"I don't think this means the payroll tax cuts shouldn't be passed, but if the payroll tax cuts are passed, revenue enhancement through something like a millionaire surtax becomes imperative. The additional revenue should probably be used to makeup the Social Security shortfall. Forcing the government to tap into general revenue for Social Security
will likely lead to budget fights where Social Security could ultimately be sacrificed."
...is nonsense. It's basically stating that Republicans are going to argue something and conceding that they have a point.
After years of claiming that the government is raiding the trust fund, why is this initiative suddenly being portrayed as damaging? Unlike raiding the trust fund, this is a much-needed relief program that does not impact Social Security funds.
What's the point of hyping speculation about what Republicans might do in the future by misrepresenting an initiative that preserves Social Security?
Dean Baker, September: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security RevenueThe NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.
The fund is "unaffected." The nature of Social Security does not change. Stop pushing the lie!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
