."

Oooh, scarrrryy.

Is there really any man more desperate to prove his relevancy than Gore? He lost the battle of the hanging chad. He lost the moral ground of "family first" with a rumored affair that led to divorce. He lost a large portion of the global warming believing public, as report after report has emerged in recent months highlighting the fallacies of climate change science and findings.

It's to that last, however -- to the global warming argument -- that Gore steadfastly clings.

Why, Al Gore, why?

If it's a hurricane justification that's needed, here's one that beats Gore's.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-diary-tv-preacher-blames-sandy-on-gay-rights-8262261.html

A biblically based argument that God punishes disobedient nations, versus another Al Gore rant about the need to regulate energy production. Not saying the preacher is right.

But Al Gore's argument is tired. And perhaps other lines of thought could at least be considered.

TSA yanking naked body scanners -- well, some of them

Finally, the Transportation Security Administration is ratcheting back on its controversial naked body scanner program, and pulling the devices from airports nationwide.

From CNBC, Oct. 23:
"The Transportation Security Administration is removing full-body, X-ray scanners from major U.S. airports, and shipping them to less busy locations. TSA introduced the so-called Backscatter scanners, sometimes referred to as the "naked" X-ray machines, at U.S. airports in 2009. Many travelers were not happy that naked images of themselves were displayed to TSA officers in a nearby room. In addition to privacy concerns, travelers were concerned about radiation exposure."

But the catch is in the first sentence. The TSA is not completely stopping the program. Rather, the technology will now be in place at less busy airports.

This whole program has always struck me as a case-in-point of government elitism and hypocrisy. Can you imagine how long these scanners would be in place if Michelle Obama were forced to undergo the scrutiny? Or Obama daughter Malia and Sasha?

Read the full story here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49517858.

But the take-away is this: Government should not be allowed to exempt itself from the very laws and policies that are inflicted upon the American people.

YouTube's 'Ten Curious Micronations'

Can't decide whether this is in the spirit of the Founding Fathers or not ...

But the music sure is catchy!

'Toxic Twenty' list ignores 19 percent drop in toxins

The Natural Resources Defense Council is targeting key electoral swing states in its newly released “Toxic Twenty” list of states it says are most in need of expensive emissions restrictions.

According to NRDC, Kentucky is most in need of costly new emissions restrictions, followed by Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.

The next 10 states on NRDC’s list are Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Delaware. The list includes almost every swing state in this year’s presidential election, as well as many key U.S. Senate contests.

Attacking Affordable CoalNRDC chose the states primarily on the basis of their use of coal-powered electricity, the most affordable large-scale source of electricity.

Although NRDC releases its “Toxic Twenty” list in an effort to build support for more restrictive emissions standards, the advocacy group admitted toxins emitted from all power plants across the nation fell by 19 percent between 2009 and 2010. NRDC attributed most of the emissions reductions to EPA regulations and recent electricity market share gains by natural gas at the expense of coal.

Abigail F. MacIver, director of policy and external affairs for the Florida office of Americans for Prosperity, says the ongoing emissions reductions are attributable more to market forces than EPA regulations.
 
“The NRDC ignores a number of significant factors including that the level of toxins being omitted by power plants decreased … not because of EPA regulations but because of market forces,” MacIver said. “NRDC also fails to mention that Florida was the third highest consumer of energy in 2010 but 30th in per capita power usage, showing that despite being one of the most populous states, we are using less energy per person than 29 other states.”

MacIver said the NRDC is simply trying to push federal regulation of coal to the point where the industry is driven out of business. Such a tactic is economically destructive and environmentally unnecessary, MacIver said, given already substantial long-term declines in emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports emissions of the six principle pollutants have declined by 67 percent since 1980, even while the U.S. population grew by 36 percent.

“What’s interesting is every year, our air and water gets cleaner,” said Mike Thompson, president of Americans for Prosperity for Florida.

Full story here: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/10/04/nrdc-toxic-twenty-list-disregards-air-pollution-improvements

Watchdog group: The 7.8 percent just doesn't add up

Americans for Limited Government issued this statement, on the heels of Friday's September shocker of 7.8 percent unemployment:

"Today’s unemployment report met the political threshold set by Obama of being below 8 percent. To reach this threshold, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an astounding 873,000 people found full-time jobs last month. This finding contradicts virtually every other economic indicator including those used by the Federal Reserve to take the immediate and unprecedented step to embark on the Quantitative Easing 3, which entails pumping $40 billion of new dollars into the economy every month for the foreseeable future.

"Additional evidence that the data used to determine the unemployment rate is not valid can be found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on the number of actual jobs created. This report shows only 114,000 jobs created including an increase of 10,000 government workers.

"Either the Federal Reserve, which has its fingers on the pulse of every element of the economy, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics manufacturing survey report are grievously wrong or the number used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama’s campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious."

And ALG's comment on these skewed numbers?

“It appears that Obama has hired infamous Iraqi Information Minister Baghdad Bob to calculate the unemployment rate.  Anyone who takes this unemployment report serious is either naïve or a paid Obama campaign adviser,” says Americans for Limited Government Communications Director Rick Manning, also former Public Affairs Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor.

It's the first time the rate has fallen below 8 percent since February of 2009. And certainly, it was a shocker. Most lead-up reports to the BLS release of numbers estimated the rate would actually edge up, from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. At best, it would stay the same, analysts predicted. Moreover, smart money's already on the revised numbers hitting around the 8.2 percent mark.

In other words, suspicions of politics at play are definitely warranted.

See the full release here: http://getliberty.org/unemployment-rate-contradicted-by-job-growth-report/









 

Social Security and the Baby Boomer effect: It's kicking in now

The federal government hit a new high in Social Security old age and disability benefit payments a full month before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

By the end of August – and with a month to go in the fiscal year – the government had paid out just under $595 billion in benefits from the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. In all of fiscal 2011, by comparison, OASITF payments stood at about $591 billion.

Payments for federal disability insurance benefits also set an annual record in the first 11 months of fiscal 2012.

Through the end of August, the federal government had paid $129.126 billion in benefits from the federal disability insurance trust fund. Through all of fiscal 2011, the government paid $128.094 in disability benefits.

In fiscal 2010, the government spent $123.038 on disability benefits; in fiscal 2009, it was $115.086 billion; in fiscal 2008, it was $104.328 billion; and in fiscal 2007, $97.061.

The data are taken from the Monthly Treasury Statement for September 2012.

As dramatic as the numbers seem, however, at least one expert advises calm. Lawrence Hunter, president of the Social Security Institute, a non-profit group dedicated to reforming the system, says 2012 is a difficult year to compare with past years of benefit payouts. That’s due to expected bounces from the Baby Boomer effect, he said.

“First, 2012 is an ‘odd’ year in that there is an unusual bulge in the growth in Social Security recipients, and hence benefits paid this year, 2012,” Hunter said. “This was not a surprise, and it is a result of the beginning retirement of the ‘pig in the python,’ that is, the Baby Boomers. In other words, this increase is not due to something wacky or unexpected or unusual going on.”

At the same time, he added, the numbers do continue to point out the crucial need to overhaul Social Security.

“This is not to say the program is not out of actuarial balance over the long run,” he said. “Congress’s appalling handling of Social Security makes Hoffa’s misuse of Teamster pension fund monies pale by comparison. Just because it’s Congress, however, doesn’t make it any less criminal than what Hoffa and company did.”

Jason Fichtner also wasn’t surprised at the growing Social Security payout but warned, “But what might be surprising to people is to know that it’s just going to continue to get worse.”

Fichtner is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and formerly held several positions at the Social Security Administration including acting deputy commissioner, chief economist, and associate commissioner for retirement policy.

“For the past two years, the amount of money Social Security has been collecting based on payroll tax contributions alone has not been enough to pay the outgoing benefit payments,” Fichtner said. “In other words, Social Security is now ‘cash-flow negative’ and is projected to stay in a cash-flow deficit until the trust funds are exhausted in 2033.”

Read full story here: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/10/02/social-security-old-age-disability-benefits-hit-record-high