Democrats demand Trump State Department turn over 'secret plan' to slash Social Security amid pandem

[yuiyoshida]

Link to tweet

House Democrats are demanding that the Trump administration turn over to Congress all documents related to an internal State Department plan that reportedly proposes giving Americans direct cash payments in exchange for cuts to their Social Security benefits, an idea advocacy groups denounced as “monstrous.”

In a letter (pdf) sent late last week to Keith Krach—Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment at the State Department—Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) and John Larson (D-Conn.) called on the administration to release in full the so-called “Eagle Plan,” the existence of which was first reported last week by the Washington Post.



“In this moment of crisis, when millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet and fear for their retirement, we should be enhancing Social Security, not developing policies to reduce benefits,” the lawmakers wrote. “The idea that you would ask individual Americans to sell out their hard-earned retirement security as the price of desperately-needed help during a crisis is unacceptable.”

The Post reported that the “Eagle Plan” was written by Paul Touw, chief strategy officer to Krach, and forwarded to the White House Council of Economic Advisers by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

In a statement, Castro characterized the internal State Department proposal as “a secret plan to cut hard-earned Social Security benefits.”

continues
https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/democrats-demand-trump-state-department-turn-over-secret-plan-to-slash-social-security-amid-pandemic/

[wryter2000]

1. Why in Hell

Is the State Department involved in Social Security?

[yuiyoshida]

2. Ask Jared Kushner...

the fucker is involved.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. I wondered that myself.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. I am wondering same

[KSNY]

12. Why? Cannot think of any honest reason for them to be linked.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. I have to laugh, this is sort of the same thing when anyone gets a lump sum payment in lieu of ...

annuity payments spread out over time. I think what Congress (those that do care) is saying don't allow annuity payments to be summarized into lump sum payments, for what'll happen, is that something will happen, and those that received the lump sum payments in lieu of regularly scheduled payments will have no money coming in (because they chose the one time payment).

Personally, I think that this choice should be left (and left as a choice too for all) when one goes to file for social security. However, these folks need to truly understand that the very negative impact of running out of money should one spend the entire lump sum settlement vs. regularly scheduled payments, that is, when the lump sum money runs out, you're f**ked (pardon the language).

Social security is exactly what it means...it is literally security that will put some money on the table for food, etc. That's why there is such a thing as social security ... at one time, there was no security blanket, nothing for a great deal of our population so there were quite a few folks in dire circumstances prior to SS.

What really gets me about SS is that the president, and his cronies feel like they have the right to modify / do whatever to our social security/medicare/etc. I think that changes to SS, etc., should forever be placed on a nationwide ballot and let us vote on changes, etc., after all, we are paying for it.

[karynnj]

8. It is worse than that given the situation

Now, when many NEED money now for essentials, they are being asked to reduce their future SS. This rather than grants or even loans. This while businesses, that qualify as small businesses even though they are NOT what many think of as small businesses were offered loans they did not need to repay if they continued to keep their employees.

Consider that when people for unemployment, it has not impacted their SS.

[SWBTATTReg]

10. I agree w/ you that such questions (reducing SS payments in lieu of a lump sum) being asked in ...

times such as this (or under duress, being that some businesses are shutting their doors for good) is really not fair and takes undue advantage of the stresses everyone is under. It's kind of like questioning a dubious murder suspect for 12 hours straight, without a break or legal representation.

Financial matters, if they can be, should be answered/dealt with in a non-stressful manner. By itself, financial matters are usually a stress inducer anyway.

Congress (the republicans) and rump were so eager to lend and then forgive businesses for these stimulus loans, why not those individuals/families/etc. too, in similar situations? Have them pay back the stimulus loans over time (they've done this before), for individuals/families/etc. Again, another sign of way too much biases towards businesses and not towards individuals/families/etc.

Republicans seem to forget that in order to have a strong economy, consumers (us) need to have money in order to spend it. A simple economics 101 lesson.

[procon]

6. Where are they going to find the money to pay out?

I'm fair certain that Pelosi won't entertain any such legislation in the House. So who's got the money?

[CrispyQ]

7. Classic Luckovich...

[crickets]

9. +1

[Grins]

11. Another site called this "reverse mortgaging" your retirement

That Art Laffer, of all people, thinks this is a great idea should give everyone a pause. As does the Reich-wing American Enterprise Institute.

The Republican Party, trying to kill the most successful program in America since 1934!

[Lonestarblue]

13. I'm not sure they want to kill it so much as they want to privatize it.

Just think of the management fees that private bankers and money managers could charge for managing the SS trust fund (which Republicans rapidly filled with federal IOU’s). And when their investments are bad or the market tanks, well too bad retirees, your money just isn’t there any longer. Ask the teachers in Kentucky whose pension funds were decimated with bad Republican decisions to allow them to be invested in risky products.

I would like to see a law removing all SS monies from the general fund. That money does not represent tax money that is available to spend to run the federal government, yet it is lumped with the general fund to make the deficit look better than it really is.

[aggiesal]

20. I don't believe that SS is part of the General Fund ...

Can you provide a link that shows that it is?

Congress borrowed against it, by replacing the money with U.S. Savings Bonds.
It's a great investment, and no money from the SS was lost.
The borrowed money becomes debt to the General Fund, but does not become debt to SS.

If anyone has better information, please provide. I'm no expert.

[mike_c]

21. it is a pernicious internet myth that anyone stole from Social Security

You can explain how the SS trust works until you're blue in the face and still cannot convince folks that congress doesn't "steal" SS.

First, SS is not part of the general fund. It was for a short while decades ago, but only for accounting purposes. By law, surplus money in the trust, i.e. money not needed to pay current benefits, is invested in special issue treasury bonds that earn interest. It doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere gathering dust. Investing in U.S. Treasury bonds is most definitely not theft. The U.S. has NEVER defaulted on its treasury obligations, including all past bonds invested by the SS trust when they matured.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. They can't change SS benefits without Congress... nt

[geretogo]

15. This is how a Fascist Banana Republic operates .

[bucolic_frolic]

16. This one step from lump sum cashout of Social Security

with referral to Wall Street broker for annuities and management fees.

Transparent motives.

[Hekate]

17. All thru the BushCheney admin I schooled myself against wishing them physical harm...

But the Trumpists have burned that ethic out of me. I have never in my life wished so many people dead, dead, dead.

[Texin]

18. I am right there with you! This is all a freakish nightmare and it just gets worse.

The monstrousness of these -- whatever they are. They're not human. The fact that they would even be constructing this in an election year should tell everyone that they don't plan to have an election in November or any other time in future. There won't be one. They couldn't be putting such a game plan on paper and then still plan to run. They'd all be defeated in a landslide. And the State Department? What are they really planning? Invoking a *national* emergency and bringing out Homeland Security to control the masses? I'm already terrified of the damned virus, now I've got the screaming mimis.

[aggiesal]

19. "... we should be enhancing Social Security, ...

not developing policies to reduce benefits,”

This is not policy, this is the GOP strategy!
Greed
Over
People

or

Greedy
One
Percent