We’re working to resolve the issue, of course. Delivery of our daily newsletter, MarketingProfs Today, has been postponed to tomorrow, Saturday, May 19. Those of you who also subscribe to MarketingProfs This Week—our “best of” weekly edition—will receive it on Sunday, May 20, rather than tomorrow.

Until then, here are a few ideas on how you can get your fill of MarketingProfs even WITHOUT accessing the content on our website:

1. Vote in our Marketing Tug of War: Content v. Social Media. (Which is more effective? You decide!) While you’re on our Facebook page, you can spend some time connect with us and your fellow subscribers (and don’t forget to Like our page when you’re there!). We’re posting updates to Facebook as well as our Twitter feed, BTW.

2. Flip through our photos on Instagram. Check out the MarketingProfs Instagram feed here, or browse our latest photos from our Smart Marketers Tour touch down this past week in Miami. (Next up: Minneapolis on June 13!)

3. Check out our latest Slideshare presentation, 10 Ideas for Creating Visual Content, by our senior writer and this blog’s editor, Veronica Maria Jarski.

4. Read some of my favorite posts on the MarketingProfs blog. Since the blog isn’t affected by the DDoS attack (different server, yo), you can happily browse content over here. Some of my favorite posts of late have highlighted the 12 most annoying things about your website by Shelly Kramer, MarketingProfs’ own Dani Hagen’s take on what we can learn from Trader Joe’s, and why you should create content for the person who sits next to your prospect.

5. Listen to the MarketingProfs Marketing Smarts podcast. Subscribe or listen via iTunes. Hosted by Managing Editor Matthew T. Grant, the MarketingSmarts podcast is free, and the half-hour weekly show is a lively mix of fun and smart conversation.

So there you go. Thanks for your patience while we work through the issue and get back online as fast as we can. It’s not an overstatement when I say: Holy Toledo, we miss you!!

To help you boost your email marketing skills, we’re serving up a free seminar titled Email Frequency, Volume and Cadence: Recommendations and Considerations.

The presenters are Regina Gray, vice-president of the strategic services team at Experian Marketing Services, and Sara Swenson, manager of analytics of the strategic services team at Experian Marketing Services. They don’t just talk about email marketing—they are immersed in it.

By attending this seminar, you’ll get the scoop regarding…

You can benefit from their presentation whenever you want. That’s because the seminar is on demand. And it’s just 60 minutes long, so it’s easy to set aside time for it, whenever it works best for you. (You can also watch it little by little, if you want.)

Get all the details for this on-demand seminar and register here.

(Photo courtesy of Bigstock: Email)

Medicare Part A is one of several federal programs that control spending through a “belt and suspenders” combination of regular program rules (the belt) and an overall limit (the suspenders). But it’s the only one that allows legislated savings to offset the costs of policy changes in other programs and extend the time before the overall limit constrains operations.

Congress can’t increase Social Security payroll taxes to pay for increased health care spending or reduce flood insurance subsidies to pay for tax cuts; in both cases, the resources stay within the affected programs. And when it cuts spending on Medicare Parts B and D to pay for other spending, no one claims those cuts will also postpone the day when trust fund exhaustion will disrupt their operations.

Such double counting is possible only in Medicare Part A. And it’s a real problem, creating needless confusion and reinforcing the sense that Washington plays fast and loose with budget numbers.

Happily, Congress knows how to fix this problem. All it needs to do is apply to Medicare A the practices used by one of the other programs that have “belt and suspenders” budgeting but avoid potential double counting.

One approach would be the rules used by the National Flood Insurance Program. As I discussed in more detail last week, those rules require that any legislated savings remain in the program. Lawmakers can’t reduce NFIP subsidies to pay for new spending in other programs. Instead, any savings are automatically earmarked to pay future NFIP claims that would go unpaid because of the program’s borrowing limit. (For an example, see here.)

This approach brings the overall limit explicitly into the budget. But it makes for weird budgeting. For example, the budget baseline would show Medicare A breaking even over the long run, since the trust fund limit would take precedence over its fundamental deficits.

A better approach would adopt the rules used by Social Security. Those rules show Social Security running deficits far into the future in the budget baseline, but they still take the trust fund seriously when examining new legislation. Any proposed cuts to the program’s spending or increases in its revenues are “off budget”. The Congressional Budget Office reports them, but Congress can’t use them to pay for other spending.

A recent Senate bill provides a telling example. The bill would expand the type of income subject to payroll taxes in order to pay for a one-year extension of low interest rates on student loans. Those low rates would cost $6 billion, but the Senate proposal would raise $9 billion. The bill had to overshoot that much because $3 billion comes from higher Social Security taxes and is thus off limits. Meanwhile, the $6 billion in usable revenues comes from Medicare Part A, which is considered “on budget” despite having a trust fund just like Social Security’s.

That difference highlights the inconsistency in current budgeting. If policymakers believe the Part A trust fund is as sacrosanct as Social Security’s, they should provide the same budgetary protection: Part A savings should be off budget, where they couldn’t be used to pay for health reform, student loans, tax cuts, or anything else outside the hospital insurance program.

If Congress doesn’t believe the trust fund deserves that protection, it should adopt a third approach: make the Part A fund as operationally toothless as the one for Medicare B and D. Those programs spend much more than they receive, so their trust fund has unlimited ability to draw on general revenues. If the same were true for Medicare Part A, program changes could be used to pay for health reform (as they were in 2010) or anything else, just like any other mandatory program. But we wouldn’t have any confusion over whether those changes also extend the program’s ability to operate.

The Social Security and Medicare B and D approaches both make more sense than the mishmash that applies to Medicare A today. I think the Medicare B and D approach is the better of the two, not least because it would put all the parts of Medicare on equal footing. But one could certainly argue for the Social Security approach instead. That’s the discussion we should have now so that we can avoid needless double-counting debates in the future.

P.S. Several readers noted an important qualification to my Social Security discussion in my earlier post. Many experts believe past Social Security surpluses have been used to finance deficits in the rest of the budget and, as a result, Social Security resources have been paying for higher spending or lower revenues elsewhere in government. I agree. My comments in these posts apply only to explicit budgeting decisions, like those in 2010’s health reform or today’s student loan legislation. In that context, Social Security savings cannot be legislatively used to pay for other programs. But they still might have indirect effects. For example, by reducing future unified budget deficits, Social Security savings might weaken future congressional efforts to reduce deficits outside Social Security.