Next up on Obama’s plate is a February 23 "fiscal responsibility summit," which will be led by Jim Cooper, Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad and other "entitlement reform" fetishists. On February 24, he’s due to give a "state of the union" style speech before Congress, and according to James Capretta today, he’ll deliver a budget two days later. The focus is on cost control:
Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: "It’s important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we’re going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying."
Capretta says that given the tight time constraints, Peter Orszag — Director of the Office of Management and Budget — is in the driver’s seat:
There has been no time to run an elaborate consensus-building process, with full engagement from every office of government. With such tight deadlines, the only way to get the job done is to give OMB the authority to pull together the data and options for a decision-making process tightly controlled by a few key White House aides.
It also doesn’t hurt OMB’s relative power position that the new Director, Peter Orszag, is seen as a health policy expert in his own right. During his two-year tenure at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), he devoted much of his time to researching and commenting on the reasons for rapidly rising health-care costs.
As we reported the other day, Orszag is co-author of the Diamond-Orszag plan for reforming Social Security, which calls for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits — which the White House has been presenting as the foundation of their plan.
And the Wall Street Journal is reporting that "entitlement reformers" have been given the go-ahead on their dream to short-circuit Congressional approval:
The president met with 44 fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats this week and gave a nod to legislation that would set up commissions to deal with long-term deficit strains. The commissions would then present plans to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
Here’s how The Hill described the plan:
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of the Blue Dogs, said that Obama’s call for a bipartisan fiscal summit and his nomination of Gregg show that he’s serious about getting beyond partisanship “so our children’s generation isn’t left to clean up the wreckage.”
The commission, which also has the backing of several conservative House Republicans, would include members of both parties and the administration. The House proposal for the commission, put forth by Reps. Cooper and Frank Wolf (R-Va.), would include members from outside government. Whatever plan the commission comes up with, Congress would have limited opportunities to amend the Cooper-Wolf proposal before voting on it.
Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, the task force’s plan could not be amended.
Pelosi has opposed such a commission, though Steny Hoyer approved it. But this morning, Hoyer is encouraging Pelosi to stand up to the Senate where the Republicans have a stranglehold on any legislation that gets passed:
Democrats in the House are also concerned that a knee-jerk deference to the Senate will force them to continuously water down legislation to make life easier for Reid, who is up for reelection next year.
It’s hard to say what the kabuki element in all this is, but Reid is definitely under election pressure and in danger of becoming the next Tom Daschle. I don’t particularly like the way things are lining up on this.



114 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Why does no one talk about the obvious? Eliminate the limit’s. Why shouldn’t millionaires pay the same percentage as workers? Why is there a cap?
Jane, I’m frightened at where this is going, too. Because of the 401k meltdown, they should look to increase future payout’s. Instead, we, the workers, will get the shaft again.
Nothing to see here. Go on your way…
a lot of money could probably be saved on health care costs by reforming big pharma patent law, medicare drug procurement and cutting the insurance companies out of the process.
how many people think something along these lines is going to be on the table?
Hell, selise, even the table has gone missing.
“Go on your (own, ruggedly individualistic) way …”
There, ibefreenow, ‘updated’ to reflect the post-partisan, post-Reagan sensibilities of modern-day America …
The workers?
Oh, you mean ‘those’ … people.
Return with us now, to those thrilling days of yesteryear, of the Puritan Ethic, of poor laws, of workhouses and the of destruction of the commons …
The obvious is actually: leave it alone. It’s not in a crisis, it doesn’t need to be “fixed”.
If Obama cuts SS when it’s not necessary, and it isn’t, I think I won’t be the only person who will never forgive him. Bush couldn’t get it through, but Obama can betray and do so.
And it will be a betrayal, it is completely unnecessary.
Gee, messing with Social Security was doomed under Bush, Why this, and why now?
This is Change we can belive in?
Anyone know what the demographic make up of Cooper’s district is? Can we run ads against him accusing him of trying to rob people of their Social Security? Or something aimiliar so that he drops this stupidity. Cooper is a corrupt asshat who needs to go. He’s no Democrat. And remember to call your Congressman/woman and tell them in no way are they supposed to support Cooper.
Well, the be-livin’ may become tenuous for some …
;~D
That is what I don’t get. Whose benefits are they going to cut? My dad is in his early 60’s and just got laid off. He doesn’t want to start collecting Social Security till he is 67 if he can help it(He doesn’t need it, but he paid in so he might as well get his money’s worth).
Our economy is nearing the precipise. People are fearful for their future and self confidence is ebbing. Any reduction in safety nets at this juncture will have a dire negative consequence on any economic recovery.
The thing that baffles me is Bush’s attempt to “reform” Social Security was a complete political fiasco for him. Why on earth would Obama think it will not turn out the same for him? Nothing focuses the public’s attention like threatening Social Security. This is a monumentally dumb thing for Obama to do right now. He could easily shoot his own Presidency in the foot before he’s ever had a chance to hit his stride.
As someone who has paid into this system for 30 plus years, I have been waiting for almost 6 years to collect Social Security Disability as a disabled American for doing the work that gave me this disabilioty. Now they want to “cut” benefits and pretend that, tho I have paid into this system for so long, I still do not qualify for something I paid for. I know I am one of millions who wait 4,5,6 years for something they’ve worked for.
When they took out the entitlements connected to Social Security with Welfare DEFormed, which was less than 4% of the budget, while robber barons were taking millions of times more of our tax dollars then, this made me an activist. 14 years ago, I tried to tell the middle class in writing, speaking, and telling whomever would let me talk, ” Listen, you think the poor are the welfare queens? It is corporate welfare that is taking your dollars NOT poor mothers. They are demonizing low income women because they cannot defend themselves. They don’t have fancy lawyers and lobbyists. Don’t you get it? YOU are next! The poor are just the canary in the mine to see if it will work for YOU!” But the middle class did not believe it, instead they enthusiastically applauded, they refused to hear the death knell coming their way.
I worked my butt off. I have been injured while doing what I was directed to do in crappy work places with unsafe conditions for little pay ~ and almost 1/4 of my income taken for FICA and Social Security. Now they want to “reform” it????
PULEEZE!
Cat In Seattle
Generally speaking, he is better off collecting his SS sooner than later. It’s a math thing. Of course, that advice held more water when money could be invested and grown. Not sure what the conventional wisdom is now.
If only.
Whatever IS Obama thinking?
Who (in hell) is he listening to?
He does appear to hear the despair of the ‘people’ very well, now does he?
Even the Chimp had the common sense to leave the talk about messing with SS till his second term!
As a Republican was the only one possible to “open” relations with China, a Democrat will be the only one able to destroy SS. If this happens then it’s time for a new progressive and radical political party.
discusting
here’s the only “reforming” that needs to be done;
get BACK the money reagan “borrowed from it
get BACK the money clinton “borrowed” from it
get BACK the money bush “borrowed” from it
RAISE the threshold payment into ends
COLLECT from investment income
bing
Why does no one talk about the obvious? Eliminate the limit’s. Why shouldn’t millionaires pay the same percentage as workers? Why is there a cap?
Because the R’s would {*shudder*} filibuster?
fuck ‘em. And fuck Obama too, for building this thing precisely to the R’s presumed liking.
Why yes, I *am* pretty much in a fuck-’em-all mood, why do you ask?
but Reid is definitely under election pressure and in danger of becoming the next Tom Daschle.
Now *that* I have many fewer problems with….
We need to call our congressional reps now.
They’re probably back home in their districts.
This is unacceptable!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point in the future it’s revealed that some, if not all, of today’s Blue Dogs were actual plants of the Republican Party.
Like many folks I shed a tear or two when Obama one the election, but I also knew that I will probably oppose him on some policies. Cutting back on the Safety Net is one area where I will fight Obama tooth and nail if he goes there. Simple as that.
While I agree it’s not in ‘crisis’, I do think it should be fixed.
Life expectancies are much longer that when SS was implemented, so a slight stretch out of the age when benefits are available wouldn’t be out of line.
This, and kicking up the limit would go a long way to keeping SS from becoming a crisis.
People this side of 50 are upset, furious, scared, feeling betrayed, flim-flammed and increasingly hopeless. First our lifelong savings/assets are absolutely in the loo. Now we’re supposed to take another financial hit via SS reductions?
A few days ago, I sounded off about class warfare looming even larger in this country. I didn’t necessarily mean conventional warfare. Economic warfare waged on the most vulnerable citizens of this country: the aging and elderly, the poor, those edging ever-closer to being poor, those with disabilities, etc.
Congress is tone-deaf, and the wealthy tut-tut in the manner of Barbara Bush re the Katrina victims having a better life in Houston than in NOLA.
I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!! Oh, wait. I have no choice.
Ain’t THAT the truth! And then they wonder why we are so angry! Uhhh lemme see here… you took our money and squandered most of it and NOW you think it needs “reforming”???
Give me a break!
Cat In Seattle
this would be simple to accomplish too;
“the wealthy have been given social security assets to pay for their “tax reductions”, that investment obviously did not pay for itself, it is time to call that dept”
where oh where is gore, the greatest president we ever elected, we need him to speak out about the “locked box”
Obama keeps trying to do w-type things and getting caught. He has supported the state secrets, not looking at prosecuting law breakers because they were told to do it by higher authority, supported FISA, and NOW! looking at Social Security. When do we get the change we can believe in? This probably means that any health care will be directed by big pharma again.
Ah, perhaps this is part of Obama’s masterful and magnificent three-dimensional chess-playing strategy?
No doubt he is angling to get the r’s to ’spill’, publicly and blatantly, the vast hatred they harbor for the “ponzi scheme, known as Social Security”, to hurry along their journey to the wilderness.
No?
But, but, but …
This part of a Three-card Monte to keep the mark (us) from getting hot after our Congress Critters and the Administration. When so much is in the Country is in the toilet, causing the huddled masses to fragment dilutes what ever meager power we have, in favor of our Governments master, Corporations and the Oligarchy.
But compare his benefits at 67 vs. 62 and calculate how old he’ll have to be to catch up those 5 lost years of payments.
For my mother, she didn’t come out ahead until her late 80’s (which, unfortunately, she didn’t get to see.)
if you haven’t seen gore on his snl appearance you simply must, sit through the advertisement and watch
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Ni…..mea=229115
The picture of Peter Orszag is not that of someone that identifies himself with the working classes. He has the face of a bureaucratic functionary of the plutocracy.
The thing that is so perplexing about this is why this fight and why now? We are going into depression and Obama wants to take on Medicare and Social Security the two most popular programs in government? I mean Obama has been an ongoing disappointment for me but this seems suicidal.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
I understand yer concern over the possibility that the corporatists might jest pull off the impossible with the direct complicity of Obama…but why would Obama fall on the same genade that blew up in Clusterfuck’s face, especially right after he has won a victory on the stimulus and marginalized the fascists in Congress in popular opinion?
Isn’t it jest as likely that Obama will use the “up or down” vote to push through an elimination of the cap, reduction of the FICA tax and an extension of medicare? Even if there is a future increase in retirement age as a sop to the “reformers” the boomers are gunna be retroed in and the path to national health care through the medicare structure cleared for 2010.
I don’t know why you think Obama is gunna get suddenly stupid on Social Security.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THEY NEED US MORE’N WE NEED THEM!!
yeah and I am one of the ones on “this side of 50″ who is scared crapless. I have nothing else because I worked for little or nothing and provided for my family while struggling my ass off. And thanks to the joke they call OSHA, who refused to stand for workers, I am now permanently injured and without any support. Women our age are now in a place where, even if we are healthy as a horse, due to ageism that nobody acknowledges even exists ~ including our government ~ due to the sexism that is even worse for older women, and due to not having enough “marketable skills” that would even support many of us on a livable wage (even women with Masters degrees, I saw them in homeless shelters all the time), we face dire straits. And, like many women raising their grandchildren, I am raising a 3 year old who needs me to stay healthy and able to support her.
Where is my torch and pitchfork? They are around here somewhere …I am ready for any class warfare dammit!
What a bunch of self inflated, clueless idiots.
Cat In Seattle
None of this is a surprise. One of the reasons I was hesitant to support Obama during the primary was a flurry of “Social Security crisis” talk from him during the early Democratic debates.
It was around the same time that he was lavishing praise on Ronald Reagan.
Point is, he signaled early on that this was the direction he would go on Social Security, so it makes no sense to treat this situation as some kind of betrayal.
It makes sense, however, to push the raising of the threshold. This is just silly, that anything John Boehner can call “raising your taxes” has fallen from the Sphere of Legitimate Controversy and into the Sphere of Deviance.
Even bringing up Social Security now while we are going into depression is stupid so the stupid threshold has already been crossed.
I would laugh if this weren’t so sad! *g*
that’s a keeper
I will co-opt that for future discussion, thanx
Yeah, but that’s my point, messing with SS will unite the public against Obama, not fracture it as you suggest. This is a mind-numbingly stupid move for President Change. The one thing he has going for him is vast public support. That will disappear like an ice cube on the sidewalk in August if he goes after SS. Then he’ll have the Republicans opposing him and the public opposing him. Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success to me.
Norske may have a point. It may be a way to hand them their STFU papers.
i thought the same thing. the stimulus effort wasn’t exactly neat and clean. take a break, guys. do something easy. like health care.
Oh I hope you are right Dear but …
I have had this hope so many times before …only to see it all go down in flames.
I will try another time but …well I don’t think they need us, they just need a few plutocrats who will pay them off and …well screw the rest of us. Except for a few brave souls such Paul Wellstone who actually cared for the Little Guy, all I ever see is, when money talks, citizenship walks …
Cat In Seattle
hey guys, ot but this is KEWL!
Ok. Then Congress can simply vote “no” since they’re responsible for writing the laws and shouldn’t accept anything rammed down their throats no matter who is in the White House. Not to mention taking away benefits is political suicide and President Obama will be lucky not to be citizen Obama in 2012 if he tries to do that. Raise the salary cap! Sheesh.
You make an excellent point but given some of Obama’s choices for his cabinet and his willingness to buckle to Republican opposition to the Jobs Bill, I think people are genuinely concerned.
I read the comments. I especially empathize with the person fighting for social security disability…been there. Do you know about OSSCR Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives? They have website, free legal referrals.
One point: many people die before they collect social security as senior citizens. I have known several. Very often, it is people in minority groups who die younger. There’s all that money collected from people who are immigrants working illegally without proper papers, who can’t collect=extra money in Social Security.
Finally, the late, wonderful journalist, John L. Hess fought hard against the myth of “greedy geezers” and the lies about Social Security being in danger of being “out of money”. His blog comments are still online, on several topics Enjoy, fight.
Thanks for staying on top of this. You are doing some great blogging.
I keep hearing this. When has Obama done this though? How long are we supposed to wait before we see the results of this cunning policy?
And what happens to those progressive voices that challenge the plutocracy? It’s a rhetorical question.
(I’m new and mostly clueless.) It should be http://www.johnlhess.blogspot.com if the link doesn’t work.
obama?
a cunning linguist?
hmmmm
One of Obama’s earliest supporters was Sen. Conrad.
Follow the obvious.
Conrad got it right on Iraq vote; dead wrong on Schiavo.
I have a relative who is seriously ill and is 59. He was able to get Social Security Disability. I didn’t know there was such a thing. Can someone explain, please?
social security is far more then a retirement program and really that’s what the public needs to be educated about
Another four weeks?
(Yeah, I’m talking outta both sides of my scaredy mouth.)
From SS site:
OT, but delicious nonetheless;
From the “Pot, meet kettle” dept. I give you Pat Robertson essentially calling Rush crazy.
Really. Right here.
As I used to hear Imus say often (before he deservedly lost 95% of his audience) “You just can’t make this stuff up!”
As opposed to SSI, to wit:
My brother–an adult with mental retardation who earns about $50/week (a major issue for another time), receives SSI benefits.
Thanks. He said this would last for 3 years. I wasn’t aware that you could get disability from SS. That’s really good for him.
My gut tells me that this is what he is doing on State Secrets, too. Arguing for Bush’s policies, maybe weakly, counting on the courts to rule against them – making the State Secrets argument null and void. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, though.
Sock Doctrine. “A crisis is too good a thing to waste.” Rahm Emmanuel
Well said.
I just don’t get the constant harping on anticipated negatives; let him screw up first, then take him to the woodshed.
In the meantime, how about some love for what he has done to date?
In four weeks.
pat is smarter then the average wing nut, he sees rush trying to be gop lead and pat dos not like that one bit
Perhaps now an insight into why the gun lobby is so insistent on the right to bear arms can be seen given that the so called representative government doesn’t seem to representative of the people in any manner.
I agree. Let’s breathe a little. So far I’ll give him about 70% – that’s now bad. :)
But you’re missing the point, STTP. The idea is to dissuade Obama from doing something destructive BEFORE he does it and it is, therefore, too late! Once it’s done, there is no point in taking him to the woodshed. It will be time to take it to the polls. Voting polls, that is, although it will show up in the other types of polls, too.
Righto. Part of being a citizen is being active, not just waiting around for a pol to screw up, and then express disapproval. That’s the last 8 years, and it wasn’t pretty.
Um. I’ve been reading about Obama’s plan to “reform” Social Security. It’s a very real — and very frightening — issue for me, as I’m one of the people entirely dependent upon SSDI.
So I have a question. Right now, my monthly check isn’t enough to get by, usually, but I manage by draining my savings (I will run out fairly soon) and by juggling my monthly bills and by whatever work I can manage to do. If I lose my benefits or if they are drastically reduced, I will have no way to survive. Therefore my question is, what am I supposed to do?
I voted for Obama — voted straight Dem ticket in fact — but if he “reforms” Social Security in a way that will essentially dismantle its effectiveness at a time when it’s never been more vital, I will never ever forgive or forget that.
CBS is reporting that the Obama administration is backing Karl Rove’s right not to testify before Congress!!!
Anyone who thought that Obama would give up any part of the imperial presidency that W accumulated ought to have his/her head examined.
Just as there are ways of framing issues, there also are ways of framing concerns and inquiries, I think. I’m pretty sure that telling Barack Obama that what he’s doing is stupid is not the best way to get his attention.
Now I understand that the conversations we have here are kinda, sorta “what happens at the Lake stays at the Lake.” It’s where we noodle the issues and seek solutions.
I’m probably as guilty as anyone of fomenting frothing here, and also buying in when it’s someone else’s froth. Also, I do see Ann’s point about heading problems off at the pass. But again, I would say that there are ways and there are ways.
How do we take zhak’s or Twain’s or mntleo2’s and literally (not theoretically) move them to the next step?
I am mostly hesitant to speak my mind bluntly and completely because my opinions are often so easy to dissect. Clearly I need to develop a thicker hide and wade on in.
So how now, pups? How now?
Another victory for the corrupt plutocracy.
Nelson, this is for your Dad and any others in their early 60’s who want to wait until they are age 67 to draw their Social Security Retirement Benefits.
I retired from employment with SSA. During my later work years it was part of my job to explain to claimants the advantage of filing at 62 rather than waiting. (full retirement age was then 65).
Your SS office will provide you with a Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) based on your earnings record. The PIA is the amount you draw at age 67. The SS office will also give you the reduced amount you will draw at age 62.
(1) Multiplty the reduced amount by 60 for total to be received in the interim between 62 and 67.
(2) Subtract the reduced benefit amount from the full age 67 amount (the PIA)
(a)multiply the remainder obtained by 60 (5 years X 12 months). This produces the total “saved” by waiting until age 67.
(3)Divide product in (2)(a) by 12 (This gives the number of months claimant must live beyond age 67 to break-even and gain back the amount he/she could have received if beginning at age 62.
(4) Add result in (3) to 67. This gives the age at which a claimant who waits will break-even and actually begin to gain money by having waited until age 67.
Back when I was calculating and explaining benefits, the break-even age was usually mid to late 80’s.
After I explained this formula to inquirers, using their actual money amounts and age, they usually opted to begin benefits as soon as they were eligible.
Anyone approaching their 60’s can get their local Soc Security Office to obtain a Benefit Estimate Amount based on their actual earnings. That estimate should show both the full PIA (age 67) and the reduced age 62 amounts.
Some SS employees are capable of working the above formula; others not. (I was of the old school when we were taught that SSA’s reason for being was to serve the public….things changed by the time I retired..)
I don’t have an axe to grind here one way or the other. It’s each person’s decision.
I hope my explanation is not too befuddling, if so I’ll try it using actual numbers.
The Orszag plan doesn’t call for people who are now receiving Social Security to have their benefits cut, it’s for people younger than 55 I believe. So if you’re receiving Social Security now, I think you would be okay.
edit/friend/edit/friend
I totally agree, Ian.
Treasury just needs to pay back the $$$ trillions debt it owes to the Social Secuity Trust Fund with interest. They sure keep that quiet, don’t they.
Well, for starters, you ask Jane! *g*
I think we should discuss everything Obama does and also that we should give him credit when due. I don’t ever see much here except slicing and dicing him. I have already sent an e-mail this morning to the WH saying keep your hands off SS.
But Jane, the ‘problem’ with SS isn’t a ‘problem’, meaning it’s easily addressed with raising the contribution limit exempting employers from their share of contributions above a certain limit.
The ‘problem’ is with Medicare which brings us right back to ‘healthcare in America’. Which the Republican’s do NOT have an answer for.
you planning on making up the difference if SS benefits are cut?
didn’t think so.
i don’t want to take him to the woodshed, i want to fight for SS.
the next 6 months will be critical.
So do I! Have we actually seen proposed legislation? Do we know that Obama plans to screw the pooch? Crap. Now I have to go back and read this post again….
And if he doesn’t what’s to prevent a Representative or Senator from introducing an alternate bill that does that? The alternate bill may not get passed, but it could peel off enough votes to kill SS destruction. After all, that’s exactly what Jim Cooper did to kill “HillaryCare”. (Did his alternate bill actually pass? I can’t recall). I’d love to see someone do to Cooper what Cooper did to health care reform.
Next question: How do we go about finding a Representative or Senator willing to do this and pressuring him/her to do so?
So Obama thinks that no one is above the law, huh! Except all the President’s men? Since when, since he became President? This has been another addition of the Children’s Playhouse and todays letters are BS.
Disability Insurance is part of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, which come out of FICA payroll taxes.
Table 1 on the linked page is why there’s a push to “fix” social security. Those insolvency dates are non-partisan, they’re actuarially sound analysis. Hospital Insurance (medicare) in 2020, DI in 2027… NB: this is when the “lock box” money runs out, the money that has been “stolen” from Social Security.
Changes in assumptions can change these dates.
Lower the cost of health care – change the HI insolvency date.
Increase tax collections of OASI by removing the income limit.
Lower benefits for upper income workers.
Saying there’s no long term problem is inaccurate. Social Security should still be a third rail issue for liberals. That being so it behooves us to keep it on sound actuarial grounds, which could mean changes – just be sure the changes don’t destroy the value of the safety net.
We have to kill this now who can we gt to filibuster?
A Black Democrat can get away with anything, that’s the first thing to remember, especially when he uses populist rhetoric and appears to be sincere.
The second thing to remember is that you don’t hear anyone saying the obvious about this. It means that people will be working longer and contributing more in social security payroll taxes so that they can retire later and collect less in benefits.
It’s the centuries old formula used by monarchs, dictators, probably by Genghis Khan: Let the poor and working class people pay for the comforts of the rich and connected. Unfortunately we won’t be seeing Rachel or Keith framing this in those terms, at least I don’t think we will because their corporate masters are interested in ratings, not in revolution from below.
A bit more info on the plutocrats protecting their own.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0217.html
This is how I feel as well, especially the “slicing and dicing” part.
I get offering criticism; if the above comment about Obama’s administration backing Rove’s decision to not testify before Congress is true, I’ll be as pissed as anyone here.
What seems to separate me from many around here is the “credit when due” part.
Before I lose my mind over your comment, please take a moment to clarify, preferably with examples.
I’m under 55 and receiving SS disability as my sole means of income. And the idea of tinkering with SS in any way absolutely terrifies me. It’s literally been the safety net that has kept me going these last years — iow, it’s performed exactly in the way it was meant to do, and I’m extremely grateful for its existence.
I was pleased at the unity shown by Dems when Bush tried to eviscerate the program, but on the whole I do not trust modern-day Dems (and most certainly not modern-day Republicans) to actually represent the best interests of real people. Regular people like me — before I got sick, I was neither rich nor poor, just a normal regular middle-class worker. And I’ve noticed over time — especially since 1980 — that any actual representation of normal regular middle-class people seems to be relegated to the quaint-idea-whose-time-has-passed category.
I think I love you! *g*
Social Security Disability (SSD) is for people who have worked and paid into the System. SSI is used when someone has never been able to gather a long enough work history to collect. The caveat is that, in order to collect SSD, which pays far more, you have to apply within 8 years of stopping work. This soulds like a lot of time, but often, expecially for women who have a more spratic work history due to taking care of children and elders, they miss out on SSD.
I know that my payments werte a “apy forward” thing, meaning that I paid for the previous generation’s benefits. I was always glad to pay into the revenue collecting for it as well as for welfare benefits. However when it comes time to collect YOURS, then suddenly they are not so happy to comply. As one person mentioned earlier, if they had not borrowed against the money that was waiting there for US, they would not be talking about any “crisis” at all.
I am mad as hell about the whole thing. I could have used the vast amounts of funds they took out of my paycheck to support my family on the already meager wages I was paid. And now they want to “revise” everything so I cannot get what I need!
My only addition to the previous list about all the borrowing they did (and which I protested at the time by writing useless letters to my congresspeople that were studiously ignored) is that they should be collecting for those who make over $100,000 a year as well. I paid a lot, why don’t they since they can collect the maximum amounts of Social Security even though they don’t even need it?
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
I have not seen anyone comment on the ratio active reach of this proposal
to reform Social Security. Will anyone please tell me that if benefits are
cut, that law would apply to me, even if that law were enacted tomorrow?
Since I have been on Social Security for many years, does that mean that
my benefits will suddenly appear to be excessive to Obama?
Oh! I missed this. Punaise would be in awe.
I suspect they would appear “excessive”. However as I commented right before you, they do not think it is too “excessive” for people who make over $100,000 a year not paying any more into the System and then being able to collect on it as too “excessive” do they? If those people continued paying, it would significantly reduce the so-called “crisis” but oh no! We can’t have them actually paying anything more, can we?
GRRRR!
Cat In Seattle
85% of economists believe that “The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged.”
But I guess it is just better that we stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and pretend that’s not the case.
My understanding is and always has been that you are grandfathered in and will be paid the same regardless of future cuts. Btw, I’m also on disability, so it would affect me the same. I don’t believe I’m being optimistic; this is supposedly the way it works.
Now, I do believe there is a problem with SS. That problem is that years ago, before baby boomers came of age, there were far more people whose money was used to support each retiree or survivor or disabled person. As we go along, with boomers retiring, becoming disabled and leaving survivors behind when they die, the ratio of those who pay into and those who are receiving SS has dwindled to 2 worker to each receiver. That’s a problem. Ultimately, that will have to be adjusted. But it should be good for a decade or two.
For what it’s worth, Greg Mankiw claiming that 85% of economists make that claim does not necessarily make it so.
Especially with no link to the actual survey and methodology.
Our income tax system pays for many programs that benefit only a few (usually business interests!). Why is it that ONLY Social Security and Medicare have a special, extra tax to support their programs? At a combined rate of 15.3% (worker & employer contribution), this is a HUGE tax burden on labor. We need to question our priorities: income tax pays for such things as raids on the L.A. garment district to protect patents on $600 handbags. Is that a more worthy goal than supporting a worker in his or her old age? Why don’t we have a special tax levy on patents for enforcement? We also need, immediately, a tax on financial services for enforcement and oversight.
We are losing our middle class in part because of the tax burden on workers. It’s time to ask questions about our tax system as a whole and not be railroaded by those who wish to continue their raid on our Social Security.
Dean Baker has been hammering away on this issue all week. He thinks it sends a message to older people to not spend a dime during this recession. Here’s his article in the Guardian://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/16/obama-social-security-economy
I think this issue could divide us as someone mentioned above. Young vs. old. Rich vs. poor. This could destroy our unity.
Why in the world would Obama “go after” Social Security. It is NOT the problem. In fact, it should not even be on the list of problems. Medicare needs to be on the list, but not Social Security, which should have $2.5 trillion in its Trust Fund, which a good part of the total federal debt of $10.7 trillion per the treasurydirect web page.
George Bush declared that Social Security was “broken” years ago, but that was a lie. Behind that claim were the folks who WANT Social Security and Medicare to fail. The bulk of the American people do not want either to fail. Making adjustments or “fixes” to the System just makes things worse. We need to somehow get the economy working again, and get a surplus in the annual budget that allows for REAL money to be stored and invested in the Social Security Trust Fund. SOMEONE PLEASE TELL BARACK OBAMA THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BROKEN AND THAT “FIXING” IT SHOULD NOT BE PRIORITY OF HIS ADMINISTRATION.
Here’s what I see as the trade-off and the Obama strategy. Give up just a little on Social Security — cosmetic stuff to head off the Blue Dogs, in exchange for something that includes a single-payer option for medical care. Given that medical care is the real problem, it is a good trade-off, especially since nothing prevents Congress from restoring the SS benefits down the line, as they surely will, since the cost isn’t all that much to begin with. There is a lot of shadow-boxing here. The most important thing, though is securing some kind of socialized health care for Americans.
That’s the game I think is being played out here. It also traps the thugs into coming out (once more) against Social Security. At a time when it is more necessary than ever.
There are already divisions between the rich and poor. As for older vs younger, I think not. I work with young folks and they are very supportive of older workers’ concerns. They are smart enough to see that soon, the same concerns will be theirs if they are not addressed.
About the division between the rich and poor… As an activist for may years for people who are low income, I can tell you they have been the most greedy and heartless group of people almost acrtoss the board that I have seen. They have lived off the poor for centuries with little or no concern and it has not changed in this time. As matter of fact in the last few decades the rich have been in the forefront pushing for punitive policies for those in need, demonizing the poor while they systematically loot the treasury ~ and blame the poor for their own greed. I am not too concerned about them nor do I think anything will happen to them. After all they live in gated communities with lots of protection, they have little to worry about except keeping the millions they already have.
However I will say as an activist, this IS warfare between the rich and the poor, because things keep getting worse and worse. Until they get the picture, like they do not seem to be doing with this so-called Social Security “crisis” that they created in part because they refuse to add anything, well you can bet there WILL be war in the legislature down to the city council meetings and neighborhoods.
One thing under the radar as they continue to shove us into the same cramped box: Immigrants, low income citizens, elders and youth of all races and cultures, are finding common ground because guess what? Low income people are ALL crossing language, culture, and racial lines and finding they have in common a great deal of things: kids and grandkids, the discrimination and lack of livable wages, soaring housing costs, soaring energy costs and all of it creates an even heavier burden on the poor more than any other class.
At this time the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes for taxes than the rich ~ in my state it takes almost 20% out of a family’s cost of living at poverty level incomes while the rich pay less than 2%, but it is little different in other states no matter what type of revenue they use ~ income taxes, property taxes, whatever, it always falls heaviest on the poor. See what your state does and who pays your taxes here: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf
No one will address this unless the poor begin to scream about it and scream we will! We are already at our legislators and we write letters and we attend the council meeting and we get …the sound of crickets. We are mad as hall and we are *not* going to take it much longer!
You are concerned for good reason. But perhaps if more people were supportive of what is happening with the lower income classes, it would help avoid what is coming to them as the poor ARE the canaries in the mine for the rest of the American people. Because as of now this unrest is already happening and believe me, it is not going to get any better until it is addressed instead of ignored as it is being ignored now. Just maybe if nothing else, if upper income people realize that helping the low income eventually helps themselves, maybe it will begin the change will prevent any thing else from happening that is boiling beneath the surface.
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
But Congress seldom does “repair” anything. Look at what “repairs” they have done for the Bankruptcy bill, the Medicare Bill and the horrible 9/11 bill that is decimating our rights this minute to name just a few. Nothing. Nothing … Not one damn thing! I am sorry if it ain’t done right the first time well it stays broken from what I see …
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
What’s AARP doing about this?
In the spirit of BIpartisanship the House Dems should vote their conscience and we would expect that to be ‘no’ to anything really stpuid. heh
I think president Obama wants to fix the economy and fixing SS is one thing which helps further the impression we’re headed toward fiscal sanity.
It’s quite interesting in a way that during a recession he’s probably going to have more pressure to NOT raise the retirement age! And, with the public anger about Wall St. behavior and pay there’s a pretty good case to be made for just raising the SS pay cap to adjust for inflation.
On top of that there is a great argument to be made for raising payouts to help fixed-income people just now.
It might have been political when Obama first discussed this during the campaign, but now we’re in this recession and Wall St. has gone cuckoo, it’s not really such a bad thing.
Now, on Medicare, who knows.
Wake up America You and your Children are going to take another big shot not needed by their want to fix so called entitlements. If the people let them get away with what they are about to do they deserve what they get.
They have stolen all the extra money from Social Security to spend on other things. When if it had been invested at compound interest S.S. would have been solvent to oblivion. Now they will cut benefits raise retirement age and the cap or raise taxes to cover their crimes. If a crook stole your money you would be calling for him to be hung yet your Reps and Senators have stolen it and you pat them on the back.
They could fix it by starting a well designed lottery with many small winners so people would play and play. They could support S. S. willingly without have more money stolen in the form of taxes.
If they had passed national healthcare medicare wouldn’t be a problem but they keep fooling the people and ripping them off.
I guess Governors and Congress folks are essentially different. Governors are on the receiving end of the past eight years of legislation from Washington. Whether Republican or Democrat they are largely in favor of HR1. When folks hear a constant monologue of how bad the government is and how we need to cut all those wasteful programs it all sounds good. However, when all the talk boils down to “my services” as “my kid’s education”, “my health care”, “my college tuition”, “my highways and bridges”, “my water”, etc. the monologue begins to sound hollow. Even more, when eight years of talk about reducing “my taxes” resulted in no detectable tax reduction for the majority of the electorate and far less economic security, their empty pronouncements begin to sound like fingernails on a chalk board. I suppose what we should deduce is that lofty pontifications of this type should be deciphered in terms of their concrete results, who benefits and who loses. If you think the last eight years benefited you then you are either wealthy or masochistic. Where was all this talk about deficit spending when two questionable wars were getting funded? I believe we had a budget surplus at the end of Clinton’s administration and over the next eight years we doubled the deficit. While the Republicans headed up HUD and the Treasury we saw homeowners lose and CEOs win. We saw the concrete effects of the verbosity of deregulation in the Consumer Product Safety Commission (poison toy commission) and the FDA (poison peanut butter commission). Did I mention the Republicans had six years in control of the Congress, eight years in the executive branch and a majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court? In spite of what Carl Rove said today on the Today show, the Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 was killed before it got to the Senate because the Bush administration opposed it:
“H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.” George W. Bush Statement of Administration Policy (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851)
There is another word for this kind of blatant manipulation of language – sophistry, picking your pocket to sell you your own watch. The Republicans can talk down at Democrats for wasting money all they want but I am looking forward to seeing some money “wasted” on people and not the very wealthy or absurd wars.
Here’s the official Obama Administration statement on Social security, form Whitehouse.gov
“Protect Social Security
President Obama and Vice President Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama and Biden will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. They will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike, and they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that will ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agen….._security/
The salient excerpt:
“They will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike, and they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.”
How does that square with Capretta’s story about a Orszag’s “plan/”
NelsonAlgren, tell your dad to take early SS then put the monthly payments into CDs (or riskier investments if he has the stomach for it), collect the interest, then when he’s old enough for full SS — pay it back.
The SS system allows for this. You withdraw from collecting SS, pay back what you’ve collected already, then reapply and get the full retirement age amount due you. Meanwhile, you have accumulated the interest (or other growth) on that money that was paid early. I find that not many people know about this option.
Am I the only one that thinks that, in this time of crisis, we should be thinking about INCREASING Social Security benefits, to turn it into a full pension system? with a progressive pay-in for higher incomes and greatly increaed corporate contributions?
We now know that 401K plans have been, at best, a failure and, more likely, an out and out fraud. None of these “defined benefit” plans provided enough to support most workers in retirement, even without the recent crisis. Nor could they. 401Ks were just a way to cut employee compensation–in the form of viable employer-funded pensions–thereby boosting corporate profits. That 401Ks could enrich mutual fund managers and market-timers at the expense of all sorts of financial neophytes was just gravy.
So what alteratives are left for retirees? Shouldn’t we be making provision for the future while we can, while the magnitude of the crisis is clear and the basic Social Security system remains manifestly successful, stable, and effective?