Bill Greider boils down the attempts by Blue Dogs, Jim Cooper, the Pete Peterson folks and others to loot Social Security:
Follow the bouncing ball: Washington first cuts taxes on the well-to-do, then offsets the revenue loss by raising taxes on the working class and tells folks it is saving their money for future retirement. But Washington spends the money on other stuff, so when workers need it for their retirement, they are told, Sorry, we can’t afford it.
The Peterson creeps are spending a million dollars to launch their attack on Social Security (they recently held a press conference with Cooper). But they’d rather the process be somewhat less than Democratic:
But Peterson does not want Congress to have a full, freewheeling debate on the particulars. The reform package, he suggests, should be submitted to a single "up-or-down vote by Congress, as is done with military base closings." That’s one of the gimmicks intended to give politicians cover and protect them from their constituents. It is profoundly antidemocratic. But that’s the idea–save the government from the unruly passions of citizens. Peterson’s proposal also resembles the notorious fast-track provision, which for years enabled presidents to steamroll Congress on trade agreements, no amendments allowed.
This echoes Cooper’s wish to have a panel on "fiscal responsibility" whose recommendations cannot be amended by Congress. (A February summit, convened by Obama, will include Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg, conservative Blue Dogs and "a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter" — presumably the Peterson folks will be there. No progressive participants have been announced.)
I guess having public approval isn’t considered necessary to the task at hand.



70 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
They may want, but they ain’t gonna get. For all his ‘man-date’, even Bush couldn’t persuade the public or Nancy Pelosi to cut Social Security benefits. It isn’t going to happen. You think Obama is going to go on the stump to screw the people who elected him?
Here’s what I think the SS debate is going to open up. (1) possibility of raising the benefit age to 66 or 67 (which means reduced benefits for those taking it earlier). The age 65 comes from Bismarck’s legislation in the 1880s, when hardly anyone lived to that age. Other countries just copied the Germans. The other is to raise the wage limit subject to tax. Nothing wrong with that, since it reduces (very little) the payroll tax regressivity.
As everyone knows, the gorilla in the room is Medicare. So if we take the generous view, the medicare debate will dominate the issue. How this plays out is anyone’s guess.
Why, that sounds downright Un-Constitutional!
do the math –
in the house: the republicans and the blue dogs
in the senate: the republicans and a few “moderate” dems
plus an executive willing to twist arms to get what he wants.
that’s the nafta model. maybe there are others?
bipartisanship baby!
“Up or Down” sure is convenient when they want it to be.
Jim Cooper needs to be taken down. He’s a boil on the ass of the Democratic Party.
I just don’t get it. Consumers aren’t spending because, in some measure, they’re feeling insecure (among other things). So you give them the assurance… yes, that means infrastructure, but that also means improving the safety nets (but not necessarily direct transfer payments), and that includes social security. This is common sense and basic Keynesianism. Why are these rethugs (and their bluedog enablers) once again letter ideological baggage (because that’s really all it is) get in the way of common sense?
Would everyone agree that henceforth we call them “Blue Curs”?
Glenn Greenwald has posted an article wherein he decries the lack of serious pressure on Obama from the left. Well, here is an issue about which we can rally, our social safety net, which Obama, joining the right wing, disparagingly refers to as “entitlements.” The attack is cleverly crafted to grandfather in the baby boomers and screw the younger generations.
attack. Attack. ATTACK.
I am with the Oracle of Omaha on this – Social Security is the least of our current problems.
Is their any other government program currently operating at a surplus?
Our attention needs to be focused elsewhere at the present time!
Given our present circumstances, this is laughable.
How about “blue curse”?
But “entitlements” are what is under attack. Why should we ignore that?
loot our retirement is exactly right, reagan started the theft now they want to finish the job
“washington spends the money on other stuff”
oh really?
that “spendng on other stuff” should read “giving my money to the wealthiest people on the planet”
if they REALLY “spent it on other stuff” that wouldn’t be so bad, at least I’d have that “other stuff” they make believe they’re spending it on
It’s kinda hard to build progressive momentum to shape O’s policy when so many on the left are saying that no criticism of Obama is acceptable.
I long for the greatest president we ever elected, the one that never served
what happened to gore’s “Locked box”?
pity
Blue Bitches?
Still think we need to have a large scale “Trading Places” projects where these yeahoos in Congress step into our shoes….. they have to “live” our lives for X amount a time, not just a day….. 30 days…… no help, no staff, just doing everything we do……
Let me ask a congresscritter ……. I am on short term disability having chemo for cancer. I might be able to get Social Security Disability under the compassionate approval but from what I can find, Medicare does not kick in for 2 years. If I do not go back to work, will need start paying COBRA starting November. BUT have to wait 2 years for Medicare……. this does NOT make sense… What is compassionate about that?
Damn….. forgot again…. these repugs or repugs light….
Wigwam, you’re my kinda puppy!
There you go.
while they’re at it thay can roll the house pension system .. the senate’s system ..and the civil service pension .. all in one big ball and merge them in with SS ..
cngressmen and senators will then draw the same benefit as everyone else .. under thesame rules ..
if they think they’re going to shaft the boomer generation right on the cusp of retirement .. those whose hard earned contributions have financed the system for others since the sixties .. we’ll meet them in the streets with pitchforks …
seriously .. let’s roll everyone into the same system .. i see NO reason the politicians should even get a pension .. considering the revolving doors to K street these days ..and defense consulting .. etc .. etc .. much less they should have theor own private overly generous “special” pension system ..
the influx of $$ from those funds should buoy up the SS Trust ..
let’s get up a petition for cooper.. it should begin:
dear congresscritters .. we agree it’s time for a closer look at our retirement framework .. let’s reform y’all first .. or eliminate it .. now there’s change we can believe in .. changing y’all back to mere mortals instead of a special class of citizen .. you are our servants ..and we are not your slaves ..
We’re still looking for help from these guys as they continue to pull the ladder up after them?
We might as well change our nation’s motto to “Bend Over, Crack a Smile”.
After all this screwing, they could at least show us the Skull & Bones secret handshake.
Has everyone already for gotten “Shock Doctrine”
Use any cataclysmic event to push forward your agenda without regard to it appropriateness to the event.
These people are not going away until we elect raging liberals to congress.
It’s all about 2010.
Felt my opinion didn’t count on the stimulus either.
when, if ever, is it ever gonna count?
i never would thunk it. an Obama administration and I can’t foresee my opinion counting for much.
That would have been the “old” FDL.
Which I admit I would enjoy much more.
;)
Altho, it would be helpful if we could stop the hemorrhaging of the social security surplus into general funds. Where’s the lockbox when we need it?
Yup and yup. Funny how the Blue Dogs don’t want to go anywhere near Medicare, when it’s what really needs fixing.
Yup. They just love that snappy little phrase. When it’s convenient.
No Democratic President could open relations with China. Only a Republican could do that. No Republican President could destroy Social Security. Only a Democrat could do that.
Ah. The requirements of the mission.
(((Jane)))
I thought they were the “Blue Curs(e)” now?
Sign me up.
I don’t know about having a lockbox. Possibly.
Of course, that is not what these ass-hats are up to.
They aren’t trying to save Social Security. They are
trying to kill it.
thanks, i hadn’t been to read glenn yet this morning. bless him. bless him a thousand times.
I have an idea, I believe that after $102,000 income people do not pay Social Security taxes, how about 1% on all income above $102,000.
I would not even want any credit, except to call it the Sandman Plan.
I think people would support a 1% tax to save Social Security, I really do.
I don’t understand why there is a cap, other than to protect the incomes of people who make enough to not need Social Security from having to contribute to the common good.
YMMV.
Damn. I must have missed that memo. No more foul-mouthed fem-blog?
My sentiments exactly.
Do they really want pitchfork-and-torch parties on their front lawns? (I’ve noticed that all the people who want to ‘fix’ it by taking it apart have non-SSDI retirement plans. Conflict of interest, much?)
As of New Year’s, the income ceiling on SS taxes is $106,800. That’s still far too low,; I think it should be more like $500,000. Or, possibly, if you get a paycheck, you pay on all of it, period.
almost owed you a drink – but caught your comment first. *g*
Curing the problems of health care is at the core of all all other problems. There are many problems in the health care industry but getting the health insurance industry out of the picture is job 1. Pharma is job 2.
DIGG is open. Please DIGG this critical article.
Thank you, Jane. I’m a retired Claims Rep in the Soc Sec Admin. Please keep on top of this subject and do not allow changes to calculation formulas for benefits. The worker gets ripped off by the hidden hand. I know, I calculated benefits back in 1978 when the Omnibus Reconcilliation Act was passed. Benefit calculation formulas were totally changed then, resulting in beneficiaries getting less than under the prior law.
John Edwards (for all his faults) did make a suggestion during his short-lived campaign. If congress doesn’t pass meaningful healthcare legislation within some relatively short time span, then he pulls the plug on their own coverage. Not that he could have done that (legally or otherwise), but it was a catchy proposal and (conceivably) could have served to raise awareness on not only healthcare, but (I believe) SS, as well. As things turned out, we’ve got business as usual.
I say we corner the market on pitchforks. There’s your retirement plan…
That’s the reason, alright. It’s basically a disproportionate and regressive tax.
ding!
just one of the reasons i don’t want to pre-compromise on single payer.
OT – damn. i forgot to turn on cspan2 at 10am to catch the senate plan for today’s possible vote on the h.r.1 conference report. anyone else remember?
If all wages were subject to the tax, would you agree that benefit payments should go up accordingly? Or, should there be a cap on the amount
any individual can receive, regardless of what they paid in?
Also, do you think return on capital, interst and dividends, should pay some of the cost of Social Security and Medicare? Are you aware that a lot of what was formerly earned income is being distributed as qualified dividends?
Watch out for this hag and her ilk:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29170167
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..zfDxfbwhzs
I don’t think it made it into the STIM, but I recall talk about a “payroll tax holiday” and other such during the debates, reduction of payroll taxes (being a regressive tax) would benefit the lower income workers and the money would be more likely to be spent was the argument.
I was looking at it as a backdoor way to further weaken the Soc. Sec. system by defunding it (the typ. Rethug method to kill programs). I noticed none of the gasbags seemed to pick up on this point.
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! That’s the ticket! People who make less than $106 K have to pay SSDI on every dollar they make, why shouldn’t the ones who make more? And that’s all the solution that we need to fix Social Security. Well, that and a provision that it all has to go into the lockbox, and congress has to keep their grubby, little klepto hands out!
I’m liking this position by The Gray Lady:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02…..ef=opinion
And Krugman’s up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02…..ef=opinion
yes caps on this NEVER ON CEOs PAY
Knut — the retirement age was raised to 67 during the Reagan administration. Social Security will remain solvent until 2049, longer if the ceiling is raised on the tax paid on wages.
Medicare funding IS a problem, and they will hit the wall in 2017. Now, if we go to single payer, Medicare no longer has a problem…
Katymine, I may be able to help you. I was a Disability Claims Rep with Soc Security when I retired in 1988. I took my job and responsibility to the claimants seriously. I regret to say that not all SS workers do, and some are woefully uninformed. Sounds bad, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
I know of your problems (somewhat) from what you’ve told us here. If you wish to contact me privately, here’s my e address:
wingspread257 at earthlink dot net
I wish you all the best, Katy.
I am a Federal employee — due to changes in the laws back in the 1980s, I pay Social Security tax, Medicare tax, my share of my Federal pension, and make contributions into the Federal equivalent of a 401(k).
Your suggestion is what has been, and is currently being, done.
More emphasis needs to be placed on the victims of the Madoff scandal or the Enron thingy. Many who think they are doing everything right then get royally screwed. Social security is what they are left with.
Pretty much what I had in mind. It’s remotely possible that the medicare crisis will force Congress to do the right thing. I just don’t see them cutting SS. This inside the Beltway talk by people whose incomes average $300,000 to $500,000. Of course it makes sense to them. Wouldn’t want to have to pay off those T-bills sitting in the SS vault with real taxes.
Among the many other things on the agenda, we have to get back to truly progressive taxation. It’s the next frontier.
I was in the same position as you, re: Social Security Disability vs Medicare not kicking in for two years. It is a rule without a rationale as far as I can tell. On the advise of my doctor’s office personel, I wrote to Janet, who was the governor of our state at the time (as you know) and I got responses from them. They, too, were disgusted, although they assured me that I was not the only one. They said that they had been fighting this for several years with Washington, but they also said that the state legislature changed some rules, and that took away another program that would have qualified me for low rate insurance (paying according to what you can afford) under the same program that paid for my surgeries. This needs serious attention from both the Congress and now a Dem President. Healthcare in general should be changed and single payer is the correct way to change it!
PhoenixWoman, I’m sure Cheney is on Medicare (eligible at 65) …you got any idea how much that old #%@’s black-box heart has cost the tax payers??
I’ll be the first to admit that I know as little about economics as anyone, but it seems that if incomes of the average person had risen during the last twenty years, keeping the high:low income ratio at your average company at something like 20:1, there would be much more money in the fund. Or, would that just have come with some sort of built in inflationary pressure, or other side effect that would have left us with the same sort of problems today?
knut – i had a question for you wrt a comment you made on stirling’s post yesterday. do you have any reading suggestions for non-economists (like me) on economic history, esp history of economic thought. for example, was just reading a bit about irving fisher and debt deflation at naked capitalism. thanks!
I’m for entitlement reform. Here are my action steps:
1. Prepare a list of all entitlements in the federal budget, not just Social Security and Medicare — Congressional healthcare and pensions, anyone; how about presidential entitlements after leaving office, including Secret Service details for the ex-president (and now for the ex-vice-president). Business entitlements written into the tax code. Let’s have a debate about what exactly an entitlement is (besides a propaganda word).
2. Remove the cap on payroll taxes on all compensation, not just wages and salaries, provided by an employer. Note that this affects both the worker and the employer.
3. Lock Social Security Fund balances away from being considered as part of the general budget. Yep, the old Gore lockbox.
4. Look at Social Security as the major retirement that most boomers have left after decades of suppressed wages and the catastrophes of two investment bubbles bursting and wiping out 401(k) balances. That means increasing, not decreasing, benefits.
5. Returning to earlier retirement opens jobs for younger workers. By reducing the number of workers available to the workforce, that also raises wages and salaries (unless gutted by H1B workers or offshoring). And it forces capital and training investment to make that higher priced labor even more productive. Talk about a continuing stimulus.
6. The Medicare issue is a symptom of the overall healthcare issue. One of the big money wasters in healthcare is the micromanaged fee for service accounting system ($10 aspirins, after indirect costs and so on; 250-page explanation of benefits for major hospital stays). A second issue is the misguided idea that telling providers what they can charge controls costs; think of all the dodges that providers use to get around arbitary cost controls. We need to be upfront about what the costs are and where the costs are coming from. Medicare is costly because it covers a lot of people who never in their lives have had adequate primary care. It is costly because the risk pool is people over 65. Only comprehensive healthcare reform can deal with this.
If the amount you need to pay is too much for you to be able to afford (which it usually is), you might try calling the insurance company directly and seeing if you can work out something cheaper with them. My niece did this when she quit her job and it worked out well for them, although with your medical history, who knows. You also might check with the state for some programs that might be able to give you assistance if you get a bill that you cannot afford to pay. I can’t remember the name of the state program that helps with medical bills, but you can reach them at the unemployment office. You may seem overbudget to them at first glance (and they go by gross income, not net) but your medical bills may put you into a different category which will qualify you once you have incurred the bills. (This is more of a Hospital protection program than one to help you, per se, but whatever works, I always say!)
Here’s what really stumbles me:Pete Peterson is 82 years old and has a fortune of $2.5 billion. Why the f is he so relentless in his efforts to take away or reduce social security benefits from those who may actually need the money to just survive?
Mean people suck.
There were a number of comments that suggested writing to their rep. to voice opposition to messing with SS., can’t agree more. But what if we also wrote and push for the reinstatement of the Sarbanes/Oxley bill – get the investment banks back into their proper position, away from regular banks. That would stop alot of this republican garbage, and I think if pushed by FDL and other progressive sites might actually have a possible chance.
Food for thought.
First, I don’t believe it. I think President Obama wants to unite Republicans and Democrats behind him, not against him. I am behind him 100 percent. I would be ashamed to think I voted for a President who would do that. Social Security is a debt of honor. If that can be looted, how long will it be before somebody decides to weasel out of Military pensions?
How about 6.2% on income over $107k, just like it is on income below $107k. Well actually it’s 12.4% if you include the employer’s contribution.
Actuarial facts about SS and HI aren’t ideological. Medicare insolvency in 2019 or 2020 is fairly well established (see about midway down this page – Table 1). There are assumptions about future growth in health care costs that underlie that date, solving health care changes that assumption.
Writing “loot Social Security” doesn’t do much except harden ideology, it’s a polemic against Peterson et al. Shed light on the faulty or disputable assumptions, don’t just grandstand that ZOMG! they’re going to destroy SS. Lifting the cap on income subject to FICA would be an example of a change in assumption. Doubling the HI (Medicare) tax on incomes above US median is another (progressive) change that could move those dates further out, and possibly provide the funds for universal medicare.
Old Age and Survivor Insurance benefits have been cut in the past, I’ve got personal experience with having received a check for part of my undergraduate education and having the benefit phase out. My recollection was 1982 was the last year I received survivor’s benefits from my father’s contributions. Previously survivors in school received benefits (and COLA) until age 23 or attaining a bachelor’s degree.
I support privitization, as long as they stop taking Social Security out of our paychecks. Here’s my plan: End Social Security now. Annuitize everyone’s contributions to date – annuity to be paid beginning at age 65. Continue the employer portion of Social Security, but deposit it directly into the worker’s 401K. Repay the money owed to the trust fund via a surtax on income that did NOT pay into the fund originally (ie: incomes over the cap, dividends and capital gains).
There could be a small disability fund tax similar to worker’s comp.
LOL – Obama voted for FISA -and has continued to be lukewarm to the folks who elected him.
I know it’s politically risky but I truly do feel it’s time to run more liberals in house and senate districts where these conservatives live. In the mean time, send a message to these unameri.., er, conserv.., er, blue dog dems live and tell them to tow the party line or else they loose whatever committee assignments they may have.
Of course refusing to work with any, even moderate, repugs will help too if they fight anything progressive put forward. Then you could go up to a purple dem and point at the suddenly powerless repug and say – “See that person? They look an awful lot like you!”
Yes, politically risky, but who needs more Leibermans anyway? No one, not even the repugs.
OBAMA, you’ve got the bully pulpit so use it! No more saying “I won,” when clearly, you’ve been dealing away any wins to nasty stalemates and not convincing a single repug to “change the culture” in Washington.
LKN2 – if we’d done that SOOO MANY people would have less retirement than they do now from SS.
Get with it; defunding SS only hurts everyone, like defunding government in general does. This doesn’t mean you can’t cut wasteful spending, there truly isn’t that much of it left anymore except in defense. What is wasted now is because of years of purposeful mismanagement by neocons. I mean, they cut USDA inspections to the bone then appoint horrible people to allow food companies to do what they want. Then, when something like the peanut thing hits, they call the USDA wasteful spending! The waste was in appointing lackeys and robber barons and in cutting the inspectors funds in the first place.
It happens this way in any branch of government. So, IF SS is in bad shape, it’s because it was rigged that way. Tax the rich more, tax big corporations more (way more to both), cut taxes to the middle incomes and low incomes.
If you work toward making this society a liberal progressive vision for the world we all will benefit. Being fiscally conservative in any area now is only a recipe for disaster.
Whenever Social Security is mentioned of late I haven’t been hearing anything from Congress. I’ve heard one or two people say it can be solved easily by a few people in a closed room…and then crickets.
I don’t think Soc Sec is on the table because there are sufficient people (probably leaders) who don’t really think it’s a problem.
So, it appears health care reform is up next.
BTW, I like the ‘lock box’ idea and I think gov’t should pursue that once we get out of this economic crisis and when there’s nothing else terribly pressing.