Search

Results

Social insecurity awaits Baby Boom retirees

21 Mar 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

"Restore our fortunes, O Lord," the psalmist prays this Sunday. Those coming to retirement age and counting on Social Security benefits may soon be joining in that prayer. For years the federal government borrowed from a $2.5 trillion Social Security nest egg, but starting this year those IOUs are coming due just as the government is racking up record deficits.This year for the first time since Congress last overhauled the system in the 1980s the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes--nearly $29 billion more. That would be a good time to start tapping the nest egg, but the federal government has already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors.Now it will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back what it owes, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.It is estimated the trust fund will run out of money by 2037, according to the trustees who oversee the program. "This is not just a wake-up call, this is it. We're here," said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst with The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. "We are not going to be able to put it off any more." Source: An article by Stephen Ohlemacher for the Associated Press

budget deficit mary johnson social security
Baby names take on biblical proportions

20 May 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Before departing from their midst in the gospel reading commemorating the Ascension, Jesus promises his disciples they will perform many powerful deeds in his name—a name, the Letter to the Ephesians reminds us, that in the heavens is above “every name that is named.” A list of the country’s most popular baby names for 2011 released Tuesday by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) reveals that for new parents, biblical names rise above most others. Jacob (in the top spot for 13 years), Noah, Michael, and Daniel all make the top 10 list for boys, with Matthew and Elijah holding down spots 12 and 13. For girls, variations on biblical names are also popular, with Isabella, the Spanish version of Elizabeth, Ava, a variation on Eve, and Abigail making the top 10. Sophia, Greek for the highly praised virtue wisdom, holds the top spot for girls. What is it that compels 21st-century parents to name their kids after ancient biblical figures? Laura Wattenberg, creator of a baby-naming website, said there is a “retro vibe” to the names from the Hebrew Bible in particular that appeal to parents today. “The traditional biblical names were New Testament names—John, James, Mary, and Elizabeth. Today, the hot names are all names from the Old Testament precisely because they were neglected for so many generations.” The SSA provides lists of baby names dating to 1880 on its website. The top two names that year were John and Mary. John is now no. 27 and Mary has fallen to no. 112—the lowest rankings in history for both names. The list draws millions of viewers. The agency hopes that people go to the website to see the baby names and stay to learn about other services, said SSA Commissioner Michael J. Astrue. Sources: An article by the Associated Press and a blog post on Under God (The Washington Post)

Bible names babies social security administration biblical names
Betting on a charm offensive to win a grand budget bargain

17 Mar 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Saint Paul takes the ultimate gamble in this Sunday’s second reading, writing to the Philippians that in order to “gain Christ” he has “accepted the loss of all things.” President Barack Obama held meetings this week with U.S. House Republicans and Senate Democrats, gambling that for the sake of a “grand bargain” on the budget he can convince both sides to accept the loss of some of their favored programs and positions.But the 90-minute gathering with House Republicans Wednesday—part of a series of across-the-aisle sessions some are calling the “White House charm offensive”—did little to bring the two parties together. Republicans' top priority—cutting federal spending and reining in record deficits in short order—came up early in the Republican conference meeting. Oklahoma Rep. Jim Lankford asked the first question, pressing the president to explain why he wouldn't join House Republicans in their effort to balance the budget in a decade. Obama, according to several Republicans, explained that he didn't share that priority, an answer that many emphasized as they left the meeting.“He thought what was more important was that deficits fall below growth as a percentage of GDP—certainly a laudable goal, but I think the federal government, like any business or any family, needs to work towards a balanced budget," Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, said afterward. Though unconvinced, Republicans did say the session helped build some trust and was a good opportunity to raise a wide spectrum of issues. Obama had told Senate Democrats in a Tuesday meeting that his budget to be released in April would align closely with their priorities but that, nonetheless, Democrats need to embrace at least some changes to unsustainable entitlement programs in order to achieve their long-term priorities. The president made the case, senators attending the luncheon said, to protect entitlements for future generations—a key Democratic priority in negotiations with Republicans.Obama's arguement that Social Security and Medicare—big drivers of federal spending—wouldn’t survive without some changes to save money seemed to be opening the door a crack toward a way forward: If the White House is seen as willing to put entitlements on the table, some Republicans may reconsider their staunch opposition to new revenue.Obama’s blunt talk on entitlements doesn’t mean that Senate Democrats are on board. Several members in the meeting spoke up about the concerns that changes to the programs would be part of a deal, attendees said. “He said he hoped we can reach some sort of grand bargain,” said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. “Of course some of us responded by saying, ‘Yes, but what is in that grand bargain?’ We don’t want to start whacking away at Social Security or Medicare.”Homily hint: Americans are frustrated by their elected officials' seeming inability to work across party lines to solve the nation’s most pressing problems. Perhaps this Sunday’s gospel, which challenges the righteous to first examine their own shortcomings before condemning another’s, offers some insights that could be applied to those who seem quick to condemn their political opponents. Sources: Articles by Deirdre Walsh and Rachel Streitfeld for CNN and Ginger Gibson for Politico

barack obama jim lankford tom cotton social security federal budget republicans democrats house of representatives medicare senate entitlements