FFS... the PURPOSE of ENTITLEMENT REFORM is to REDUCE benefits

[cthulu2016]

"Entitlement reform" is a euphemism for entitlement reduction. The purpose of such reform is to reduce the size and number of checks written by the government.

Does anyone question that?

There are an almost infinite number of ways to calculate inflation, to determine eligibility, etc.. Of that infinite realm of options, only options that have the effect of smaller or fewer checks are considered reform.

Amazing how that works!

If, for instance, an accounting method were arguably more accurate but had the effect of increasing expenditures it would not be considered reform.

So the accuracy, simplicity, elegance, or virtue of any of this stuff is merely a means to an end that is only as desirable as the goal.

Start out with the goal that ten years hence John Doe's salary should be 10% less than it is today. There are better and worse ways to accomplish that goal, but the goal is arbitrary. The fairest way to reduce John Doe's salary by 10% is not the fairest or smartest course of action... unless we start out accepting that the arbitrary 10% reduction goal is magically the apogee of fairness or smartness.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Even very clever, elegant proposed cuts are cuts, proposed for the purpose of cutting.

Anybody who thinks Social Security checks, for instance, are too large should have the character to say so, rather than pretending that if you look at the thing in just the right light it is revealed to be God's will that things be handled a certain way that, by golly, just happens to reduce benefits.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. And it's a solely Republican endeavor, not a Democratic Party one. Let's make that clear.

Let's at least keep that in mind. There is NO "grand bargain" forthcoming from Dems.

And I prefer to call social security, medicare, and medicaid, "earned benefits" because that's what these programs are. Entitlement programs are those that give free taxpayer money to Big Oil, Big Agri, and Big Corp. Those are truly "entitlements".

[LiberalEsto]

5. Also Pre-Paid Benefits

since we're paying for it all our working years

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Considering we draw more than we put in,

it's hard to make the case that these are "pre-paid" benefits with RWers and other assorted anti-poor-people folks. However, as an American, we have earned the right to these benefits, as Chris Hayes pointed out to that Reagan Republican, David Stockman, the other night.

David Stockman tried to make the case that people in Florida in retirement homes get combined $50k per year in medicare, medicaid, and social security. He believes they didn't earn it and shouldn't get as much. He argued for means-testing that Chris was passionately against.

Chris Hayes:

"They didn't earn it in a dollar sense. They earned it in the citizenship sense. They earned it in a sense that we have all agreed to have this universal benefit."

FF to 5:30: http://www.msnbc.com/all-in

[JDPriestly]

97. Interest.

Back in the late '80s, interest on a home mortgage was 9.5% or 10%. That's what we got in the late 80s.

In the late 90s, interest rates on private student loans were 7.5-8.5%.

Those of us who paid the increases in payroll taxes that were enacted to save in the Social Security Trust Fund for the retirement of the baby boomers (starting during the Reagan administration between 1983-1985) PAID those interest rates.

The interest rates now are artificially low thanks to Fed maneuvers and the crash of the housing boom. Please note that the first of the baby boomers who were born in 1946 first became eligible for Social Security at the reduced distributions for 63-year-olds in 2009. The housing crash and bank failures were timed perfectly to harm baby boomers.

As is the proposed default on the Social Security benefits.

And please note that the Republicans were in office when the housing boom and subsequent crash were allowed to happen.

We are due a lot of interest on the money that we put into the Social Security system.

Most of us started putting in money when we were still kids back in the 1960s. Our generations (war babies and baby boomers) often started working as early teenagers.

The money we put in when we were in our teens and 20s so long ago has accrued an enormous amount of interest. That is why we probably are not really even getting back the value that we put in with the current benefits.

Average benefits paid out to retirees as of August 2013:

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance . . . . 1,203.72
Retirement benefits . . . 1,224.69
Retired workers . . . 1,270.38
Spouses of retired workers . . . 634.20
Children of retired workers . . . 619.95

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

The minimum benefit is $1.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/254/~/minimum-social-security-retirement-amount

The maximum benefit depends on the age at which you retire and your income (how much you put in).

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at your full retirement age in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $2,533. But if you retire at age 62 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $1,923. If you retire at age 70 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $3,350.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-retirement-benefit

The recent job deficit has forced more people to retire earlier. That means that the monthly benefits they receive are and will continue to be lower than those who can still work until they are 70.

People retire because employers really don't want to hire older workers.

If workers were in big demand, if we had very, very low unemployment, fewer people would retire before they were 70.

So, the real problem is not Social Security but our bad economy. We have outsourced and exported too many jobs. That is our problem. Our free trade policies are really hurting Americans. Social Security is a red herring. It's not the problem. The lack of jobs is the problem.

[BlueCaliDem]

116. Excellent expose, JD. Perhaps we should all send a copy of this to our Senators and Congressmen.

Thank you.

Yes, indeedy! We need more jobs to boost social security, medicare, and medicaid. We can't do that until we rid the House of Teapublicans (and they all are) and take back power so we can finally get a comprehensive jobs bill through because all Teapublicans, from Senator McConnell to Rep. Labrador, will continue to create one crises after another, just to prevent any beneficial legislation to get through.

[JDPriestly]

118. Don't forget! Just a few years ago, Obama thought that Social Security was in such good shape

that he could ask for a payroll tax cut or holiday.

That bit into the reserves in Social Security too.

Obama cannot now sign a bill cutting Social Security benefits after he signed and strongly supported the payroll tax cut or holiday. That would look to me very much as if he wanted to destroy Social Security.

I objected to the reduction in payroll taxes at the time Obama brought it in. But it of course went through because what they really want is to end Social Security and force Americans to give their savings to the no-good, double-crossing bankers and Wall Streeters. They enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary Americans, including seniors, students, etc.

We have to get some kind of fairness in our society. Neither the Republicans nor the DLCers are going to bring it.

[JDPriestly]

98. Medicaid is already means-tested.

Seniors pretty much have to spend down all their assets before they qualify for it.

I have heard that nursing homes cost about $5,000 per month. Just hearsay. Maybe someone has a better number?

Social Security benefit amounts are here:

Average benefits paid out to retirees as of August 2013:

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance . . . . 1,203.72
Retirement benefits . . . 1,224.69
Retired workers . . . 1,270.38
Spouses of retired workers . . . 634.20
Children of retired workers . . . 619.95

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

The minimum benefit is $1.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/254/~/minimum-social-security-retirement-amount

The maximum benefit depends on the age at which you retire and your income (how much you put in).

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at your full retirement age in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $2,533. But if you retire at age 62 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $1,923. If you retire at age 70 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $3,350.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-retirement-benefit

You would have to put in a lot of money and retire at 70 to get $3,350 per month.

Obviously, if the average benefit is $1,224.69, not many people qualify for $3,350 per month.

Most seniors are poor, especially as they age. The older they get, the more their private savings run out. That is why the chained CPI is such an especially bad idea.

If a person lives to, say, 95, it is quite possible that he or she will have spent a lot of any savings he or she managed to accumulate on the extra medical costs. Over-the-counter drugs and treatments are not included in Medicare. Neither is the car that an elderly person may need because he or she cannot walk well any more. Forget about riding a bike. And many, many Americans live in places where there is no public transportation.

Medicare is not necessarily free. They take a payment directly out of your monthly Social Security payment for Medicare. I don't know if the amount is standard. My elderly mother pays as much for her Medicare insurance as many are now paying for their plans under the ACA for a family and after the subsidy. She is not rich. Some insurers provide inexpensive care. Some plans cost as much as a plan without Medicare (in my opinion).

The alternative to paying out the sums people need for a subsistence life (the average monthly Social Security benefit is barely above the poverty level) and for medical care is just letting seniors die in misery. Is that what America is about? We need to ask Stockman that.

Here are some other people's statements on this:

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as "putting Social Security on a sound basis."

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the "trust funds" are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

. . . .

Wall Street Targets the Elderly: Looting Social Security
Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/02.10/looting.html

I strongly disagree with Roberts' (who is in my view just another conservative) suggestion that we should have privatized Social Security. Had that happened, seniors would have absolutely nothing. Wall Street would simply have stolen it out of our "investments." That would have been even easier for Wall Street. We have some crooks at the top in our country. That is the problem.

And, you don't have to sell more bonds to cover deficits and spending, how about raising taxes on the corporations and individuals who have the money in this country? I especially favor inheritance taxes and taxes on stock market transactions. Bush fought two wars and gave tax cuts without increasing taxes. No wonder we have a problem.

And this was first published in November 1981:

This year's embarrassment has prompted some Reagan partisans to conclude that Social Security is the president's political "blind spot." Thrice burned, White House strategists now hope to ignore the issue at least until after the 1982 congressional elections.

Among those stung by the controversy was budget director David Stockman, who pushed for the Social Security cuts, convinced Reagan, then watched his plans collapse against the stone wall of congressional opposition.

Stockman concluded very early, sources said, that if he were to achieve Reagan's goal of balancing the budget he could not ignore the most politically sensitive budget item of all. Social Security has long been considered immune to budget-cutting, even in the toughest economic times. As a result, it spends beyond its means, and the arithmetic of an aging society shows it will go broke unless taxes are raised or benefits reduced.

More.

http://newsok.com/social-security-remains-biggest-thorn-in-reagans-side/article/1963068

Again, that article was written by an anti-Social Security conservative.

I am posting these conservative articles not because I agree with them but so that everyone can see the Republican strategy that was solidly in place and being implemented beginning the Reagan era. It was also in 1985 if not before that the idea of "free" trade hit Congress. I remember the C-Span broadcast discussions in Congress on it. The aim was to destroy Social Security. Democrats have to fight this. This is the key political fight of our time. If Democrats let down seniors on this, they are letting down all the American people. And Democrats will, if the default on Social Security cause a great deal of trouble for and within the US.

Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security from the very beginning. They pressed forward under Reagan always under the pretense that they were "saving" or "strengthening" (Obama's term for it) the system.

In fact, they are stealing from American seniors. And those of you in younger generations should study the history on this. When they tell you they are going to save Social Security for you, they are just up to their old tricks.

We need to change our trade policy to motivate businesses to produce and employ in the US, and we need to raise the minimum wage. If we drastically modify our "free" (not free at all because it has cost us millions of jobs) trade policies and raise the minimum wage, everyone will have Social Security. In fact, if we return to full employment, really full employment, employers may continue to employ seniors until they reach 70, and we won't have any problem at all.

I know so many people who lose or have lost their jobs in their 50s. I remember one of my bosses told me when I had reached 50 that there was a reason men divorced their wives in their 50s. That's how employers feel about their employees. When you are old you are expendable. Some employers don't feel that way. Some view older workers as people they can exploit and pay low wages. Some actually value older workers (but they are a minority).

So many Americans in their 20s and 30s are underemployed.

It's the economy, stupid, not Social Security.

[7962]

23. I dont have a problem with the word, I paid into it, I'm entitled to it.

I would say the opposite words would apply to the big money giveaways you mention.

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Perception is king. Republicans have successfully marketed the word, "entitlement", as

something uppity and negative when referring to earned benefits. Democrats haven't helped in that regard by taking the Republican definition and incorporating it into their vocabulary instead of correcting them.

GOP backed moneyed think tanks spend tens of millions on political psy-ops to fool the American people who don't follow politics as closely. Unfortunately for us, these people are the majority in this country.

Since we've lost the battle on the definition of "entitlements" (thanks for the most part to Democrats' capitulation), we need to hammer home that these are "earned benefits", not programs people feel they're entitled to.

[okaawhatever]

59. The purpose of making the word entitlement pejorative was also to distort the numbers. When you

hear about all the Americans collecting entitlements, or the percentage of the budget that goes to entitlements, you have no idea it's for VA, Federal Retirement, SS and such. It does seem like this huge chunk of money is going out to poor people who don't work. It's not accurate but the Republicans and their corporate backed media machine have many senior citizens thinking they support "entitlement reform" when in reality they're talking about "social security reform."

[jtuck004]

38. From: 9 Democrats who are selling out on Social Security cuts

Make sure we tell these Democrats that there is no such thing as a Grand Bargain for the people whose hides they will take this out of...

...
The National Journal, a leading conservative publication, did a nationwide poll in the first week of the shutdown and tilted its questions to try to show public support for the GOP’s intransigence and for cutting entitlements. What it didn’t put on its website but was buried in its results (see page 4) was that 76 percent said Social Security should be cut “not at all,” as opposed to cut “a lot” or “some.” Eighty-one percent said Medicare should be cut “not at all.” And 60 percent replied “not at all” to cutting Medicaid. These results tracked two otherNational Journal polls done in 2012 and other national surveys.

But, as Sen. Sanders’ policy aide noted, the mindset in too many Washington circles is taking a completely opposite view. You would expect corporate defenders among the GOP to do what they have been doing since the government reopened—clamoring for cuts to social programs, as their rich benefactors don’t need them, and cutting tax rates, which makes wealthy people and businesses even wealthier. That’s what GOP leaders said; they’ll end the across-the-board federal cuts known as the sequester if Democrats agree to future cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
...
The list of Democrats who are entering these negotiations enbracing the GOP’s terms continues. There are at least nine in the Senate. California’s Dianne Feinstein, Montana’s Max Baucus, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Delaware’s Chris Coons and Tom Carper, and Colorado’s Michael Bennett have all said they support cuts to entitlements in letters to constituents, proposed bills or statements made after the President’s fiscal reform commission led by Eskine Bowles and Alan Simpson issued its 2010 report proposing capping or cutting entitlements while lowering or eliminating corporate taxes.

No wonder George Will, arguably the nation’s leading right-wing commentator, also boasted on Fox News Sunday about the upcoming budget negotiation, saying, “We are now talking entirely in Republican terms, in Republican vocabulary after this so-called defeat… No taxes, how much is spending goung to be cut? The federal workforce is being cut, discretionary domestic spending is being cut…” And theWall Street Journal quickly capitalized on the division among Democrats with its own report, titled, “Budget Discord Simmers Among Democrats.”
...

Including the President, who says these need to be addressed...

The gory details, Here.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. There is zero reason for Democrats to wade in the Republican cesspool of cutting benefits

for the American people. The biggest sequester cuts that terrify the GOP are coming in January - cuts to defense, their pet program.

That translates into Democrats having the upperhand here, and any Democrat who sides with the GOP to try and cut earned benefits should be primaried and cut from Congress.

I tried to do that with DiFi last year, voting for Mike Strimling instead, but too many Democrats in CA cast their vote for that Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing, and very much to my chagrin, she won. Jesus. Even Orly Taitz got more votes than Strimling did!

[jtuck004]

47. "Even Orly Taitz got more votes than Strimling did"

Now that's funny.

People who want to cut benefits on the back of the most vulnerable while paying $85 billion a month to keep thieving bankers in the chips are not Democrats. They are infil-traitors, liars, cheats. The lowest of the low. Not my friends, and not my neighbors friends, and I really don't care what it says on their filing papers. Nor do I much care what position they temporarily hold.

Frankly, I think the New Deal programs were part of a strategy to break the power of the Industrial Unions who thought that the people were the best deciders of their own fate, and hand it over to the Business Unions who kowtow to the wealthy. That said, the New Deal and later programs are slightly better than nothing, though they are more about maintaining people, like cattle, instead of helping them learn the skills and gain more power, which is their big weakness. Even so, I will work against anyone who takes the back of the wealthy over the most vulnerable. And that is what cuts to these New Deal and later programs do.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Well, I can chuckle about it now, but I was incensed back then.

It's no surprise to me that she's one of the "Democrats" who is all but willing to "negotiate" earned benefits cuts just to avoid defense from sequestration cuts - due in January if no budget deal is agreed to.

She's selling out, and has been selling out, the American people for personal profit.

Dianne Feinstein resigns committee post amid scandal; accused of war profiteering
Joshua Holland, March 30, 2007

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?

http://www.alternet.org/story/49970/dianne_feinstein_resigns_committee_post_amid_scandal%3B_accused_of_war_profiteering

Why on God's green Earth was this not widespread by the Democratic Party in 2012? How much are they getting for burying this scandal so deeply that the majority of Californians have never heard of it?

I'm all but certain that Mike Strimling would have won the primary and the election had more Californians known about this Republican-in-Democrat-clothing's war profiteering!

[JDPriestly]

100. Feinstein is a horror story.

She gets nominated and elected because Democrats think she appeals across party lines.

Hey! We do not need her. Never did. She weakens the Democratic Party. She is a conservative and should not be supported by the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, she is in for a long time. Just got re-elected. It's a real shame.

[BlueCaliDem]

117. But one that not very many Californians know about. And we've got to change that

otherwise we're stuck with her.

As it is, we have another six friggin years of her in the Senate. I couldn't be more depressed.

[Oilwellian]

60. Except that...

Obama put it in his 2014 Budget proposal.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. He did? Do you have a link to that report? eom

[Dragonfli]

71. .

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections

Chained CPI=cuts

The Budget also incorporates the President’s compromise offer to House Speaker Boehner to achieve another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way. When combined with the deficit reduction already achieved, this will allow us to exceed the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, while growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices and his seriousness about finding common ground to further reduce the deficit.

The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI.

[Dragonfli]

69. Are you saying that these people are not Democrats? (I agree by the way, but Washington doesn't)

http://www.thirdway.org/

Look at the front page and read through the links, it is clearly a Democratic endeavor as well unless one admits that these people are Republicans, as are those registered and elected as Democrats that agree with them, including at least 9 Senators and the President.

I happen to think they are Republican infiltrators registered and accepted as Democrats, but did not think you agreed with me.

[cui bono]

77. Unfortunately, no, it's not solely a Republican endeavor. It's in Obama's budget.

He put it in there without the R's even having to be vocal about it.

Durbin just mentioned it.

Warner just mentioned it.

Dems are fine with this as well, and to ignore/deny that is to aid in its demise.

[BlueCaliDem]

81. Can you provide a link so I can read it myself? eom

[cui bono]

85. Here, Dragonfli had it posted above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3927543

I remember the press briefing where Carney said they were offering it.

Warner was on TV last weekend saying it and Durbin came out saying it last week.

[Orsino]

80. Solely a Republican effort?

And yet President Obama ran as a Democrat.

[bamasher]

82. Not so BlueCali

A lot of dems seem to be on board with "Grand Bargain" reasoning, starting with the President himself. I truly wish it weren't so. If I don't get my SS check cut it will be despite the White House effort, not because of it.

[Doctor_J]

86. what are you talking about?

A whole handful of Dems have talked about the "need for entitlement reform", including the president. This is not, unfortunately, a solely Republican endeavor

[leftstreet]

2. Entitlement Reform = Benefit Reduction

DURec

[djean111]

3. Thank you. Reform does mean cut. Entitlement is meant as a demeaning slur.

We can shake our little keyboards and rant, but when those words come out of 99% of ALL politicians in Washington, they mean "cuts" and "welfare". And they have trained all the GOPers to think that way, and it looks like they are making inroads on the Dems.

[CTyankee]

17. How about "I want to REFORM SS/Medicare to SAVE it."

The implication is that since we have an aging population, the greedy geezers will grab all the money which does two bad things: 1) takes government support from babies to serve the eldery's greedy needs and 2) there won't be enough to go around for the next generation.

That argument is getting old tho. When Joe Scarborough said "I want to reform Medicare to save Medicare" last week, everyone around the table laughed at him.

I think that saying will go the way of "shared sacrifice." Remember THAT one? Even Joe Scar had to stop saying that on his show about a year after the 2008 meltdown and Tina Brown laughed in his face and said "There isn't any shared sacrifice!"

[woo me with science]

4. K&R It is well past time to demand more from Democrats.

Promising to limit the most severe assaults is not enough.

Last time, we were expected to cheer a vicious austerity plan and be grateful because it did not slash SS and Medicare.

Bragging about limiting assaults is not enough. It is time for Democrats to fight to raise the cap.

It's time for vocal, passionate advocacy of actual liberal solutions to inequality and the massive poverty in this nation, including higher SS benefits, taxing the rich and ending obscene corporate profits, starvation employee wages, and corporate welfare.

[bamasher]

83. Democrats are wimps

Well put. I have been a democrat all my life and I am extremely disappointed with today's weak-kneed democrats. They always play defense and never, ever offense. Give me one good reason to follow the Repubs down the rabbit hole of SS cuts.

[woo me with science]

87. Thanks, but I have to disagree that corporate Democrats are wimps.

They are manipulative, is what they are. They work aggressively on behalf of those they represent, but they do not represent the 99 percent, even though they claim to. Our problem is not a pathological wimpiness in Democrats, but rather a systemic problem of corporate money and power driving electoral politics and policy in Washington, in both parties.

Our only real leverage is in our numbers. That's why we need to force them through public pressure to represent our interests rather than corporate interests. The corporatists in both parties work very hard to limit the scope of debate on any particular issue to the Republican evil corporate choice versus the Democratic "lesser-of-two-evils" corporate choice. Then they claim "victory" for enacting predatory policies that aren't quite as predatory as the Republican version was threatened to be. We were expected to CELEBRATE a vicious austerity plan last time, simply because it didn't also come with threatened cuts in Medicare and Social Security.

It's time to end the scam. We need to demand policies that actually HELP the 99 percent and REVERSE inequality, rather than settling for slightly less bludgeoning than the Republicans would have inflicted. We need to get the country demanding real solutions, expanding the debate, and proving that the corporate line we are constantly fed - that the corporate options are the only viable options - is a despicable lie.

[JDPriestly]

102. I distinctly remember that Obama favored raising the cap in the 2004 debates with Hillary.

Hillary opposed raising the cap. That was one of the reasons that Obama won over Hillary.

Shame on Obama for giving up on that idea.

Millions of Americans will suffer if they cut Social Security benefits. And they won't all be seniors. Many of them will be the children of poor seniors and disabled people.

The chained CPI is a terrible idea. I know a lot of very elderly people. If you work and earn an average or close to average salary all your life, you cannot raise a family and personally save enough for your retirement. That is something that only rich people and upper income people can do. Thus, when you get in your 80s, you have spent your savings -- on things like glasses and hearing aids and prolonged hospital care, co-pays and deductibles, winter coats and boots, your mortgage and other necessities.

The average Social Security payment is just enough to keep seniors above the poverty level. I have posted it here so many times. And you will find it posted on my DU blog.

Cutting Social Security will hurt the whole country. It will be another blow to the economy. It will be taking a lot of money out of the economy.

Seniors spend their Social Security checks and mostly in America. Most of it goes for food, the rare item of clothing that a senior buys, medical needs not covered by Medicare, necessary transportation and housing. Seniors help the American economy.

Seniors who have I-phones or I-pads or expensive items made outside the US usually buy those items with their savings. And those seniors are in a minority. They also pay taxes at the same rates as everyone else because if they have over a certain amount of income they full taxes. As I recall there is a tax increase at annual income of $40,000 and an even higher one for seniors with more than $80,000 of income.

It is a complicated aspect of our tax system, but the idea that Social Security should be means-tested is foolish. Through the tax code, it already is.

Once they have cut Social Security what else will they do to harm our economy and to harm the middle class and the poor.

This is where we have to draw that line in the sand -- Social Security.

[NorthCarolina]

113. Conservative Democrats always appear more 'progressive' when campaigning.

Campaign rhetoric means absolutely zilch. While "campaigning" you may recall that Obama was also clearly against NAFTA, supported a public option for healthcare, spoke eloquently about transparency in government, etc. After the campaign was over of course it became...what NAFTA? We need TPP too! There will be no discussion of a public option. Edward Snowden exposed our "trasparency" BS.

[ProSense]

6. Here's what

"Anybody who thinks Social Security checks, for instance, are too large should have the character to say so, rather than pretending that if you look at the thing in just the right light it is revealed to be God's will that things be handled a certain way that, by golly, just happens to reduce benefits. "

...needs to happen:

Sanders, Reid, DeFazio Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Social Security

WASHINGTON, March 7 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to strengthen Social Security by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax that nearly everyone else already pays.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the companion bill in the House. He joined Sanders at a news conference in the Capitol to discuss their bill to bolster Social Security without raising the retirement age or lowering benefits.

“Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. Through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American,” Sanders said. “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

Reid said, “I want to thank Sen. Sanders for his outstanding leadership in support of Social Security and the millions of Americans who rely on the program. His legislation should make people think twice before assuming that the only way to strengthen Social Security is to take away benefits that seniors have earned, or raise taxes on the middle class.”

DeFazio added, “Despite the hype, Social Security is not now, and never was, the cause of our deficit. Those spreading these false claims are the same people who have for years been working with Wall Street to privatize the program. We shouldn’t cut benefits or try to balance the budget on the backs of seniors who have earned these benefits. We can just close a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than everyone else.”

In addition to Majority Leader Reid, the Senate measure is cosponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-R.I.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Under their legislation, those with yearly incomes of $250,000 or more would pay the same 6.2 percent payroll tax already assessed on those who earn up to $113,700 a year. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only affect the wealthiest 1.3 percent of Americans, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Social Security officials say that simple change would yield about $85 billion a year to keep the retirement program strong for at least another 50 years.

The legislation is based on a proposal that President Barack Obama made in 2008 during his first campaign for the White House. (Watch the video.)

Since it was signed into law 77 years ago, Social Security has kept millions of senior citizens, widows, widowers, orphans, and the disabled out of poverty. Before Social Security, about half of senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent live in poverty and more than 55 million Americans receive retirement or disability benefits.

The most successful government program in our nation's history has not contributed to the federal deficit. It has a $2.7 trillion surplus, and it can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for at least the next 20 years, according to the Social Security Administration.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=3d71f1ec-9ff5-4443-9e1f-efc735f1bb38

Bill: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030612-SSBill.pdf

Fact sheet: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030613-SSFactSheet.pdf

My only problem with this bill is the gap between $113,700 and $250,000.

[DJ13]

10. K&R for your post and the OP

[homegirl]

7. The Semantics War

Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance are NOT "entitlements" they are "EARNED BENEFITS." Beware the trap of succumbing to Republican "New Speak."

[bhikkhu]

9. Personally, like "Obamacare", I really don't care what things get called

I don't think there is a better solution to the demonization of words but to shake it off and "own" them.

[duffyduff]

52. You earned it, you're entitled to it. Take it up with those who wrote the Social Security Act. n/t

[bhikkhu]

8. Of course you are more or less right, but the devil is in the details

you might ask - why would reasonable people, with all the facts in hand, suggest reforming entitlements? Because the projections say that they have to.

Then, you might also ask, if reasonable people had to reform entitlements, how would they go about it? First, by taking a good look at who is receiving benefits, and separating out and protecting those who need and depend on those benefits, from those who have plenty of money and income and who don't depend on the benefits.

Which is to say, to try to reform the benefit system in a way that makes it more progressive, and also improves the income inequality problem we have.

I know this isn't the way its talked about here, and generally the details of what the president proposed previously aren't even mentioned, but that was the thrust of his proposal and the core of the intent. If I had to reform entitlements, I would do it in a way that made it more progressive and reduced the country's income inequality problem. That's what I expect to see proposed, and what I expect to see democrats in congress support, if it happens at all.

[Enthusiast]

13. I don't know why you would expect

reform proposals to reduce income inequality problems or protect vulnerable low income seniors.

There is a clear track record that speaks for itself. Examine the effective tax rate of corporations and the wealthy. You have to be unbelievably optimistic to believe a government that is pushing yet another destructive free trade deal would act in our best interest. Optimistic or naive.

[bhikkhu]

25. Because that's what the president said

that's where his overall oft-spoken priorities lie, and that's what the proposal of last summer was structured to do.

If you want another example, there was the president's suggestion a couple of months ago to reduce corporate taxes to 28%. That sounds bad too, but it was made with a raft of small changes that would have wound up increasing actual corporate taxes overall (by closing loopholes), and reducing income inequality.

I'm not exactly in favor of this congress attempting any reform of entitlements, but I do trust that the president's proposals and the democrats in congress who might support them are all in the direction of protecting those most in need and reducing income inequality. Social Security is a great program, but its not a perfect program; it could be stronger financially and it could easily be more progressive.

[Enthusiast]

30. I used to trust the President.

No more.

The only thing that needs to be done to social security is a gradual increase in the cap on FICA contributions. That approach has worked perfectly fine in the past to the tune of a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus.

You tell me, why would we change something that resulted in such a huge surplus if there were not some ulterior motives to do so?

Social security is better than perfect. It has kept the government afloat during a time of foolhardy foreign entanglements and rampant Wall Street fraud.

[bhikkhu]

32. Because the past is not the present

It did result in a huge surplus because of how it was set up, and it was set up taking into account the demographics of the country. The surplus was by design, so that the program would be funded for the retirements of the baby boomers.

But demographics change, and the current trajectory isn't toward surplus, but toward deficit. There are no ulterior motives involved in the projections, and there aren't necessarily any ulterior motives involved in managing the program to the point where deficits are eliminated. Of course, as you say, raising the cap would be one step toward the solution.

[Enthusiast]

35. But there are ulterior motives involved.

Raising the cap is the traditional answer for a program that has been better than perfect. Why would you change? Just for the sake of change? Change we can(not) believe in?

The only reason THEY are coming up with bullshit answers like Superlative CPI is because they want to cut benefits.

[bhikkhu]

61. I wouldn't say that's the only reason

because there are some reasonable people with good intentions that have supported it.

Cutting benefits is clearly not ideal, and probably not necessary, but it is one way to make the program stronger. It can be done in a way that makes the whole program more progressive, protects those who need it most, and reduces our income inequality problem. As said before - a reasonable person with those good intentions in mind could come up with a workable plan to reform entitlement spending, and the idea is not inherently evil.

In practice, I don't know what congress will really come up with, but I am confident that the president won't sign a bill that conflicts with his primary goals of protecting the most vulnerable and reducing income inequality.

[Enthusiast]

70. "More progressive" = means testing. Means testing and cutting benefits weakens the program.

Means testing allows the cutters to get their foot in the door. Just like they did with "welfare".

And I question the motives of anyone that allows Wall Street to slide on obvious malfeasance but would cut senior's benefits.

There are no good intentions. There is an effort to create an illusion of good intentions. I am tired of being played.

You are trying to talk us into thinking Chained/Superlative CPI wouldn't be so bad. That is exactly what you are doing.

I am not at all confident in the President. I have seen too much.

[bhikkhu]

75. Means testing isn't evil, its progressive, as you say

especially when it comes to government funds. Everybody pays taxes on a means-test basis, otherwise it would be crushingly unfair to the majority. Health insurance subsidies are also means-tested, otherwise most people couldn't afford it. All that means is that you get more help if you need help, and less help if you don't need help.

It would be wonderful if there was so much money that it could be distributed equally to all whether people needed it or not, but the first thing any responsible party would do if the money supplies were looking questionable would be to consider giving less to the people who didn't need it, in order to ensure that there was enough for the people that really did need it.

If that violates some ideology or other I'm not too concerned, other than it bothers me when people talk about "primarying" any democrat that supports entitlement reform; that's the sort of bone-headed refusal-to-really-look-at-the-issue posture that has served the GOP so poorly. If there is a better way to do it, that would be fine too, but I'm not jumping ship based on some vague general fear that there is a hidden agenda.

[Enthusiast]

90. We must primary any Democrat that votes for Chained CPI.

Hey, most of the nation, regardless of party affiliation, are against cuts to "entitlements".

Why would you go against the will of the people when you outspend the entire world on a bloated unnecessary military? Where is the enemy? There is no Soviet Union threatening us. We do not need a military of this size.

[bhikkhu]

94. I don't think any would, realistically

but if they did I would ask myself why, and try to see what was actually being voted on. As when Obama suggested it as one means of reforming Social Security, it was only suggested with significant and obligatory details, which effectively protected (or increased) benefits for those most in need, while reducing benefits for those with large incomes and other resources. If implemented in that way, it would effectively reduce income inequality and make the program financially stronger. Both of which are valid goals.

I'd say that erecting ideological sacred cows makes managing programs very difficult, and the whole idea of primarying people based on some purity test comes from the tea party anyway. That worked so well for them that you'd advocate adopting their tactics? Personally, I'd vote against anybody that advocated any kind of purity test, as that's just stupid. Its easy to just draw a line and stop thinking, but that makes you kind of an idiot; its much better to try to understand the issues, the backgrounds of the issues, and the reasoning processes that go into the decisions that people make.

[Enthusiast]

95. LOL.

Yeah, those of us that think social security and medicare are bedrock Democratic Party institutions should just be quiet and be happy with Democrats that betray us. Or we are just like the Tea Party, that's where we get our ideas. I'm clear done with you.

[woo me with science]

89. Thank you.

Excellent posts in this subthread.

[Prophet 451]

107. Means testing makes SS a poor people program

And, in case you hadn't noticed, programs that help poor people are always, always, always the very first thing to be cut.

[Enthusiast]

114. Yes. That is why it is so disturbing

to hear someone on DU argue for means tested Graduated Superlative Chained CPI or whatever new name they roll out to promote it.

The elephant in the room is the size and cost of the gargantuan military and intelligence industrial complex with total surveillance for all. I'm sure this is exactly what was envisioned by our founding fathers.

[QuestForSense]

24. Yes, the devil is always in the details.

Take a look at what they did in Chicago with regard to entitlement benefits. In a nutshell, the former mayor sold the parking meter system to a private corporation to close a budget gap. The private corporation sent a bill for $13 million to the City for a years' worth of handicapped parking. That's about $36,000 a day if anybody's counting, which they aren't. One of the City's newspapers did a big story about all the handicapped parking cheaters being to blame. Then the big public 'conversation' about why people should get free metered parking just because they're handicapped (the consensus being they shouldn't). Not one word about reforming the system to discourage cheaters. Then a state republican rep from a wealthy suburb wrote an amendment to the handicapped parking statute, and free parking for handicapped citizens in the City of Chicago disappears on January 1, 2014. Signed by Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who is supposed to be a democrat. He signed off on it because 'he had to.'

Handicapped parking, unlike Social Security, truly WAS an entitlement that helped many who needed and depended on that benefit. But the rationale is that if you've got enough money to own a car, you've got enough to pay for parking. So now, handicapped people get to pay their money to a private corporation for the privilege of parking, just like regular people! And they get to walk half a block down the street to the machine to pay, then back to their car to place the stub on their dashboards. Not terribly progressive, but very egalitarian.

I wish I were a little less dubious about the chances of what you mention in your last paragraph coming to pass. But I'd feel a lot more hopeful if so many democrats in Congress weren't supporting their President 'because they have to.' They ought to feel that way about the public.

[bhikkhu]

29. "have to" as in looking at the CBO projections

not as in succumbing to political pressure. The CBO projections say that problems begin in a few years for Social Security, and much bigger problems begin for Medicaid and Medicare sooner than that. Perhaps the projections are wrong, but a person in a position of responsibility has to manage a program when it needs managed.

The way things like that work is - the sooner you make changes, the smaller those changes have to be. So, while this congress is hardly competent to get things done right, if they try, that's at least attempting to do their job. I don't honestly expect to see any legislation passed that changes Social Security, but we'll see.

[Enthusiast]

33. If there is a problem with Medicare we need to increase its funding.

Period.

Medicare is essential. How about we do something for the actual American people, for a change, instead of only for the ruling class?

[bhikkhu]

96. That's a good sentiment, but if you look at the numbers - how?

The projections are for medicare, which now takes 3.8% or so of the GDP, to grow to 10% of GDP by 2062. That's a lot, even if the projections are wrong, and they could be wrong in either direction. Saying its essential, just do it, is one thing, but what is the plan for making it possible, and can the plan be implemented?

[Enthusiast]

31. Excellent post, QuestForSense!

"They ought to feel that way about the public."

We would die from shock—reducing the burden on social security and medicare.

[duffyduff]

55. You have NO understanding of what an "entitlement" IS.

You just ruined your post by your misunderstanding. You are actually talking about handicapped parking as analogous to Medicaid, which IS means-tested.

You paid into something, you are ENTITLED TO IT. It is written in the Social Security Act that Social Security is an entitlement. Same with Medicare.

[QuestForSense]

72. Thanks for enlightening me.

I was under the impression that the term "Entitlement" had also been used to refer to benefits, like those of the handicapped parking program, for which people become eligible without paying into the system. I won't be making that mistake again.

[grasswire]

34. more bogus b.s.

We don't HAVE TO cut "entitlements".

Paths to sustainability are ignored.

Means testing.

Voila. Solved.

[Jim Lane]

91. Means testing: bad idea. Abolish the FICA cap: good idea.

Abolishing the cap would be an eminently sensible entitlement reform. This change, even if phased in over a few years, would greatly strengthen Social Security.

As the OP says, however, the people who use the phrase "entitlement reform" actually want cuts. They have no interest in even a serious discussion of something like abolishing the cap.

[grasswire]

92. means testing bad idea....because....?

Student loans are means tested

Housing assistance is means tested

Head start is means tested

SNAP is food tested

And so on.....

All those programs that benefit poor and middle class are means tested.

But programs that currently benefit the comfortable can't be means tested?

[Jim Lane]

93. Social Security and Medicare are politically stronger because they benefit everyone.

Take a look at your list of means-tested programs. Do you notice something else they have in common? They were all subject to Republican attack within the past year.

By contrast, the Republicans have been very cautious about trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. They want the cuts, of course, but they want the cuts to be blamed on the Democrats. Note that, during the 2012 campaign, the Republicans even devoted a lot of emphasis to the phony charge that the ACA was cutting Medicare.

I personally favor a kind of backdoor means testing. For example: Abolish the FICA cap; provide Social Security benefits to high-income earners on a basis comparable to that now used, whereby people who pay in more get back more; re-institute a steeply progressive personal income tax and abolish or curtail the exemption for Social Security benefits. The result would be that some retired CEO's would be getting monthly Social Security checks in the five figures, which taken in isolation could be seen as a waste of money, but it would be recaptured through their taxes. Meanwhile, Social Security would continue to avoid the stigma of being a "welfare" program that only benefits poor people.

There are scores of millions of middle-class people who sat idly by when the Republicans attacked SNAP but who would take to the streets if the Republicans tried anything similar with regard to Social Security. The difference is means testing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. The projections have consistently proved themselves to be

become progressively less accurate, reaching the point of nothing but a wild guess beyond about five years, yet we are supposed to accept that hurting our own people is necessary because of what they claim will happen in 25 years. This makes sense to you?

[bhikkhu]

63. Yes, the projections are almost always wrong

I believe the baseline assumption of the CBO is 3% growth (of both GDP and spending). This is supposed to err on the conservative side, as long-term historical growth has been 5%.

The problem arises in that we haven't seen even 3% growth in a long time, and I don't know of any developed country that is expecting 5% growth anymore; the assumptions come from a world of abundant cheap resources, and that world isn't coming back.

I think the result is that we have projections that might be more optimistic than they should be. Its not a big difference, but I do think the odds are towards slightly bigger problems than projected than slightly smaller. In any case, I still wouldn't worry if this idiot-congress passed the buck and did nothing. There's no advantage to doing it wrong, and we could tackle the problem in a couple of years just as well.

My main point is that wishing to reform the programs isn't inherently evil, and there are reforms that are possible that reduce income inequality, strengthen the programs, and protect the most vulnerable. I wouldn't demonize any democrat just for supporting reform.

[dchill]

11. K & R!

[awoke_in_2003]

12. yep

Just like Clinton's welfare reform

[historylovr]

14. K & R

[Recursion]

15. Cutting the farm bill would be entitlement reform. Can I be for that?

How about cutting subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans?

[cthulu2016]

22. You, or I, are free to exempt ourselves from a term of art

One can use "entitlement reform" to mean something other than what it means in the 2013 American political realm.

No law against it.

The OP does not say, by the way, that entitlement costs should not be cut.

But that question has to be the starting-point question, not a starting point assumption that they should be cut.

Since the need to cut is offered almost a priori I don't think there is any legitimate debate afoot. It reminds me of our national discussion of how many troops the invasion of Iraq should feature, with the need to invade Iraq taken as a given.

[Zorra]

56. SNAP, Food Stamps, are tied to the farm bill. Would you be for cutting food stamps

as part of the farm bill "entitlement reform"?

[Recursion]

57. Not anymore

The House split them off

[Zorra]

62. Really? When did that happen? I was under the impression that House Republicans were trying

to do that, but that it has not happened.

[Recursion]

65. As I read up, apparently it's in conference limbo now

The House bill cut it out completely but the Senate is trying to get it back in.

My point, though, was that the farm subsidies themselves are entitlement spending. I don't oppose cutting farm subsidies.

[Zorra]

76. That's what I thought, and I agree about the subsidies. nt

[cojoel]

18. We should commandeer the term

We need entitlement reform. The current pre-paid benefit programs are not providing the security that was promised. We need to increase the benefits, and to do so, we need to increase the revenue from FICA taxes, not by changing rates, but by applying the tax to all income, not just income from wages and salaries, and not limited by some arbitrary amount so that wealthy people pay less.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. It's like when they claim "waste fraud and abuse" but never on no-bid contracts.

[Enthusiast]

37. "Cost Plus" no-bid contracts.

Billions stolen in Iraq and Afghanistan and not a peep about waste, fraud and abuse.

[blkmusclmachine]

20. +1. Cuts to your benefits means more for the 1%, and less for you.

[bvar22]

21. Promises on "strengthening Social Security"

*No CUTS

*No raising the age limit

[font size=3]*Raise the CAP[/font]

[treestar]

26. Not necessarily - it could me to improve efficiency

Immigration reform isn't going to reduce immigrants.

Reform means making changes, which will always be necessary. Extremist Republicans have their idea of reform, but they're not going to get it. Which is why they are so rabid and desperate.

[jsr]

27. Yeah, it's going to be New and Improved. Superlative even.

[Enthusiast]

36. We have seen this bullshit act before.

It doesn't end well. Hey, we have been American consumers all our lives.

[woo me with science]

64. [phone]

Old Breyers Ice Cream Ingredients




Neo Breyers "Frozen Dairy Dessert" Ingredients (does not meet FDA standards to be called "ice cream&quot . There are no such standards for calling oneself "liberal."

[Th1onein]

28. I hate the term "entitlement," too. THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS.

We have paid into these systems all of our worklife. We EARNED these benefits, and now the powers that control our government want to bleed them off into their own pockets. It's STEALING our earnings.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Here's a thought. How about a benefit just for being a citizen of the richest country in the world?

"The greatest country in the world" shouldn't just be about waving a foam finger and kicking ass.

[duffyduff]

50. Entitlement equals earned. Sick of people who don't understand it. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

39. Rather reminds me of Welfare "reform" <- AKA screwing the poorest of the poor. ~nt~

[Make7]

41. Exactly - why aren't they proposing to use the CPI-E (the inflation index for elderly people)?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.br12396.a06.htm

Because using (arguably) the most accurate index (comparatively) would actually increase the amount of money Social Security would pay out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. I remember when it was pointed out the price of gas had doubled....

Republicans claimed old people who didn't drive anymore would be getting the money too.

Can't have that,...can we...

[Make7]

53. Fortunately the things elderly people buy are transported by horse drawn buggies.

The Republicans should be championing the CPI-E since it is designed to be more reflective of the economic activity of older Americans - the fact the they most likely on average have lower transportation costs is factored into that index.

Lord only knows why they prefer the less accurate chained CPI...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. They would PREFER to eliminate Social Security and stick em in an old folks home run by a church,...

...then sell off their homes to a young couple for twice what it's worth.

[eridani]

104. That is included in the Strengthen Social Security bill n/t

[RVN VET]

42. Look, we are "entitled" to these benefits for the simple and obvious reason that we "earned" them.

The RW has gotten away with changing the flavor of the word "entitlement" from something earned and warranted to something unearned. Social Security and Medicare are entitlements because Americans pay 10's, in some cases 100's, of 1,000's of dollars of their wages to these systems. They pay it because the Government of the United States (which, more and more, seems to be loathed and despised by the g-- d--n Republican Party) guarantees them an equitable benefit when they reach retirement age. They pay it because they actually trust the Government to keep its promises to them, to honor its guarantees to them. Of course, these days, the GOP laughs at the idea of Social Security and Medicare as earned benefits. That's because the GOP, by and large, thinks that any benefit paid to the 98% is money out of the pockets of the 1%-2%. And GOP politicians know that, if they ever want to be a member of the top 2%, they had better fight efforts to provide for the rest of us.

Some Dems feel the same way, but I think most Dem pols who want to screw with SS and Medicare are more clueless than greedy. Hence our President toying with chained CPI which his people describe -- with horrible disengenuity -- as merely an administrative adjustment.

I agree with all who say we should remove the cap. But I want to go further and roll the income tax rates back to what they were in the 50's and let the top 2% either get on board with it or leave the country. Dammit, their wealth is our wealth; and, frankly, we do not need greedy, cold-hearted multi-millionaires and billionaires sucking the economy dry.

[HooptieWagon]

48. It was "reformed" 30 years ago.

During the past 30 years (prime income years for boomers) we have been paying a higher SS withholding rate, in order to not place an excessive burden on successive generations when boomers start collecting SS. As a result, there is approx a $3 TRILLION surplus in SS, which the govt has borrowed from SS. This is a higher debt than China, Hong Kong, and Japan, combined, hold...about 18% of the National Debt. Now, by claiming SS needs reform (again), polititians (including some Dems) are announcing that they wish to DEFAULT on those SS promises made 30 years ago, and that boomer's earned benefits should be LESS, despite having paid MORE. This DEFAULT on a promise made to boomers 30 years ago is simply unacceptable. It shouldn't even be on the table.

[duffyduff]

54. Peter J. Peterson owns the White House and Congress. He's a crook, pure and simple.

He and his Wall Street gang of thugs want that money to make up for the money they squandered during the last (and current) downturn.

It is nothing more than grand larceny.

Throw out ALL politicians of both parties who dare touch Social Security and Medicare.

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. The phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute" caught on for a reason.

I remember that there were quite a few notables warning against exactly this all those years ago.

We proved then, once again, that profound truth uttered so long ago.

[woo me with science]

84. +1000000000000000000

We're not supposed to remember. Memory hole and all that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Yup, won't go further here than a thumbs up

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. If I could accept the good faith of the people arguing about entitlement reform...

... I could agree with the need for action.

Unfortunately, the entitlement reform freakout is intended to eliminate the need for the government to honor the actual, enforcable debt they have to retirees in the form of the nearly $3 trillion trust fund.

If you want to craft a set of tweaks that assures that the trust fund isn't completely exhausted before the baby boom dies out in 40 years, let's talk.

On the other hand, if you want to starve retirees so that income tax rates don't have to go up to pay the government's debt to workers, I don't have any polite words to exchange with you.

[AAO]

73. A truly righteous rant.

[DeSwiss]

74. If any of those bastards mention.....

...anything other than raising benefits and/or taxing the goddamned rich, vote the mofo's [font size=10]OUT![/font]

- And that's the least that should happen.

[pnwmom]

78. Is that the case with Medicare? Couldn't entitlement reform

also have something to do with changing the fee structure for providers?

[Lordquinton]

79. Reform has become a code word for dismantle

Look at any reform for the last several decades, Education, Welfare, Immigration, regulation, etc. All have been "reformed" and we know how well it's turned out for all of the above.

[JDPriestly]

88. K&R. Meanwhile, Apple pays virtually no taxes, and it is just one of a number of corporations

that avoid them without violating the law.

And in spite of that, conservatives argue that we should not tax capital gains or income from investments in the stock market because the corporations pays the taxes and we would be taxing the money twice. Either we should increase taxes on capital gains or we should get rid of the loopholes for corporations. The only loopholes for corporations we should maintain are for deducting the cost of direct investments in the company and their payrolls and benefits for employees. Everything else should be taxed. Gas, oil, everything.

We need to add other taxes too, but we especially need to close the loopholes for corporation.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

103. That's where the reform needs to happen. I'll bet most Americans aren't aware of the corporations

that pay no taxes, or get money back. And, with corporatist ownership of the media, they probably never will.

[IkeRepublican]

99. Reform always creates the same equation

Reduces things for people who play by the rules and gives a free-for-all to those who don't.

Now, that might sound a little Bagger, but you know what I mean. Lessen those who've paid in for decades and let the usual rich special interests grab the remainder.

[joshcryer]

101. Depends. Raise the cap, no benefit loss.

Chained CPI with a poverty exemption, the richest lose out the most, the poorest benefit the most.

Either way reform is necessary because the system is unsustainable.

[eridani]

105. There aren't enough "richest" to make even a tiny dent in the system total payouts

There is no poverty exemption proposed, but a one-time boost in benefit levels to help make up for the chained CPI CUTS. The fact that this is even proposed is a straightforward admission that the purpose of the chained CPI is to cut benefits and is harmful. The median SocSec check is ~$15K ferchrissakes!! People earning near the median would be forced INTO poverty by chained CPI.

The trust fund is fucking SUPPOSED TO be reduced, as the surplus was built up solely for the boomer demographic bulge. This does not amount to "unsustainable." When that pig gets through the python, the system can revert to pay as you go. Of course after that there will have to be another surplus built for the Millenials, AKA the Baby Boom Echo.

[joshcryer]

106. C-CPI has a poverty exemption.

It would never pass without one. I don't dispute C-CPI is a cut overall.

[joshcryer]

108. It's basic math, btw.

By 2035 fewer will be paying into Social Security than those earning their entitlements. It must absolutely be addressed. I don't support C-CPI because it kicks the can down the road, as it were. I think raising the cap is the most logical solution. I'm just explaining it how I see it.

The real problem is that this is a 2035 issue and not one needing to be addressed so soon. Ignore it. It won't be an issue, politically, until 2020, hell, even 2028.

[eridani]

110. So what? There is also the productivity math to consider

Productivity has increased by a factor of four since the end of WW II--so one worker can make as much stuff as four workers made in 1950. Juliet Schor in her "Overworked American" (1991) calculated that if increases in productivity (more output from less labor input) over the course of a baby boomer's career were applied not to things like fatter CEO salaries, but to shrinking the workweek, it'd now be 6.5 hours. Why isn't it? (http://www.truth-out.org/jobs-mirage-how-much-more-work-do-humans-really-need/1314284068)

The real problem is then income an wealth distribution. Fix those things and SocSec can truck along indefinitely.

[joshcryer]

111. Not sure about that.

This isn't a significant issue for our generation or the next generation. Though I admit income can be a contributing factor. Raising income level is definitely important.

[eridani]

119. Given productivity increases, fewer workers don't matter

At least not in the real economy.

[Prophet 451]

109. Of course, that was the whole intention

The Republican aim is very simple: To destroy the social safety; both to lower taxes and to enact the corporate dream of producing a labour pool that will work for pennies and no benefits until they drop and to whom the corporates owe nothing. Eliminating Social Security helps achieve both goals: Payroll tax goes away and they get a new pool of ultra-desperate labour. Making it means-tested turns it into a poor persons benefit and benefits for poor people are always the first thing to be cut because the right (and their pet media) have demonised the poor as lazy moochers.

[The Wizard]

112. Some things to consider

Raising the retirement age means more people in the work force competing for wages, thus creating pressure on labor to accept less for services rendered, and by extension lowering living standards for the working class. Early retirement creates job openings for younger people starting families and buying homes. The demand for homes creates more jobs.
Raise the Social Security wage ceiling to ameliorate the ever widening gap between that wealthy elites and the working class. Increase Social Security benefits as a means to put more money in circulation.
Change the tax code to increase taxes on the top 1% with incentives to reinvest in the economy such as starting new businesses or expanding existing ones to create more jobs. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy elites has been in place for 12 years and the results are self evident. The trickle down effect has been golden parachutes for the top 1% and golden showers for the remaining 99%. It was a failed policy for Herbert (Great Depression) Hoover, and it's a failed policy today.
The cuts that would be most efficient would be in the bloated military budget. There is no real need for an empire with military bases all over the world. If there's a beast that needs starving it's the military industrial complex that has held sway over Congress since Eisenhower warned us about it. This will be difficult as the defense cartel bribes enough legislators to continue authorizing projects and wars for the benefit of those making and taking bribes and putting that money in secret off shore tax havens where it never circulates into the economy.
Maybe it will take angry mobs roaming the streets of Washington bearing pitchforks torches and rope. Let's hope Congress comes to its senses and legislates more for the people and less for the special interests that are gaming the system.

[woo me with science]

115. kick