Ben Smith says today that the left is "silent on Social Security reform" even as the administration considers it, and quotes Blue Dog Jim Cooper who says Obama is "in a honeymoon phase, and many liberals are afraid to express concerns."
Atrios calls it trolling. Perhaps it is, but there have been signs that serious Social Security reform is in the works, and people who have been briefed on the administration’s plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.
Consider — in December, Cooper said a report which showed "that the governments unfunded liabilities are roughly $56 trillion" was "shocking." He called for a commission to address it, which Hoyer endorsed but Pelosi opposed. The White House agreed to it in January:
Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. "We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.
So who is going to be on this panel? Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg, the Blue Dogs and "a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter." Said Paul Rosenberg:
So, Blue Dogs in. Progressives? Not so much. Surprised? Didn’t think so. The agenda here "difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare" is straight out of the fiscal slasher movie on CNN last weekend, IOUSA, which Digby blogged about earlier in the week, and which was thoroughly debunked by economist Dean Baker and his associates at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which he co-directs, when it first came out in theatrical release last fall.
Whatever plan the task force comes up with, Cooper does not want Congress to be able to amend it.
Cooper was a health care spokesman for Obama during the campaign. Mike Lux sounded the alarm at the time, noting that Cooper had been critical to killing health care reform in 1993/94 and was a solid spokesman for the insurance industry position. Digby has more of his history.
Now as Ben rightly notes, during the campaign the only time Obama discussed revamping Social Security was raising the cap on Social Security taxes. But that’s hardly what Jim Cooper and the Blue Dogs are looking for. Nor, does it seem, that folks inside the Obama team think that this will be sufficient. The framework they are evidently looking at is outlined in a 2005 Brookings Institute paper called the Diamond-Orszag Plan, co-written by…yes, Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag.
You can find the plan here, but this should give you a hint:
Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones?
The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions. Unfortunately, too many analysts and politicians have ignored this reality, responding to the painful alternatives by embracing "free lunch" approaches.
[]
Our plan makes the painful choices that are necessary—selecting a combination of benefit and revenue changes to restore long-term balance. In doing so, it focuses on three areas which contribute to the actuarial imbalance: improvements in life expectancy, increases in earnings inequality, and the burden of the legacy debt from Social Security’s early history.
[]
Workers who are 55 or older will experience no change in their benefits from those scheduled under current law. For younger workers with average earnings, our proposal involves a gradual reduction in benefits from those scheduled under current law. For example, the reduction in benefits for a 45-year old average earner is less than 1 percent; for a 35-year-old, less than 5 percent; and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent. Reductions are smaller for lower earners, and larger for higher ones.
Obama met with the Blue Dogs Tuesday night. Before the House vote on the stimulus bill, Rahm Emanuel had promised them that they would soon see "signs of Obama’s commitment to fiscal reform," and according to one Blue Dog, "Tuesday night was a fulfillment of the commitment Emanuel made that day."
If Blue Dogs like Cooper have been emboldened by the idea that the left will quietly accept Social Security reforms that include reductions in benefits because of Obama’s popularity, they have sorely deluded themselves. As Atrios notes, it would create "an epic 360 degree shitstorm." If people on the left are being quiet, it’s not because they don’t care…it’s because they don’t think Obama will ever do it.



207 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Pirvate accounts anyone? Best time to start them when the stock market is low. /s
“If people on the left are being quiet, it’s not because they don’t care…it’s because they don’t think Obama will ever do it.”
Of course we’ve never been surprised before.
Hope this is only a case of telling them what they want to hear.
Today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. Happy birthday to Darwin.
Too bad there’s not a ceremony in DC celebrating that.
Just think if we had gone to private accounts people would now be seeking out Bush wherever he was living.
Science is not popular with Republicans.
That’s why I said “too bad.”
While true it is good to start private accounts when the market is low, if we have 15 years of stagnation like Japan the low market will not be going anywhere any time soon.
Thus the private account is a non-starter. Unfortunately we need to preserve social security so old people have something in their old age.
I certainly hope the administration is not so brain dead as to flog this dead horse again.
wait a minute
in the early ’80s, St. Ronald Reagan doubled the amount working people pay in FICA taxes, presumably to make the babyboomers pay upfront for their own benefits to come later.
now that they’ve stolen that money, the powers that be are telling us WE have to face painful choices?
Raising the cap is the only sensible change that should be done, if anything needs to be done. Blue dog dolts and GOP children don’t seem to grasp the idea that taking $1 from 100,000 people is easier to swallow than taking $100 from 1,000 people. The more who pay into Social Security, the less we individually have to pay to maintain appropriate funding levels. And since this is money most of us benefit from if we’re ever able to retire, it’s an investment and not a cost.
Thanks for the heads up on this. It’s important to get in the process now. Thanks.
I put a snark tag, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, once the subject of ss reform is “on the table,” to see the Rs insist on it. And they will undoubtedly use the idea of buying when stock prices are low as one of the talking points. In addition, advertising it as a stimulus for getting the stock market up. A veritable twofer.
And Schumer and Dodd, big recipients of Wall St money (and Obama) will sign on with great enthusiasm.
I’m much better at anticipating what the wingnuts will do, having trained myself in that over the past 8 years.
What the Ds will do, not so much.
Oh, they understand it alright. They’re just not interested in the concept. Private accounts would generate tons of money in fees for the brokerage houses, the patron saints of the conservatives. They fight gambling in most states but have no problem with gambling on Wall Street.
It’s not a feature of the Diamond-Orszag plan, but you are right that the Rs will insist on it. And then everyone will “compromise.”
They haven’t evolved enough to get a Spine to Stand Upright yet.
yeah. are you able to go back and remove the snark tag ?
History will say Bush literally dodged a bullet on that one:)
Only peace candidate Lyndon Johnson could go to war in Vietnam.
Only McCarthyite Richard Nixon could recognize the Peoples Republic of China.
And only the second coming of FDR, Barack Obama, can gut Medicare and Social Security.
What ever happened to the money raid of SS monies over the last 30 years and paying it back? As to lefties believing Obama wouldn’t slaughter the fatted calf of SS, you bet he will! The more I read of Obama/Emanuel, the more it seems Obama is a Blue Dog/DLC type such as Emanuel. He seems a fiscal conservative first and foremost.
Yes, I noted that it wasn’t part of the Diamond-Orszag plan, just anticipating the way it will play out.
What is soooo very disturbing about this is that it is hardly high priority, given all the other much more pressing problems. Almost makes me think that they’re using the economic and military problems to hide what they are doing. Shock doctrine anyone?
Cut war Military spending instead get the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Lets do some polling Just what would the American people cut from the budget?
I’m sorry, but readers will just have to do their work by reading the subsequent comments. *g*
” The conference committee stripped a provision he authored, which would have re-authorized E-Verify for five years, and one sponsored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), which would have required E-Verify use by stimulus-fund recipients. Rep. Calvert notes that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) were responsible for these anti-American worker actions. He issued the following release: “
http://www.numbersusa.com/cont…..orkers.htm
You must not have noticed that military spending is now the third rail in politics.
Shock and awe.
Merely to get our minds of other ‘things’, no doubt …
o/t. just read Broder. ill. last paragraph. very ill. knew it.
Now I can rationalize being overweight & smoking – why bother living through an old age that looks pretty bleak & will probably find me working as a greeter at Wal-Mart.
As benefits are cut and we still have no National Healthcare I predict that South of the border retirement homes will skyrocket. Medical drugs and labor are cheaper in Mexico.
Nothing new here. During the primaries one topic of “discussion” was who was the stronger DLCer, Obama or Clinton. There were those of us who had hopes that the DLC would lose some of its influence. We hoped in vain.
Welcome to Wal-Mart
Get yer shit and get out.
Have a nice day.
Lobbyists not the people made that so, if the Stimulus plan fails or even if things just get a little more worse for a year we might not have a choice.
All things become possible if your desperate enough.
Is there anything you would suggest cutting?
Yeah; I what I meant is that as a team, it’s being instituted faster than Obama without Emanuel.
BTW what’s become of supplemental funding for our adventure in Iraq/Afghanistan? Will Obama start funding in the new budget or continue in Bushies footsteps?
The
war deptmilitary. By half for starters.What I would do is completely divorced from what will actually be done. Like many difficult problems, the solution is completely clear: cut military spending and raise taxes on the rich. But just like the Palestinian-Israeli situation, the obvious solution is not anywhere near on the table.
Eliminate the salary cap; fix the funding problem forever.
Raise benefits now to make up for folks’ disappeared 401k plans, per Jim Geoghegan.
Medicare for all.
Progressives need to find a place to stand on these issues that requires Obama and his Blue Doggies to compromise toward us. This is the only way to avoid intergenerational theft (two can brandish that sword, Gluehorse McCain!)
I’ve heard some mention in comments by various committee members that lead me to think the wars will continue to be funded by supplemental funding.
Anyone have any idea of the economic effect of millions of Retirees going South of the Border to retire due to the economy and these expected Blue Dog cuts in SS?
I wonder what the net loss in local jobs, spending, land value as the retirees sell their homes will be in the Blue Dog’s districts?
I wonder how it will effect the National economy?
That is first on “the” list …
Right after a very warm region freezes over.
Grasshoppers must be patient, and not insist that ants do all the work.
LOL
This is another of these incredibly stupid moves. Right now, the key thing is to stimulate the economy and fix the banking industry. Talking about cutting back on entitlements just makes people even more frightened and less likely to spend, i.e. stimulate.
Then too the principal problem in entitlements is not in Social Security. It’s in Medicare and that can best be addressed by moving to single payer universal healthcare.
Third, most of any eventual shortfalls in Social Security can be made up by taking off income caps.
Finally, the national debt is $10.7 trillion at the moment. $4.3 trillion of that is mostly debt related to the Social Security surpluses which the government has spent. Rather than honoring this commitment, the government now looks like it is trying to weasel out of this. I have often said that the surpluses were a scam, a backdoor tax on the lower and middle classes. This is money the government has already spent just like it has and does with your income taxes. But there was a commitment that in 2017 or thereabouts when shortfalls began to occur that the government would make good on them via the mythical surpluses. Now this was always hooey because this was going to come out of general revenues, which basically meant that workers of one generation were supposed to pay back the money the government took (and spent) from those of another generation. Now the Obama Administration looks like it is wants to renege on this. This is all deeply corrupt.
OT
Mrs. Greenspan is doing a fair job of interviewing Reed on Afghanistan. Asked him if U.S. is arming the Taliban (U.S. weapons that “leak” away.) Reed changes the subject.
thanks for the link to the diamond-orszag plan. news to me.
i thought geithner was pretty clear about entitlement reform in his testimony before the senate banking committee.
Obama wants to do the ‘right’ thing, apparently …
just wanted to repeat it in bold.
What could go wrong with privatizing Social Security now? I mean Larry Summers is on top of this and I am sure he will see that the system is properly regulated so that nothing bad will happen.
Agreed! We need a National Poll to show the politicians I wonder where cutting SS ranks?
I think cutting Senators pay and removing their Healthcare completely would come first before cutting SS.
Come on, Hugh, fear is the best ‘motivator’, and it’s only fair to spread it around equally.
Why should the uber wealthy be the only ones to suffer?/s
By whatever means necessary, the monsters that make up the Blue Dogs need to be taken out so they cannot further pollute the moral, ethical, and NECESSARY. To start, we can force them to choose: you are either a Republican or you are a human being. You are either for the rich only, or you are for human beings.
Choose so we the People can deal with you as befitting your choice.
Cutting social security? Just yesterday I went to file divorce papers so I could receive my late husband’s social security.
And “they” may cut my benefits? I was married to him for 20 years. I hope they don’t touch widow’s benefits cause I could starve to death if they do. I know I am whining but every time Ron and I pull ourselves up successfully seems either through lack of oversight, lack of affordable health care, and/or lack of compassion this government …. I can’t even finish this comment.
Thanks for the reinforcement. It’s really that easy, isn’t it?
I’ll suck up their gutting of Social Security if they agree to gut their own retirement benefits that they have seen fit to splash themselves with.
Yes, Summers will make sure nothing goes wrong by removing all regulation from mutual funds, as the free market is so much better.
The Republics are making a list to be used when they get back in power. It’s a long one, too. It’s all the things they failed to name after Reagan when they still had total power. One thing that’s included is changes to coins.
Republics were so drunk with power that they thought they had plenty of time to get Reagan’s image on the dime and the half dollar. I hear that most of them are refusing to use those coins until their terrible oversight has been corrected.
More like, many liberals are silenced by Rahm and his Blue Dog buddies.
GOoPers wearing false IDs, all of them – and I don’t see the DNC doing anything to rein them in.
May it be a long, long wait!
In today’s WaPo? I didn’t see anything like that in his piece.
Yeah. The question is, right for whom?
Ok then just how bad does the economy have to get before the government will be forced to do the right thing? Must we wait for Hoover economic numbers? The same numbers that brought us Hitler and Stalin?
The GOP prays for a Reagan/Hitler to emerge from this economy but FDR and Stalin suggests a 2/3 chance of an outcome that the GOP will not like.
Any idea on which way the odds are leaning this time? What metrics should we watch for?
I would be all for putting his mug on a penny. As they are handled and spent we can have a constant reminder of the good he did. /s
I think we are at the limit we can finance now still maybe after the economy is better that is the plan.
But if the economy gets better any time soon then Obama takes credit.
With each passing day I become fonder of Malcolm’s statement.
Actually for the younger worker, the stock market is the best investment with a history of 8-9% year over year increase even including the current issues…
Good storyline are the Media preparing us for a withdrawal from Afghanistan?
People talkin about “taking people out” need to draw there fuckin brakes,
edit –
statementphraseSnark tag neededs
You are so right. There’s nothing wrong with Social Security funding other than the government takes FICA taxes into the general fund and gives bonds in return. If a private individual did this bait and switch, he be in the slam. When our honorable representatives do it, nobody protests much. If you think the economy is bad now, think of how much more pain there’d be without social security. That is, of course, a serious psychological defect of the wealthy. It is not enough to be wealthy, others have to endure economic pain.
I know I’m a broken record, but we’ve got to start thinking of alternatives to the way things are.
My dear friend, the ‘whom’ are the Political Cla$$ and America’s Own Ari$tocracy … you know, the people who count (even if they cannot ‘count’, using their nanny’s or pool boy’s fingers).
‘Whom’ else is there?
I’m better at economic forecasting than political forecasting (though trying to learn the latter).
In terms of the former, I did a back of the envelop today: stim is worth around 3% of GDP for the next two years, while jobs are falling at a 5% rate. Without going into multiplier effects of both, and differences in the base for the percentages, it looks like the stim is not enough to overcome the downward momentum. And the job losses are immediate, which the stim will ramp up over months.
their
If you cut military spending, you won’t have a country to spend your social security and benefits in…
Rhetorical question.
Second this.
Heh. Perhaps progressive alternative would be to put ss “surplus” in a “lock-box.”
I musta missed somethin’ but I ain’t going back to look.
I know, just blowin’ steam, SD.
Needs repeating for them what (whom?) still is sanguine.
I’d rather see them hurting than for them to cut the only money the elderly get each month.
Jeesh, what does America stand for now?!
Me too, I’m only lookin’ ‘forward’!
The Blue Dogs are Rahm’s pets. He takes very good care of them and hopes to breed more.
Sheesh muh 77 was to SD’s 74 …
summary: Biden was a senator a long time. But he doesn’t no shit about the House. Useless he was.
But it was probably a lucky break for the administration that Rahm Emanuel was also around to work the House. Obama’s chief of staff was the No. 4 man in the House Democratic leadership. If anyone could placate Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants who run the key committees, it was probably Emanuel. This week was the first big test.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..03203.html
I was just saying yesterday I’m gonna be pissed tbne day Rahm throws Joe The Biden under the bus. he didn’t really throw him under the bus, but Broderb makes Biden seem an incompetent fool while thank God we have rahm to the rescue.
You responded to it directly, sort of set me back cuz I know you know better.
geithner and summers have said that our economic problems are due to a lack of confidence. anyone know where i can find some of that?
Is it possible to stop using Republican language to talk about Social Security. It. Is. Not An. Entitlement. It is paid for , actually OVER paid for the last 20+ years, through payroll deductions that are not optional. These funds are not part of the general fund.
Is it possible to start talking about the theft of that money? About 4 and a half TRILLION dollars have disappeared. The program is fine with some minor adjustments, like lifting the cap. (Which was never anything more than preferential treatment for the wealthy.) How about the discussion centers around “wheres our fucking money?”
Privatizing a portion of Social security would be great for many reasons. One it would not put the money in the hands of Government. They would not raid the funds and spend elsewhere as they are currently doing. Also the money being infused into the markets would help people’s 401ks and other retirement accounts as the baby boomers are hitting retirement age and drawing funds out. Yes their are risks but like you said the markets is as low as it has been for a long time. start it now and that $57 trillion could be full funded relatively quickly with a great deal of luck and of course this would only be a portion of social security investment.
There is no room for Social Security in the neo-conservative new world order. Class warfare is always their most important war.
Further economic collapse then could give us or the GOP what we need to change things or we could both fail and have a revolution of the Right or Left.
How long using your numbers before we are in Hoover land? A guesstimate if you please only, I don’t expect real numbers off the top of anyone’s head on this subject.
What do the Blue Dogs stand for? Their values are not American!
I don’t know how to articulate this exactly because it is something that I have only begun to do recently, because there are still all kinds of outs and caveats to it, and because there is such a strong prejudice against it, but I have begun to look at what is happening in the country within the frame of a pre-revolutionary state. This is essentially a state where the normal institutions of government have ceased to function effectively. They are still there but they are no longer working. Now such a state does not mean that there will be a revolution but what it does mean is that the conditions for one are developing.
And re revolutions, the American Revolution, like its Civil War, was highly unusual, atypical. Revolutions can produce long term gains but are almost never worth the pain and suffering they cause.
Let’s give Hoover a break. This is Bush land.
Point me in the right direction. I just went over all the stuff I responded to but don’t see it.
How are the job gains in the stimulus calculated. Obama is on his way to the Caterpillar plant that has announced they will be hiring back recently laid off workers w/ the passage of the stimulous bill. Are they in the calculation? I would anticipate significant sales of p/u and other vehicles as infrastructure construction gets underway. Is this anticipated as part of the job gains?
Damn, we agree on something!
Fine, so invest in the stock market INDEPENDENTLY of the stock market.
Social Security is INSURANCE – it is there so that no matter what happens to the stock market, you are certain to have a reasonably soft floor through which you cannot plunge.
DON’T FUCK WITH IT. It isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.
Good point Retirees Earned that money and now the Government wants to take it away to pay for more wars.
Again I want polling on this I want the American people to choose what they would cut!
what def of revolution are you using?
They would say that because they are confidence men.
#49
Mao
“Revolution springs from the barrel of a gun”
And if we hit Great Depression economic numbers then SS is gone.
Confidence can come from having a long term plan. If individuals, investors, and businesses have a plan laid out for the future, just showing what rules are and what tax implications are going to be in the foreseeable future. With this a plan of action for can be developed and then implimented. Companies, investors and individuals can grow and expand. A big problem with continual goverment programs like in the New Deal era was that companies and people just stand pat until stuff stops changing so they can make a decision.
Here.
Both indexes are good. The Conference Board index tends to be more sensitive at turning points because it split the middle category proportionately between the “better” and “worse,” whereas the UMich index splits the middle evenly. Both, of course, as subject to volatility, so analysis involves interpreting the latest data in light of the fundamentals and normal volatility.
I’ve looked around a little, but it seems that both surveys, being proprietary, do not provide historic data on the internet. I have charts of the UMich survey from my prior work (longer history: that one started in the 1950s, ConfBd in 1967), so I can get them out & see where the current readings are. But don’t think it’s possible to do that without the historic charts.
I relied on consumer confidence as an important leading indicator. But, of course, forecasting is not so simple as relying on just one data series.
I wouldn’t give up our “atypical” revolution for anything in the world. Neither would the French, I daresay, INSPITE of the blood that went with it. It ultimately resolved itself for the better. I bet you the Iranians prefer the results of THEIR revolution too. MUCH better than being under the thumb of the Shah (and his US masters). Same with a whole bunch of countries that have overthrown dictators.
I don’t shy from revolution if that is what it takes to prevent the likes of the Bushes, Cheneys and the rest from inflicting Shock Doctrine upon me. No sir, I won’t sit idly by and let it happen because the alternative can be unpleasant.
Boo-hoo.
“Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
— Mao Zedong [11]
Aw, shit. Guess I didn’t read far enough into the comment. Damn. Alternative Radio had an old speech by Marable on Malcolm X earlier and had that on my mind. Damn.
The GOP is counting on one. The Blue Dogs by doing nothing or actually helping the GOP support them.
Its only us 70%ers standing in their way.
Fine. YOU can give up the fruits of the revolution that you so denegrate as being mean and nasty.
to attempt to clarify – is armed conflict on the order of a war required to be classified as a revolution in your scheme?
As you point out, there is an interaction between policy and economic outcomes that work in both directions. And we’re in uncharted waters. And I don’t have the tools I’d use if I were doing this seriously. So I don’t even feel comfortable guessing, but not this year, anyhow.
That’s easy shit to say sitting at a computer screen.
As for the Iranians, think they are pretty happy with their lot in life are you?
Basically a replacement of the current state. I use generally several frames to try to understand what is going on politically, economically, etc. What has surprised me is that the pre-revolutionary frame now is applicable. In some ways, I should not be that surprised. There have actually been several periods in our history that have had some of this character from the Revolution to the Civil War to the labor movement and trustbusting at the turn of the 20th century to the Great Depression and although it was overblown even Vietnam.
of course Obama is gonna do it. He wants to do it.
there’s no doubt about it — he’s been repeatedly promising many behind closed doors that he will.
heh. i forgot the snark tag.
I had enough of that bullshit in 1969 to last me a lifetime. The loudmouth intellectual “revolutionaries” always seemed to sit it out when the shit came down.
I don’t know about anybody else but I use Webster’s second def. A fundamental change in the socioeconomic system. Violence not required.
Just drawing Historical comparisons things have been worse and could be again.
jesuit taught me in HS: “Revolution means change. It’s that simple.”
I figured that was the case. Surprised the mods let it slide since it is a clear call for violence.
Not this year hmmm best news I have heard today.
That how Ho saw it?
thank you. that is exactly what i was looking for. agree about the applicability although i am using social movement frame (and don’t really know enough to do more than guess).
This is baloney. We spend more than the entire world combined on so-called defense. We maintain a nuclear stockpile that would blow the entire planet up fifty times over. We have weapons systems in development that were designed to fight the Soviet Union which doesn’t exist, the cold war which is over, and a whole bunch of crap that just doesn’t even work.
Cut it all!
Get us out of Iraq – a misbegotten waste of money if there ever was one – never mind the deaths/dismemberments of our troops.
Cutting the Pentagon budget by half would be just a good start. It certainly would NOT be the end of the world.
I keep using this one:
Bad stimulus + No bank nationalization = Depression in 18 months, latest.
I agree that during this period further actions are always possible, but as we proceed the amount of intervention needed to produce a given effect increases markedly.
i read it as a call for primarying their ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(graphic_novel)
Good book
Yes. They ARE happier not having the Shah. They are PISSED (still) that the US disposed of their first choice: Mossedegh.
As for you Gandhi worsphippers: he was NOT a strict advocate of non-violence. In fact, he despised cowardice more than anything else. What he told his people was that his personal preference was for non-violent resistance but for you softies of today, his resistance literally meant you have to be willing and even happy to march steadily forward into a hail of gunfire. YOU people would immediately dive for the ground, scream, run. Not very Gandhi.
What he said was that for those who do not have it in them to simply walk forward to your death quietly, then take up arms and fight, but under no circumstances should you simply accept domination.
THAT is the real Gandhi that isn’t part of the hollywood/cartoon version of myth.
I get sick to death of self-proclaimed “Gandhi” types that decry our own Revolution and others as something wrong or atypical (and thus bad). They are clearly necessary now and again.
As for viewing things from a computer screen: I’m a vet. I have done, NOT watched or read from a screen.
Yep. It’s unfortunate that any time the word is mentioned violent confrontation is the only thing folks think about. “Revolutionary new product” is a great selling point from Madison Ave. Can’t exactly picture firefights in the research lab.
You know what else? If there is one of these “revolutions” they are gonna come for the liberal intelligentsia first.
Hugh, you are right about this whole mountain of BS.
I retired from the Soc Security Admin., Worked my way up from the bottom, did all jobs below supervisor. For a time I was responsible for calculating the benefits and ensuring that all required evidence was in the files.
Don’t believe any of that Bullsxxt about the SS Fund being in deficit; the only reason it’s in trouble is because it’s been robbed!! Back in the day the SS Fund was sacred and could not be touched except to pay benefits. Some weazeling SOB found a way to ‘borrow’ from it and when W went to get more for his wars, he only found IOUs.
And, Folks, fight against any changes to recalculation of benefits. I’ve been there, seen that. It’s hidden robbery, began with the 1978 Omnibus Reconciliation Act which introduced Indexing, benchmarks, rounding down at each step. You may not think that amounts to much, but I’ve listened to little widows who missed the dimes because a can of tuna then cost less than 50 cents and would make 2 meals.
Don’t buy ANY of this Bullshxt!! Petition, write letters, take to the streets – whatever.
They should raise the cap on total earnings subject to FICA tax but that is all. They’ve already raised the full reirement age from 65 to 67.
There will be another big bill that will hit Soc Sec, that’s returning disabled vets from these illegal wars. Those guys are going to be really messed up and due disability benefits.
I’ll try to shut up now….for a while.
Huh? just who is a direct threat to us?
gettin pretty worked up there aren’t ya?
Obama is very good at understanding public opinion as evidenced by his winning the Prez campaign, and now his rising poll numbers through this “Stimulus” debate, rapidly rising in some cases.
Shrub basically began the implosion of the Repub Party when he tried to strong-arm SS “reform” at the start of his 2nd stolen term. Huge public outcry led to a massive run on the public opinion bank and robbed Shrub of his self-described “political capital.” Obama was in the Senate at this time.
In addition, Obama shattered fundraising records during his campaign, and mostly through small donors. He is now continuing to encourage citizen involvement and setting up infrastructure to support this at levels never seen before.
Given the above, the theory that he’ll eventually sell-out SS to corporate masters makes no sense to me. In fact, we have evidence of his frequent use of rope-a-dope strategy and how he’s made it work, and I suspect there could be something like this happening.
I predict he’s letting those who support SS sellouts feel like they have an opening, which in turn they’ll start talking loudly about, and then the voters and Congressional leaders can decide if we want these people around any more. If this theory is correct, it’s a great way to clean up more of the House and Senate of DLCers, and can start getting some truly Liberal policy passed. I love how he’s moving quickly on this plan as well since he’s got a lot to get done in 4-8 years.
At first. He even had a new constitution that pretty much copied ours. He and Stilwell got along quite well and it was after Washington rejected Stilwell’s recommendation that Viet Nam not be returned to France that Ho turned to the Soviets and Chinese.
you are confusing non-violence (i admit it’s a stupid name) and pacifism.
completely agree about gandhi and cowards. iirc he said he could teach a violent man non-violence but not a coward.
Yup
We are probably all on a list somewhere. I wonder if the blogs will push in court to see if we were spied on.
it’s a given
Privatization of Social Security? Well if you are so in favor of that – start a 401K account and watch it grow. Not. There is no need for the Government to do anything if you really want to do this. So get started.
One of the reasons that SS is still kind of a third rail is the demise of private retirement plans – egged on by these free-market eggheads. They hav allowed big companies to underfund long-term negotiated pension plans – and these plans are the first things on the chopping block when the companies file for Chapter 11. The workers get screwed. During the stock crash of the early 2000, hundreds of thousands of people lost money in the stock market that was supposed to fund retirements. They needed that money right then. It was gone – and it has never come back. We are going through another one of these nice little crashes right now. The people who have just retired or are retiring right now need their money now. Not in 17 years or some crap.
You can argue about returns all you want. People need the security of knowing that something is going to be there. And right now – even though the gov’t raids the SS Trust fund – they still pay all the retirees checks each month. And they should be required to do so. The SS program is a contract between the workers and the government. If they renegotiate it now they are acting just like the criminal bankers and their credit card ‘contracts that aren’t contracts’.
not neccessarily, put 30% of the money currently being taken for social security and use that for market investment. The other 70% would be used like it is supposed to be now and put into an account and used for giving benefits, not funding other government programs. There would obviously have to have proper balence with these investments as well. Stocks, bonds, currency, international.
Geithner’s plan which has almost no details associated with it is 2 1/2 times the size of Obama’s stimulus. I don’t know how long or how much Geithner’s interventions will have before they fall apart. I don’t see them turning the banking system around. I don’t see them as glossing over the system’s failures. At most, I think they would create or re-inflate some bubbles which would then burst after Geithner runs through his (our) money.
Re: Iran
I just this morning finished reading The Ayatollah Begs to Differ by Hooman Majd. He was here awhile ago for a book salon, but as usual, I unfortunately did not read the book in advance. He does a good job of conveying the complexity of modern Iran and how the people (in all their diversity) think about their nation. I won’t attempt a short version because I don’t want to mistate his case, but I highly recommend it if you’re looking for greater insight.
Here’s Majd’s short version as a YouTube.
LOL. ’specially the ones they sell at 3 am or in infomercials. the only ones that sound violent I think may be the ones that promsie to clean your colon so you lose 25 pounds
Just saying. My experience is NOT from a mere computer screen or movie screen. It is real life. I don’t have it in me to lay quietly NOR simply go limp – nor do I have it in me to dive for cover and scream and wail. I’m with Gandhi on this sort of thing: if you DO have it in you to quietly and happily march forward to you death into a hail of bullets, knock yourself out. No thanks. Too passive for me. I am a full-on believer in NOT going quietly into that good night, so to speak.
As for social security funding, if the Blue Dogs want “fiscal discipline” then they wont resist separating the Social Security fund from the general fund for accounting purposes. They wont resist the old Gore “lockbox”. It is the “disciplined” thing to do.
Social security isn’t even close to being broken. Medicare can be easily fixed by making the RIGHT choices (including quitting 90% of the >750 military bases around the world and cutting “defense” spending down to the level of Russia or China). Ta-da! LOTS of money left over then.
You use a very broad brush for knowing little or nothing about those of us who follow Gandhi’s philosophy. After 4 years in the Mekong and going on 6 years in the streets I don’t appreciate being labeled by someone who doesn’t know anything about me.
That’s your marriage penalty, right there.
My thoughts are with you, Mary.
Just how many people are qualified to pick stocks? Even *cough* experts like Ben Stein, Kudlow etc are wrong quite often.
The problem is that when the economy goes down so does the DOW in other words when you need cash the most because your other assets are not worth much the DOW is not worth much either.
The purpose of SS is to keep people out of poverty.
Does ANYONE except Geithner, Summers, Obama, and Ruben think throwing money at banks can fix them? Not even the evil IMF (and it IS evil) thinks it can work. Whenever this happens to ANOTHER country, the IMF tells them to suck up the medicine and let the banks go bust…but then the US is special and not to be expected to be held to the same rules as little countries.
means testing .. for both SS and medicare … to stop what i saw last year in john mc cains tax papers .. he got 165k in senate salary .. 56K in navy retirement and then 22K in social security ..
i certainly don’t think people in situations like john mc cain should be able to get all three at the same time ..
i’d say ..in terms of military retirement … you opt for one or the other .. you either get a military pension .. or opt for SS .. but you can’t draw both ..
same for the fat cats .. if you have private means exceeding XX .. then you don’t get SS .. or get greatly reduced SS ..
yeah it’s unfair .. but so is one man/woman being born with a silver spoon in their mouth ..
either that or tax the hell out of inherited weath to the point the disparity disappears ..
okay .. okay .. how’s this .. if you are rich and retire .. you can eother keep your riches .. or give it all to the treasury and draw SS ..
We need, before we go out and buy guns, to create a new kind of mass relationship via the internet. We need to find a way to do peaceful, legal things in such numbers politicians have no alternative than to take notice. One huge problem is that we are brought up in a hierarchical system and develop hierarchical states of mind. We don’t want the responsibility of making decisions. This does not apply to everyone, but it applies to many. We are comforted by collective agreement and are not eager to break ranks. There’s a fashion in ideas. When enough people accept the new thing, what was avant guarde becomes ordinary.
FDL tries something like this with its collection of blogs, but that’s far from involving the numbers of people we need to involve. We also need to find ways of communicating with the police and military in case things get rough. It would be helpful if they see the implications of what they do other than following orders.
The question is how to conduct a meaningful conversation amongst millions of people. It would be comparatively easy to organize town by town by city, but hooking them together, there’s the rub.
One thing may be to change FDL’s format to something like the home page of the NY Times. Headlines rather than articles and comment threads that last longer than the time it takes to move to the bottom of the page.
In other words, have it vacuumed up directly to the upper 1% of income. No thanks. They’re doing just fine already and trickle down theories are why we’re in trouble at the moment.
I agree throwing money doesn’t work but then again the IMF doesn’t have that good of a record either.
You clearly have it in you to do what is necessary to survive (you and your comrades/family/friends). I did not intend to splash so broadly with my brush, but I was trying to make the point that far too many Gandhi types don’t really know what he was about and ONLY think he was 100% into non-violence. Not so.
Not even the mythical Jesus was 100% non-violent.
Don’t feed the trolls.
So what? I don’t see the cause and effect, and I don’t see that standing pat is always an evil.
Sorry bro, didn’t mean to drag you into this bullshit.
As sympathetic as I am about means testing, that would be the death of social security. It was an issue that was discussed while it was being developed and it was rejected. The moment you start means testing, you turn it into welfare and people will turn against it.
If you want to fix the McCain problem (the problem with ALL Congress people) then you need to demand they lose their VERY cush pensions and healthcare. They have seen fit to cover their asses for perpetuity but they begrudge approaching anything like that for the little people. No more. They must NOT see themselves, nor be treated, as a “special class”.
There’s a difference in putting your life on the line for a cause and defending one’s self if physically attacked by another. I have no intention of allowing someone to pound on me although some cop may gun me down in the street.
*g* I don’t mind.
I’m 23 and I started my 401k a year and a half ago and am now in the process of upping my contributions. I agree that its sad that people lost a lot of money during the crashes and downturns. People also must remember that as their retirement age comes closer they should be balencing their portfolios to a risk level that adjusts to their needs. That is why many 401ks now offer target retirement dat funds that do it for you. Most investment professions (honest ones at least) will tell you that any money you need in 5 years should be invested in something other than the stock market because of volitility
Vastleft and lambert apologize for being prematurely right.
Actually, ya could say I got my own self into it.
Whatr LindaR said.
Those IOUs are called “Treasury Bills,” one of the soundest investments on earth.
it would have to be a low risk portfolio of course and like I said that only 30% of the money, really what could it hurt when the government is spending on other things that are pretty much garunteed no return.
The reichwingnuts always seem to leave that part out.
*sigh*
Back to the quarry.
Namaste
Still not safe. There are people that did everything “right” according to the GOP (wrt the market) and now they have seen their investments disappear and now they have to go back to work or totally and radically change the way they live.
THAT is what happens when you count on the stock market. It is a fine thing to play with and make bets on (it IS gambling, nothing more) but it is NOT acceptable as the only means of support. That is the entire point of a social safety net. It is the bottom through which you cannot fall, no matter what. These Blue Dog ass clowns are talking about futzing with the net while everyone is crashing towards it.
In any case, privitization of SSI is a nonstarter. Will never happen. Pitchforks and torches and ropes would come out if tried (again), especially after the current goo-gaw with the markets.
Nobody who voted for the Bush tax cuts can pretend to care about fiscal responsibility, those tax cuts took us away from the Clinton prosperity and brought us the present catastrophe.
This would not be a high risk fund obviously, I can’t say I’d know the appropriate mix but cash would be a big portion, bonds would be a big portion, a broad based diversified mix of mutual funds would have their place, but the volitility would be low ideally.
Politicians who really cared about fiscal responsibility would support single payer health care, which would save us $350 BILLION a year.
Yes, but the reasoning is circular since the government took the money from one generation of Americans and spent it and then will require that another generation of Americans pay it back for the benefit of that previous generation.
amen to that.
hate being lectured about who i am and what i think from someone who only thinks they have a clue.
The only low risk investment right now is Treasury bills, which is what backs up Social Security.
My experience confirms yours.
Precisely.
Nothing angered me more than the ‘planners’ who would send others out in harm’s way, without being honest about what might happen, and who never risked ANYTHING, personally.
I do think that revolutions are, often, then only real means of ‘change’ and revolution need not be violent.
But perspective.
The Chinese revolution, for example, as I’m certain you know, did not begin with Mao, but was the result of hundreds of years of resistance, which saw the formation of what we know as the traids and other, secret self-help fraternities and alliances to defeat the Manchus and respond to western ‘adventures’ such as the opium wars … Chinese Gordon etc.
In fact, the antecedents of that revolution were the legendary Chinese Banditry, the Shaolin monks, and a most interesting person half-Chinese and half-Japanese named Coxinga, a Chinese folk hero of whom the west is profoundly ignorant …
for the ecomony as a whole progress can not be made if investments are not made. How can jobs be created if companies are focusing on standing pat, just keeping what they have. They will not grow and hire people. Start-up businesses will not be around because they are scared to start. Once the environment is desireable to take risk and start businesses and hire people than growth will take hold and the economy will recover
only half right. at least i don’t think agree with them re clinton.
This says SS benefits would be progressive. I haven’t looked at actual numbers…
$100,000 a year earner currently is scheduled for $2800/month after age 67, and a $40,000 a year earner is scheduled for $1900/month
After reform the numbers could look like:
$100,000 – $2400/month
$40,000 – $1800/month
Now these numbers are fantasy, I didn’t look up current numbers or what the proposal suggests for reductions, just read the quote above and threw out a scenario that fits. it strikes me that that kind of change is progressive. In particular the $100k worker should have a larger nest egg and hence less need for the benefit than the $40k worker.
SS isn’t in a crisis under current management for quite some time though. Medicare is using trust money before the end of Obama’s second term, and insolvent sometime before his successor’s first term ends. There is a crisis here, and an opportunity to actually solve health care if we get some bold leadership. I don’t see that coming from Blue Dogs.
I agree government elected officals are extremely well compensated and yet many make more money outside their government role. I thought their great compensation was so they could do what is best for the people and have their best interests at heart. But I guess this damn corruption runs rampant throughout the world, business and government
Again people in retirement or near retirement should not have their retirement holdings in the stock market. It is too risky. They can shift to bonds, tresuries, money market accounts, even cash. Stock market is great if the implied risk is understood and used properly
No. What backs up Social Security is FICA. As currently structured FICA, FICA has not only paid for current benefits. It also created trillions in surpluses. This excess has been spent. Consider for a moment if there had never been a single cent of surplus. The government would still have a commitment to cover shortfalls in Social Security from 2017 to 2040. The only difference is that the government would not have had access to several trillion dollars to spend. Now maybe the government would have spent an equivalent amount anyway but it would have had to justify those expenditures to the public and had to finance them either through much larger deficits or tax increases. Hence the scam nature of the enterprise.
And while the certificates that SS holds can be exchanged for money from the government and the government can sell T bills to cover them, these are not the same as T bills.
I was quoting GWB when he made the IOWs statement, that is the term he used.
If there are really $57 Trillion in T-bills in the Social Security Trust Fund, then remarks such as “the deficit in the SS Fund” should not be made by our non-elected appointees in the Exec Admin.
Clinton prosperity??? yes while he was president the economy did great. WHY?????? Technology!!!!!! The tech boom created millions of jobs, people got cell phones, home computers, it was massive infusion. Then it all started to unravel and that just didn’t happen all at once. That alone greatly effected the economy for Bushes first term. Not to mention 9/11 that was targeted to hurt our finacial system. Yes he passed to many spending bills and the wars cost money but the flow of business from the nearly uncontrolled tech boom was very influential
T-bills are government issued debt. Not a means to fund social security
no offense intended kiddo ..but it’s deja vu all over again .. i can recall when i was 23 and knew all the answers too …
wait about 45 more years or so and assess your success .. or lack thereof .. there are many things which happen in the world over which .. despite your best intentions and smartest planning .. you will have no control over ..
and my advise to you .. never invest the rent or grocery money in “the market” .. eh ??
Great idea. Take the money out of the hands of the government and put it in the hands of the really really bright guys who put other people’s cash in the hands of Bernie Madoff. Better yet. Give it to Bernie. His earnings record is spectacular!
The Clinton boom was financed by Alan Greenspan’s cheap credit policies, –And unsurprisingly led to the dot com bubble. It wasn’t tech driven. Like all bubbles it was air driven.
The debate during the tragic VietNam era was always over “guns or butter” and not having funds for both. For bright people everywhere..why is it we always have funds for guns? Look at VietNam, of course, and pay a little attention to the years since with a lot of focus on the last few…America, Land of the free and home of the brave. Why not a little energy, money, and focus on being the land of the Peacemakers?
Not to be cynical you understand? Is the answer MIC? How sad.
GWB was, as usual, full of shit. IIRC, he called them “worthless IOUs.” And, at that point, Al Franken offered him fifty cents on the dollar for them.
IIRC, the government has borrowed many billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund by purchasing T-bills with those funds. And, the $56 trillion that wingers talk about is a rather bogus projection of the payments that would be needed to cover all people who are alive today. It would be best to read Dean Baker’s analysis for accurate details. Also, Thom Hartmann has written about these matters.
This is an excellent talking point – make sure your reps. know this, if you are fortunate enough like me to live in Oregon where my reps are fairly progressive (and liberal).
Who’s the troll? Why not feed them if they have a point of view? Argue with them if you think your opinion superior to theirs or do you prefer comment threads where everyone agrees with everyone?
That may be – but in this current economy – just what kind of a portfolio would there be? Nothing is safe except the Posturepedic.
One of the biggest differences between a 401K and SS is that SS is an annuity. If you live longer than the actuarial tables – your benefits don’t stop. With a 401K or any other type of contributory activity – this is not true. When the money runs out – that’s it.
Another reason to keep; the private sector’s hands off SS.
The SS fund is actually paying out more to beneficiaries right now then it takes in – or will be shortly. So what? That has happened three times already in the history of the program and the world did not end. The formula by which benefits were/are calculated takes this into account.
Also, the SS actuaries are required to forecast out 50 years. No one can be accurate on that. They have a perfect record of being wrong every single prediction so far. But their predictions are always wrong in the conservative direction. The latest forecase says the fund will be insolvent in 2047 or 2054 or some such. Given their track record – I’m not too worried. My solution to SS? Remove the cap. Otherwise – leave it alone.
I agree. I bought 2 lower priced duplexes in the last 2.5 years and that seems like the safest investment for me. My tenants are well taken care of and pay for the expenses for the time being. I live in the lower in one that needs the most work and have done a lot to increase the value on the backend of the deal. I don’t believe in cash money out to pay for things, cash flow is more important to a downturn. The home improvement work is relevant and useful for the rest of my life and it keeps me out of trouble, for the most part.
Why should the benefits be “progressive” when the ‘premiums’ (FICA Tax) is not?
As usual, the poor get screwed and the upper classes get the benefit.
If you want to make the benefits progressive – you better make the tax progressive as well. And right now it defenitely is not – in fact those who earn over 107,000K per year pay nothing on anything above that number – effectively reducing their tax rate. And they only pay it on ‘wages and salaries’ not on dividends and interest. So it is even more regressive.
It would stay in the government’s hands. With Obama pushing for unprecedented transparentcy all the holding would be online for our viewing pleasure. Stocks which wouldn’t be a great majority of this portfolio are not owned by companies to raid. They are pieces of ownership on which value is determined by the next buyer. Same as Tulips. Research the Tulip bubble and burst of centuries ago. it follows the same principles.
Agreed and although much good did come from that boom also the bad came and most of that unraveled under Bush. Clinton doesn’t deserve credit for a creating a great economy that was ultimately unsustainable and bad for the future. Just as Madoffs great returns turned out to be a scham
I can’t count how many times I warned people that this issue was one of the biggest reasons the Wall Street people were all behind Obama. A Black Democrat has carte blanche to utterly destroy Social Security just like Bubba destroyed welfare leading to the sorry situation many people find themselves in now when they are confronted with economic disaster. There are fewer and fewer good jobs, not enough shitty ones either, btw, and bankruptcy was put out of just about everyone’s reach by the Democrats who went along with the rethugs back in 2005.
Give the banks everything they want, give the rich more tax cuts, and extend the age for retirement while people suffer physically at work because if they can’t afford to retire they have to keep going to jobs that provide less and less in the way of benefits.
This is the American dream?
We got the president we and FDL asked for, why are we giving him less than a month to see a pattern of behavior. What exactly do we expect? This financial catastophe was forseen by many over three years ago and ignored by most blogs until the mortgage crisis.
I guess the sucess of a blog is the number of posts it can gather as oppossed to the concept of figuring out how to generate support for anything.
“the rich stay in power by convincing one half of the poor to kill the other half.”
Unknown
Speaking only for myself, we didn’t get anywhere near the president we asked for; we got only the president that was least objectionable to the most individuals.
Obama was never a liberal or progressive and he shows it and has shown it. When he talks of “entitlement reform” he is not a liberal; when he voted to give immunity to Telecoms he was not being a liberal; when he courts the Blue Dogs and Republicans at the expense of the Liberals, when he accepts tax cuts rather than jobs, he is not being a liberal.
He is not a liberal, he was just not as bad as the other guy.
Jane: This was a fantastic article. I read the references you linked to, including Orzag and Baker. I learned how this issue is being spun on the ignorance of people just as smart as I am,…about how social security works, is funded and how it is being misrepresented as this ominous debt. Baker is very hard for someone like me to understand, but I made an attempt. This is the second time that I read IOUSA IS NOT OK. This time I think I understand the idea of ‘deficit’ as a more dynamic, recursive phenomenon. The reptalibans and their press are misleading and frightening everyone. Obama’s stated agenda is simply to increase revenues by taxing the top parts of income which have never been taxed before. Baker’s point about the dangers of unregulated profit taking on the costs of healthcare are serious and deserve more attention. His other message which is very important is that the truly frightening boogiemen on the horizon are a ’stalled’ economy and the possibility of rising interest rates at some point in the future. He actually makes the best case for government intervention through stimulus spending that I have heard so far. Thanks for a great article,
So we spend the next four years not supporting the guy who was not as bad as the other guy?
WE need to find the measures we can work to support.I have no problem with “lets work together and get “fill in the blank” accomplished. Raging at the wind will only diminsh the impetus it takes to change the things that are changeable.
Which is exactly what is happening here – raising the issue before it is allowed to be contra-framed by the other side and letting Obama know that he can not and must not be allowed to take this mis-guided path.
If we DON’T stop and say “WHOA!” then we have no excuse. We can’t rely on “he really meant well, honest.”
“people who have been briefed on the administration’s plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration”
Wonderful, I’m on the 10 yard line (gasping like a 300 lb. lineman running it back from the opposition’s end zone) and they plan to move the goal line.
Huh? The contrived example numbers show the poor working person gets less cut than the richer working person.
As for the benefit levels for someone that paid in more over their lifetime being higher, that’s the case today. SSA.gov shows these benefits for someone born in 1950, retiring in 2018:
$40k current pay – 2018 SS benefit $1485/month
$100k current pay – 2018 SS benefit $2542/month
but the bit I quoted seemed to say that a wealthier wage earner would see a bigger reduction in benefit – that is the person with higher lifetime wages would have a bigger hit to their SS check than the person with lower lifetime wages.
If (this is disputable) benefits will need to be cut in the future, I think the person that would have the $1485 benefit should have much less cut than the person with the $2542 benefit. It’s progressive to cut 1% from the median income earner, and 15% from the high income earner.
Using the numbers from SSA above, and those (fictional) cuts in benefits we’d see:
$40K worker benefit after cuts: $1470 ($15/month cut)
$100k worker benefit after cuts: $2160 ($382/month cut)
Ultimately we need to pay for these benefits. SS is not in that bad a shape, HI (Medicare) is another story. I hope the pending insolvency of the HI program moves us to universal health care, and support increasing the tax to do so. I also support having the increase be borne by above median income earners, it’s worth asking the SSA actuary staff to be work up numbers with to see if a 2.4% HI tax on income above the median income would make HI solvent, or even allow extending coverage to everyone. This would double taxes on high earners. Note HI taxes are assessed on all wage income, not capped at $107k like SS taxes.
Those of us who have have paid for both our parent’s benefits and our own since Reagan and Greenspan introduced their massive FICA tax increase in the early 80s have a right to ask where the Social Security surplus is before agreeing to any discussion about paring back on “entitlements”.
Before taxpayers give up dollar #1 to these entitlement “reformers”, I want to know where the Social Security surplus was spent, and put them first in line to pay it back. Wonder how much of that $56 trillion in unfunded mandates was given away in the form of tax breaks for the wealthy and DoD handouts to war profiteers?
I repeat
I guess the sucess of a blog is the number of posts it can gather as oppossed to the concept of figuring out how to generate support for anything.
“the rich stay in power by convincing one half of the poor to kill the other half.”
Unknown