Deficit-cutting ax may fall on Social Security

[brentspeak]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2010/0726/Deficit-cutting-ax-may-fall-on-Social-Security

By David R. Francis / July 26, 2010

The Social Security system today faces a threat greater than the drive for partial privatization by George W. Bush.

"That's not hyperbolic," says Nancy Altman, codirector of Social Security Works, a group dedicated to preserving the system that provides income for 50 million retirees, the disabled, millions of children, and more. Her fear is that President Obama's bipartisan National Com­mis­sion on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will recommend cuts in Social Security benefits as one means to reduce the burgeoning federal budget deficit. If 14 of 18 commissioners agree on a deficit-cutting plan, it could be passed at a lame-duck session of Congress without the extensive hearings and discussions that normally precede such an important measure.

snip

But, Altman says, each year of delayed eligibility amounts to a 6 or 7 percent benefit cut. She proposes instead boosting the amount of income subject to payroll tax from its present level of $105,800 a year, diverting revenues from a revived estate tax to Social Security, and adding a new tax on financial transactions in order to boost Social Security benefits by 5 percent.

Merely making all income subject to the payroll tax would cure the problem, says Mr. Baker.

[BklnDem75]

1. Christian Science Monitor?

Is that why you didn't post a link?

[brentspeak]

2. The link didn't get posted because it got caught between other html code

It's fixed now.

I'm not sure what your point is about 'why' I didn't post a link, but whatever it is, it's pretty bizarre. Nice try, though.

[Enrique]

3. why would anyone at DU hide a link from CSM?

:shrug:

[BklnDem75]

14. May have been mistaken

Remembering CSM doing a story on Obama's eligibility after he won the election, so assumed they were part of the conservative circle.

[DebJ]

4. I want CEO's to pay into it from all of their 500% increase in

income. They won't miss the money. Problem solved.

[golfguru]

6. Except it does not balance

Total CEO pay < $1 Trillion.
Social Security & Medicare obligations > $50 Trillion

[DebJ]

7. Are both of your figures annual figures? In other words,

SS and Medicare will be $50 trillion PER YEAR expenses? Or are you comparing annual total salaries to an accumulated deficit?

[golfguru]

8. Good question...you are a smart woman

These figures are projected sum totals over several years.
I do not recall exactly how many years, but it is a few decades.

But the years are not the important parameter.
The critical fact is that Uncle Sam is in deep doo-doo of debt & obligations.

[dsc]

19. actually they are projections into infinity and beyond

no I am not joking. The literally have projected out to infinity.

[golfguru]

5. SS & MC will be cut

it is inevitable. There simply is not enough money!
Printing more money is not the best answer because
then the SS checks will be worthless anyway.

Germany pre-Hitler redux is something we should not desire.

[Skink]

9. Social security is fine.

just have to raise the cap a little more aggressively.

[golfguru]

11. That will help but it is a case of

diminishing returns. How many people make over the cap?
The number of beneficiaries outnumber the higher income people by a factor of 100 perhaps.

[Skink]

13. We already created a trust fund to cover the boomers.

in forty years the number of people collecting will return to today's levels.

the misinformation being spread now is that today's commission must recomend things that were done in the 80's.

No just raise the cap slightly problem solved.

Fixing medicare is a seperate issue. I think the idea of lowering the age by ten years is a good one. let more healthy people pay into the system.

[jtuck004]

15. Usually I try to be a bit more reserved, but that's just crap. And a Republican talking point.

An economist with the following credentials:

"From 1981 to 1982, Galbraith served on the staff of the Congress of the United States, eventually as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.<1> In 1985, he was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.<1>

Galbraith is currently a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and at the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. Galbraith heads up the University of Texas Inequality Project (UTIP), which has been described by economic historian Lord Skidelsky as "pionering inequality measurement".<2> UTIP is also noted for replacing the established Gini coefficient with the Theil index as the measurement of choice for comparing inequality between groups, regions and countries. <2>"

So James Galbraith is no slouch. He makes it abundantly clear
that:

1) The money is there
2) There is more than enough
3) The numbers used to say that it isn't, or that it's going to bankrupt us are projections and thus say anything anyone wants them to say. And not very good projections

in this testimony to the CC.

In addition...

--43% of Americans unable to contribute enough to their retirement to have more than $10,000 by the time they retire, according to a Careerbuilder.com poll, perhaps because

--66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans, according to Harvard Magazine, which may explain why

--61% percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007, according to another Careerbuilder.com poll.

If someone was TRULY concerned about our deficit and the future, they would suggest we quit financing our housing bubbles, hedge fund expansions, and 2 wars with foreign investments from China by buying their low-cost goods, and rebuild our manufacturing sector which would provide good jobs, pensions, and tax revenue to run the kind of country that has real security, not bluster.

And they damn sure wouldn't advocate cruelty and poverty for seniors so hedge funds can get an increase in the $36 billion in bonuses, funded by taxpayer money, in 2008.

Using number from the Congressional Budget office, this report shows that we may not be able to expect unemployment to drop to 5% until 2021.

And it may well be too optimistic because we have not yet approached even half the numbers of jobs that will need to be created to make that projection work.

2021. That means there are millions of people who have worked the last job they will ever have.

It is a death sentence for some to lose that pitiful amount of support from Social Security.

How the hell anyone can suggest that the rug be pulled out from under our neighbors like that, especially on this board. is beyond me.

[senseandsensibility]

16. You should make this an OP.

Many people, even here on DU, need to read this. The corporate media is sure not going to mention it.

[stubtoe]

17. This is excellent. Please make into an OP.

[jtuck004]

18. Sorry, do you

mean just copy it?

Is that ok?

I didn't mean to go off, it just kills me to see things like that.

[senseandsensibility]

24. Sure it's okay!

If anyone gives you any trouble, just tell them I said so. Seriously, it's fine.

[jtuck004]

26. LOL. OK, I'll clean up the references and get it done. and thank you n/t

[TheKentuckian]

21. Definitely needs to be an OP, great post

[AzDar]

20. America pre-FDR redux ain't something we desire either...

:patriot:

[sabrina 1]

29. That is not true. Social Security is solvent and has nothing

to do with the Deficit. Stop spreading this Rightwing lie and educate yourself. It's bad enough that for decades the right has been perpetrating lies about SS, now we have a president who is helping them.

This will be the line in the sand for this administration and if they think waiting until after the election will fool people, they are wrong.

See Krugman, James Galbraith, Dean Baker and every other respected economist on this issue.

Since Alan Simpson inadvertently revealed the cynical goals of this phony commission, supposedly set up to discuss the deficit, calls have gone out to the Obama Administration to remove Simpson, Peterson, Bowles and Ryan from the commission.

It cannot be said often enough, SS did not cause the deficit, it has nothing to do with the deficit, it is a separate fund, it is solvent, it has a surplus and is good for decades. Anyone saying anything other than that, is lying. And they are lying to take SS funds and put them in the hands of the Wall St. Casino. And we all know what that means.

[lonestarnot]

10. Hmmmf up to your old tricks I see.

[nykym]

12. Additionally Congress has to be told to

keep their hand out of the SS Trust Fund cookie jar. This is our money not your to fund absurd special projects and wars. Oh - and its time to pay back all those IOU's you left in the cookie jar.

[BlueIdaho]

22. They need to be told, voting to dismantle SS is political suicide.

They need to understand that dismantling the safety net is the quickest way to end their political career. The excellent post above makes clear that the money is there and that the boomer buldge can be weathered by making a few common sense adjustments in the short term.

Our politicians need to understand clearly it is not in their best interest to have hundreds of thousands of citizens left to fend for themselves. They may just become "unpredictable" if they have nothing left to lose.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. there is no problem

The part of the budget that is way out of whack is the military. SS is running a surplus and will continue to do so for quite some time.

[AtomicKitten]

25. We went over this. You're supposed to sneak up and then yell "boo."

[bvar22]

27. K&R...but clearly some at DU don't want this info to get out.

!

[sabrina 1]

28. Social Security has NOTHING to do with the deficit!

This is a Republican lie, now being told by Democrats also, including this president.

It is not part of the Federal Budget and is a totally separate fund.

People need to start educating themselves as the talking points are already ready to go out as soon as the election is over.

This is a very important question to ask candidates 'do you think that it may be necessary to cut SS benefits to help reduce the Deficit'?

If their response in any indicates that they think there is any relationship between SS and the Deficit, they should not be in office ... we don't need Dems voting to privatize SS. We need Dems who will protect it.

[brentspeak]

30. s/k

:kick: