E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSocial Security reform is proving to be a contentious issue, even within the president's own team. The Hill: "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling and Sperling's deputy, Jason Furman -- leading figures in the president's economic team - are pressing Obama to cut Social Security benefits if necessary, say sources familiar with their positions. But Obama's political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say."
Obama's call yesterday for an overhaul of the No Child Left Behind Act before summer's end could be fertile ground for compromise. Roll Call writes: "'There is definitely a real shot of getting this done,' by the summer, a senior House Democratic aide said." And "A senior Senate GOP aide said the fact that Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) is participating in the same talks as HELP ranking member Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) is 'a good indicator that GOP leadership is open to moving a bill.'"
But Politico notes the bill's price tag is a major strike against it, and divisions in the Republican caucus could prove problematic for reform advocates.
The New York Times' editorial page: "The unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough."
Leave a Comment:
It's only as dangerous as the hands it is resting in and President Obama has done well in bringing the economy back. He may have set things in motion where he may not even need to bother Social Security.
Now Newt/Palin on the other hand, we'd be laying dead on the tracks.
Democrats are smart to lay low on Social Security and let the Republicans eat their own on this one. It's a loser for them in 2012 and I can hardly wait for Paul Ryan to submit his budget in April with huge cuts in Medicare and Social Security. It's the death knell for Republicans who have always been perceived (fairly or not) that they would like to do away with these programs and let seniors fend for themselves. I saw a Booknotes presentation several weeks back when the author stated it was statistically impossible for a middle class person retiring at 65 with a life expectancy of 30 more years to save enough for their own retirement. Even keeping Social Security the way it is and factoring in having to pay more for medical care as one gets into their 70s and 80s and the writer sees seniors running out of money and being pauperized. Instead of trying to cut these programs, congress and the president should take a look at the poverty rate among older seniors and try to increase these programs for seniors. Anyway, good luck Republicans....your days are numbered if you go after these two programs.
The Republicans' budget agenda is to continue to give money to their Lord and Masters Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the Insurance Lords! This they do through subsidies, tax shelters, tax havens, tax cuts and tax breaks, while America and her children are left with the burden of shouldering the tax burden. Take from the people they laugh; let them bear the burdens while the Lords grow fat with wealth; We will fool them with saying America is broke, you must live on less, while the Lords live on more and more!
If you are not a billionaire, you will not get any representation from the Knights sitting at the Round Table of Big Money. These Knights for Big Oil, the Insurance Companies and Pharma, care less that the People are the ones who pay their salaries and healthcare, but with large payouts from their real Masters, who needs the peoples' money!
Republican legislators think that the Mentally sick should be placed in Siberia (something Stalin actually did) and illegals shot down like pigs! Haley Barbour's social secretary makes insensitive Jokes about the heart-wrenching devastation in Japan, and had to resign, but what kind of humanbeing could think that situation is funny?
It looks as if they are beginning to show their real and true Colors; Dark and Murky Lords everyone of them....
The media in Wisconsin went to interview one of the Republican State Senators and his wife said he no longer lived there but lived outside the District with his mistress; that their maid already signed papers for his recall and that she planned to do so too!
Check this out! - WI Repub lives outside district with mistress, says wife http://shar.es/3OtxB
Insurance companies--I believe that they belong to the democrats. What party got a mandated health insurance program passed? Now everyone has to purchase insurance from a "for profit" company. Seems to me that the insurance companies seem to own the democrats. But go ahead and blame all corporations on the GOP--maybe you should check out the "BIG" corporations that donated to the DEMs last time.
And this president's socialistic agenda is a lot closer to Hitler and Stalin than the GOP. So Angellight--don't be so heavy.
Social Security's ponzi scheme needs to be reformed, I don't care which party does it. Have some guts and make SS what it was intended to be, a supplement to one's own retirement savings.
Just a few changes that might help it last longer.
Only retirees are allowed to be on SS--not all of the others that receive benefits. If someone dies prior to receiving their benefits--that money should be placed in their heirs benefits for when they retire. We are paying out for too many people at younger ages.
Another change, don't allow people to draw their SS until they reach 65--not any earlier. If someone wants to retire early--that is fine, but their government funds from SS don't start paying until they are 65, not 60, not 62, just 65 or older.
The Koch brother dictate whats going to happen ...for them its all about the profits...not the people ...The GOP has to do their bidding ...they are all bought and paid for.. by the Koch brothers ....if the GRIM WEEPER OF THE HOUSE doesn't do as told he's toast ! And he knows it ...he talks big but he knows who's actually in charge !
Is that all you have to say--Koch Brothers this, Koch Brothers that--are all you liberals that scared of them. But I guess its like the right wingers--unions this, unions that. Try coming up with solutions instead of having nightmares about the Koch Brothers. I'm sure that the insurance companies aren't telling the democrats what to do either:)
social security and medicare are the greatest safety nets we have in this country and there is no need to cut or reduce these programs just to get the money to wall street. social security is not part of the deficit. keep your hands off social security and medicare or suffer the consequences at the polls!
Here is what I don't understand. About a year ago, there was a fairly well publicized study that with a few tweaks, Social Security would be solvent and fully funded for the next 75 years. If they lifted the earnings cap, that alone would pay out all benefits for the next 75 years. Similarly, if they kept the wage cap the same but raised the payroll taxes 1.1%, all benefits would be paid out for the next 75 years. With the current assault on defined benefit pensions that were fairly standard throughout industry 30 years ago and dumping everyone into 401K plans, pensions of the middle class are more vulnerable. If we do anything to Social Security, we should strenghten it by using some combination of higher payroll taxes and higher wage caps, lower the retirement age back to 65, and keep the benefits robust. That way, if Gov. Walker and his Wall Street buddies tank the economy and wipe out everyone's 401K plan, the middle class will still have a decent retirement.
Social Security is not suppose to be "your" retirement--it was intended to be a supplement to one's retirement in case of hard times. What you have now is a ponzi scheme that would make Madoff proud. Instead of allowing everyone and their dog on SS-- we need redefine who is on SS--and make people learn to save and stay out of debt personally.
And it isn't Walker who is going to bankrupt this country it is our present national government--those who can't live within a budget.
Repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy!
[I based these figures on 17 million people,] low income people who are working and people who are not working to pay them 500.00 per week, This would help to bring these people up to the poverty level and give them A chance to grow from there, and give the economy a better foundation to grow on, money to be paid to them even when they find work, and take 28% tax from the top not to be refunded to these people for any reason, of the 500.00 dollars this 28% would be around 2,380,000,000 per week for two years, or around 247 billion dollars; take out their SS tax and pay that to SS, this 8% would be around 680,000,000 dollars per week or around 70 billion dollars for two years going to SS, or the deficit; this would leave them with around 350.00 dollars per week to live on, This 350.00 by 17 million people would be around 5,950,000,000 billion dollars per week, or around 618 billion dollars for two years going into the economy, this would solve the unemployment problem temporarily for two years, while the economy rebounded, figure in how much tax revenue this money would bring in, and it would help to keep many small businesses from closing and save those tax revenues, and jobs.
the 28% tax they would take from the top should be given to the states, not to be paid back, but with oversight, this money would be around 2.4 billion dollars per week to stabilize all the states, and this would be one of the best ways to stabilize the nation, and give the states time to start to recover better; any money left over to go on the deficit all this to be done with oversight.[ withhold federal money to the states for two years, and figure how much it would save. the money going to the states is not to be paid back,
because it solves A problem, paying it back would create another problem] using the money from the bush tax extension to the wealthy, over ten years, to pay for this.
The wealthy would receive much more if the business economy picks up than they would receive on the tax cuts, all the new business would more than make up for those tax cuts!
figure in the savings on food stamps , unemployment money, housing subsidies, and other money that the government would save for two years, lower crime rate could be a factor in savings to.
The demand in the economy would generate many more taxes, and it would leave the government in a much better position to cut more waste, and may by raise taxes on the middle class to pay off the deficit, or if they repeal the middle class tax to!!!
So in other words, lets just hand out a bunch of money to people because they are poor. Don't we do that with SS, unemployment benefits, and other government programs. They don't work now, so what makes you think that these people, getting handouts, would want to end their $500 a week stipend when the program ends. As any politician will say, that takes a vote away from them.
End the tax loopholes, give a flat tax--at 17%--the US government would have an extra $15 billion to spend in 2009 at the lowest taxable rate.
Provide an amendment that makes the national government balance the budget, instead of spending more than they know they will take in.
Then cut government by 5% per year until unemployment is under 5%--then take the surpluses and spend down the debt.
Giving more taxpayer money to people that don't work now is not the way Dale--handouts provide us with more free loaders--and we have enough of those already.
What about the people that retire and really don't need that money? Or what about people who work well over the day of retirement. My boss is 74 and he could care less about Social Security. He suggested that they should look into tweaking that.
I have a question. Do I understand correctly that the government has been borrowing money from Social Security for the past oh so many years and replacing the funds with IOU's? If that is true, then why should we who have been faithfully paying into it through payroll deductions have to bear the brunt of fixing what the government broke? Seems to me the government should find a way to replace that money without taking more from middle class taxpayers. If my understanding is wrong, then by gosh, I'll just shut my mouth.
By the way, SS may not have been intended as retirement funds, but a great many people rely on it just for that. Some folks do not have retirement, through no fault of their own. My grandpa worked all his life,built his own house, but there was no retirement. When he could no longer work, SS was all he had to keep himself alive. I have a 401(k) that fluctuates with the market. When I am able to retire, it may have $20,000 or $200, so I will need that SS. Why is it always the middle class, or those with their heads just above water, who have to do the major sacrificing.
Back when Social Security was started, it was intended to be part of a retirement plan based on savings, pensions from your employer and Social Security. Well, thanks to the demise of the defined benefit plans that were common 30 years ago (the ones that those commie America hating school teachers in Wisconsin have) and the shift to 401K plans, the company pension leg is pretty weak. As for savings, thanks to the global race to the bottom in which real wages have not risen much if at all over the past 30 years while health care, education, food and energy have, kiss that one goodbye too! As a result, we need to strengthen, not weaken Social Security.
To the mindless parroted wingnut argument that X percent does not pay taxes, payroll taxes that fund Social security are paid on a workers first dollar of wages with no deductions allowed.
BigBear - Why do you think they resits a flat tax?
It troubles me that no one within the White House is discussing raising the FICA cap. Cutting benefits or means testing puts us on that dangerous road to making social security just a program for the poor. And recent history is quite clear - in times of budget stress, it's the poor and disabled that get the first cuts in services.