The Overton Window is moving rightwards at warp speed, not so much pulled by the GOP as pushed by the current administration.

Things change (population, income, old-age needs, etc) and we need politicians who can made adjustments as needed for both short and long-term stability. I'd like politicians on both sides to make adjustments that will provide me benefits when I'm eligible in the 2030's and beyond not just who do whatever they think will help them win the next election. And supporters of both sides to stop demanding "no change" in a single part of the program (i.e. no cap increase or no benefit adjustment)

This is a huge program that is not currently self-sustaining, and won't be any time in the future (without some very optimistic assumptions). Even if the SSA's evaluation of the trust fund is correct, it will run out about when I need it. Then what? Big cuts in benefits? Kill SS? Cut other programs? And even before it runs out there will be greater amounts of general budget going toward servicing SS bonds each year and that's money that isn't available to other programs (every year including 2013).

seas.

The current "Baby Boomer bubble" was foreseen and adjusted for. Under normal conditions, Social Security is self-sustaining.
The Trust Fund "running out of money" is Right-Wing BS. This S/S going broke won't happen for another 25 to 30 years, IF nothing changes from the way things are now, AND the bubble does NOT shrink back to normal. We have almost three decades to get this country back on track before the S/S Right-Wing end game plan goes bust.
Part of the Right-Wing propaganda to destroy Social Security is to make people believe Social Security is going broke and there will not be anything for future generations. Don't believe it. Don't help them by pushing their propaganda.

It seems EVERY President since JFK has found ways to manipulate GDP, unemployment and CPI numbers, to make themselves look better. I strongly recommend it to every one. There are solutions to fix the alleged "shortfall", and even increase benefits.

Lift the cap for starters, or eliminate it. Tax ALL fucking income. It's one reason a parasite like Mitt Romney can report a 12% tax rate, but when you look at it, it's lower than the combined payroll tax rate for us serfs (employer and employee).

Here's an excerpt from Phillips' book. Originally published in Harpers, reprinted in the St. Pete Times.



http://www.tampabay.com/news/hard-numbers-the-economy-is-worse-than-you-know/473596

Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know

Kevin Phillips, Harper's Magazine
Saturday, April 26, 2008 4:30am

Ever since the 1960s, Washington has gulled its citizens and creditors by debasing official statistics, the vital instruments with which the vigor and muscle of the American economy are measured.

The effect has been to create a false sense of economic achievement and rectitude, allowing us to maintain artificially low interest rates, massive government borrowing, and a dangerous reliance on mortgage and financial debt even as real economic growth has been slower than claimed.

The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy:

• The monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation;

• The quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy's overall growth;

• The monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity.

Not only do governments, businesses and individuals use these yardsticks in their decisionmaking, but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances — inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions and Social Security benefits.

And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being "anchored" as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3-4 percent range).

(snip)

People who are retired or retiring typically don't buy houses (especially if these people are expecting to live largely on social security). Either they are living in a house they have already bought (in which case their housing payment does not increase, even if the cost of new house purchases goes up), or they are renting (which is still measured). The likely exception would be a retiree moving to a smaller place (i.e. the "empty nest" scenario as the last kids move out, or a big house is too much to maintain, etc.), and in that case, any increase in the cost of the smaller housing they are purchasing is likely more than offest by the increased value of the larger housing that they are selling. Not only are they likely to pay less for their new place than they will get for their old place, but they can add that differential to their retirement savings (a capital gains exception allows them to keep the profit on the larger house without paying tax on it). So really, the fact that the prices of houses goes up really doesn't negatively affect a social security dependent retiree's purchasing power, as far as I can figure.

Pay raises for government and non-government employees alike.

But the housing numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Not included are things like, health insurance, medical costs, gas and heating oil, utilities, real food prices, and on and on and on.........

that they already own. Higher value, higher taxes. Or the landlord pays higher taxes on the property they rent, therefor higher rents. Their plumber has to pay more to buy a house, he charges more to fix a leak. Costs more to buy a house, people demand higher wages, etc, etc, etc.

First, property taxes, where they exist, are state/local, and there are programs that can lower those taxes for seniors as well. (And more should probably be done in that regard.)

But to specifically address your main point, the fact that property taxes go up on a house you already own is not related to whether or not the value of the house has gone up. Those taxes can go up even if house value doesn't. Lots of houses are worth far less than what they were worth some years ago, while their taxes have stayed the same or even increased. Conversely, on rare occasion, property taxes are cut, and that likewise has nothing to do with lower house values. Typically, a house is not "re-asessed" for tax purposes until it changes hands.

As for whether a landlord, due to taxes, chooses to charge higher rent, well, as the OP said, rental costs ARE figured in to the adjustments. Like everything else you mentioned, there may be a ripple effect, where higher housing prices contributes to inflation elsewhere, but then it still makes sense to measure that cost to seniors based on what relevant things have indeed increased for them, and not on the price of houses they will not be buying.

This article is very concise in the issues with the CPI and Social Security. This way of calculation affects other government programs e.g. Federal and military pensions, SSI disability, etc.
Since Social Security is self-funded as an earned benefits program, to calculate the at a higher level would require an increase in the individual contribution percentage and also for the employer. Would that be accepted.
Keep in mind that those that set the guidelines are either participants in non-Social Security covered retirement programs i. e. Congress or wealthy to the point that this earned benefit program is inconsequential to their future financial security.
The article mentions house equity, that only matters if the house is sold, if the house is fully paid for, if the house has not lost value, many assumptions which may or may not be accurate or even relevant in setting a CPI.
The proposal to establish a CPI-e may be the way to address this matter, to use those items that the elderly tend to spend their incomes on e.g. housing and not to forget property taxes,
medical care, food. transportation, etc.
Always using the higher cost for calculating the CPI that requires the Social Security base to be at least poverty level.
Now to a radical idea, retirees pay no income taxes on their Social Security taxes, no sales taxes on any purchases on items related to the CPI, no property taxes on their primary residence. Crazy more than likely, but this would be just compensation for the intangible value that those who have worked all their adult lives in adding value to their communities and to the country.