Social Security Cuts Weighed by Panel

Source: Wall Street Journal

A White House-created commission is considering proposals to raise the retirement age and take other steps to shore up the finances of Social Security, prompting key players to prepare for a major battle over the program's future. The panel is looking for a mix of ideas that could win support from both parties, including concessions from liberals who traditionally oppose benefit cuts and from Republicans who generally oppose higher taxes, according to one member of the commission and several people familiar with its deliberations.

In addition to raising the retirement age, which is now set to reach age 67 in 2027, specific cuts under consideration include lowering benefits for wealthier retires and trimming annual cost-of-living increases, perhaps only for wealthier retirees, people familiar with the talks said. On the tax side, the leading idea is to increase the share of earned income that is subject to Social Security taxes, officials said. Under current law, income beyond $106,000 is exempt. Another idea is to increase the tax rate itself, said a Democrat on the commission...

The commission's Social Security proposals would face an uncertain reception in Congress, which would have to approve changes to the program. But some commissioners were optimistic. "Are Republicans willing to sign onto a tax increase, and are Democrats ready to sign onto a benefit cut? I think the answer is probably yes in both cases if the other is willing to do it," said Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and former White House budget director. Some have suggested raising the retirement age to as high as 70, but Ms. Rivlin said she doubts there is support on the commission to go that high.

Some in the White House view a deal on Social Security as a confidence-building measure that could prepare the political system to tackle even tougher fiscal questions, such as the federal government's budget deficit. Asked about Social Security on Wednesday, President Barack Obama hinted of coming changes, saying: "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."...

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439792287255372.html

We paid forward for Social Security when Reagan and Greenspan said it was necessary back in the 1980s. This must be emphasized and reiterated by everyone on our side. There is no shortfall in Social Security funding. There is, however, a shortfall in Pentagon funding. And that's where cuts should take place. For instance, no more "twenty years and out." Make it 30 or 40 years like everyone else has to work. Eliminate redundant weapons systems. Et cetera.

This is OBAMA'S commission. He has already tossed up the straw man, "I will protect social security form the republican I won't let them "PRIVATIZE" it." Typical Obama, I won't privatize it but I will CUT THE SHIT out of it, just like the $500 BILLION in Medicare. He does NOT say he won't cut benefits or how they are calculated.

As employees (or ex-employees) we are so screwed. We have lost our pensions, lost the money in our 401Ks, lost company paid health care, and now we will lose social security.

Karl Rove could not make a permanent republican majority but Obama and the dems are doing all they can to make it happen. Yes I mean Hoyer (illegal wiretap Hoyer) as in leadership.

We will lose this just like we lost on health care reform.

How to get corporate welfare and wealthcare protections for the top 1%, at the expense of the people, through a congress elected by the people; Without getting strung up.

To stop any kind of legislation, no matter how vital to the country that might in any way be detrimental to them;
Stopped in its tracks, if not watered down to nothing;

And this boondoggle will end like all the others; Favoring the rich, paid for by the poor and middle classes.

SS needs no tinkering other than the idiotic, hat tip to the rich; The cap removed entirely.

No, this will go the way of all the other legislation;
Giving us a dime of our own money, while millions are stolen for the top. Oh but how that dime, given to those who need much more will be trumpeted to the roof tops. And oh the magnanimity.

The way they pull these hat tricks is obvious to anyone brave enough to take off the blinders?

Seed the Democratic party with enough Dino's to make the impossible and the unbelievable happen and call it pragmatism. Put these same Dino's in chairs of power to dominate legislation.

Compound that with the fact that O gives away the store in the opening gambit; But we know he is smarter than that. So why does he do it.

Those who do not see the writing on the wall are not paying attention.

Hasn't anyone taken note; Rahm et al, is promoting Dinos and pugs with a d after their name; And convincing pugs to change parties, while pulling the rug from progressives or any Democrat with democratic values, who will not assimilate and become "democrat" corporatists.

You have to ask yourself why he is doing that; And by he I mean the lot of them.

You have to ask yourself; What has become of the Democratic party and this country, under this kind of Trojan Horse leadership, whose aim is becoming proven fact; A one party system that is loyal to the corporatist, the top 1%;

But in fantasy and delusion; a two party system for propaganda purposes.

Marginalizing our real friends in congress to powerlessness to become the true minority;

But who in the general population will ever make that distinction.

No, to them we are all the same bunch of stinking hypocrites, shysters and crooks. The lying, the wars, the banksters, the theft, the depression; All the fault of a government of crooks, both democrat and pug. "They are all the same"

Homogenizing the blame and gilt of these blatantly contrived catastrophe's, plainly branded Republican, now fast morphing into Gubment; "They are all the same, they are all crooks"


The plan is genius and it is working better than ever dreamed.

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats are not running congress!!!!

Corporate Dino's and pugs are; All voting and acting like carefully managed line dancers.

Why have we; And why are we playing along with this one sided game of self destruction? For pragmatism???? Get real for cripes sake;
Before we are finished as a democratic country.

I mean I personally would not object to a cut to benefits for those already wealthy, they probably dont need the money after all.

If you start down that road, eventually SS becomes a pauper's program - a way to strangle the program slowly. Furthermore, such cuts are completely unnecessary. We have two wars-about-nothing ongoing, ridiculous levels of "defense" spending, massive give-aways to banks and corps, and tax rates/estate taxes that are FAR too low on wealthy. There is absolutely no need to weaken SS.

No exceptions.

Basing the SS payment on a persons income and other assets makes sense imo because the government then doesnt have to waste money on people who dont need the assistance in their retirement years.

the income limits they set have nothing to do with reality.

This is nothing but a show. Why attack Social Security at all? There is nothing wrong with it that making the uber rich pay their fair share wont fix. What about the millions the government wastes on defense contractors? That's a ok but don't you dare give people the retirement money they paid in. What about the trillions handed out to bankers for bonuses? No problem there. Just don't waste it on retirement.

Changing Social Security will NOT help the deficit. Changing it into a means tested program will slowly but surely kill it. Congress then gradually reduces the amount you can have in the bank to qualify for your retirement (that you have already paid for). Eventually it turns into a poverty program where only the poorest and most destitute are eligible. Then support for it disappears all together because the remains of the middle class can't access it.

Fortunately such thinking has not prevailed because organized labor, liberals, and countless working people have fought past attempts to turn the SS system into a pauper's program. This is a core Democratic issue.

You have now turned it into a welfare program. Once Social Security becomes a welfare program the Democrats will destroy it just like they destroyed well welfare.

The really wealthy are not in social security to any great extent since all income over $106,000 is exempt. So millionaires have only a miniscule amount of total income taxed. Even if no social security is paid to these folks (which neither Dems or Repugs would vote for) that will do almost nothing. The fricking cap has got to go, bet they could even lower rates if the cap went away? That is so logical, but in this corporatracy (sp?) it won't happen. Even the Dems are rich people first, they just try to disguise it more than Repugs do.

I'm not naming any names here, but if any war-mongering politician were to steal from workers by cutting Social Security benefits to pay for Wall Street bailouts and two wars-about-nothing... well, that politician would be a Republican, IMO. And if such a politician were to operate under the Democratic party banner and, thereby, smear the Democratic brand-name, that would just make it worse and piss me off more.

If Obama goes down the road of hurting this working people program, he will deserve to be defeated and I will work tirelessly for the candidate who says "no" to any cuts. If he wants to be our president, he damn well better act like it. Means testing means the program will eventually go away. Removing the cap is the only logical way, but business and rich will fight and guess who wins?

This is sounding just like HCR. You don't start by compromising.

Because if it is, I LIKE it!

:bounce:

Gerald Ford did it back in 1975 during a severe recession. That, and he had "Whip Inflation Now!" buttons.

You'd also have to lower the Medicare eligibility age. Too many people are staying on the job, just to keep medical benefits.

Up until you're born, you're covered under your mother's policy.

but it's long gone, and may not be filled again thanks to our "Democratic" governor Ed Rendell laying off more public employees to save money...


mark

We need to lower the retirement age to something like 62 for full benefits with the Medicare Age included in that mix. It opens up desperately needed jobs, might help with traffic congestion and the use of oil just a bit, would put grandparents in a position to assist with some child care (which many are already doing) to assist the younger workforce, might increase some spending on leisure/travel helping those industries (possibly creating jobs), might help with increased volunteerism by the newly retired and offers a host of potential intangible benefits.

a "wealth tax" would help us dig out of the hole we are in.

some corporations are getting rid of those who make more money and have worked more years with the company. Screw experience, most are more into the bottom line, than experience.

I agree, I'd rather see the age lowered, especially in these hard economic times. I'm in Nevada, when a job opens up there are hundreds of people vying for the same position. How much of a chance do you think a fifty something has at that job?

Since the GOP doesn't want to do the right thing (flat SS tax for all incomes), Dems should do the wrong thing (cut benefits) in the *hope* that the GOP will agree to do the right thing.

Now, where have I heard that before?

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on... we won't get fooled again!"

Dems will look like the fools if they fall for this crap.

your benefits or raise the retirement age, and we can LOWER the SS tax rate if we apply it to the investment income of Wall Street assholes too, what do you think would happen to Republicans who opposed that?

Fine upright neocon......in a pigs eye. This is the usual supposition, maybe, could....it's a piece of know nothing wrapped up for the base.

.................."national security" bureaucracy that is getting bigger and bigger every day? How about "fixing" the tax system? How about taxing ALL religious organizations? Get fucking real here, this IS ABOUT cutting SS & Medicare ONLY. We already heard the President go on the record regarding privatizing SS, but what I want to hear from him is ABSOLUTELY NO CUTS TO SS AND MEDICARE. That is what a Democratic President should & would do. C'mon Mr President, give us the pledge.

Corrupt idiots.

:argh:

SS is the *most* solvent governmental program in the country ... and has been for some time.

Not broken at all and solvent into the 2030s as it is set up today. With some fair (FAIR) adjustments to it, it could be even stronger and a better benefit.

God, what I would give to have a Senate full of Frankens or Harkins or Kuciniches. Just think what we could be with those minds taking us into the 21st century!

Ever since that nasty Rethug scumbag Simpson was picked for the panel it was clear that the orientation was to gut Social Security. It will first go through the now-perfected scenario of Obama negotiating against himself, giving up concession after concession in order to "save Social Security", and we will wind up with a pitiful shell of a system which will be declared a 'major victory', just like HCR.

A thuggish Grave robber

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to see if we will accept it. We wiil be told that the Republicans will do even worse if we do not take this "better deal." Making it for the poorer seniors is one way to totally gut the program--the only reason it is successful is because everyone is in it and feels they are benefiting, As we have seen, people do not like programs for the poor, which are easily eliminated, or cut to shreds, like welfare or food stamps. Accepting this would be the first step to the end of Socal Security. This is the intention.

to whoever is reading the email these days...

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

This is just great. Before the election, the GOP used to say how dangerous Obama would be as president, but I didn't think he would be so dangerous to US!!!

What the fuck is he thinking?

Please email the WH and tell them how you feel personally, and given how they feel about us, I guess there is no need to be polite about it.

thanks.

mark

ADDED: If this IS a "trial baloon" lets fucking shoot it down right now.

Call to protect Social Security!

Back in 1947 we made the Air Force a separate military branch and ended the Army Air Corps that won WWII. If we put the Air Wings back under the Army, just like they were in WWII we would save Billions every year. Especially with unmanned planes becoming the norm, it makes no sense to keep it a separate military branch. It's wasteful.

Not only would we save money but our country would be able to afford airplanes again and park the 50+ year old KC-135's and B-52's. We'd be able to afford to hire people again.

Our military is overpaid and they can get a retirement after 20 years? Why? We could have them get a retirement check in their 60's like the Guard and Reserve and save Billions as well.


I am saddened instead they plan on cutting Social Security. I worked 3 jobs at times paying Social Security taxes in wages at each job struggling to get by. We shouldn't be punished because of the war machines high costs. I'm sorry if I offend anyone.

:sarcasm:

they've spent billions on homeland security, DOD to supposedly protect us. However, if a quarter of our citizens are starving, homeless, jobless or our very infrastructure is at risk, doesn't that have something to do with security?

When our citizens are at risk, or some of our communities are becoming ghost towns, isn't that a security risk to the citizens of this country?

Michael Moore once stated that some corporations with their decisions and greed have done more harm to communities than any drug dealer could have hoped to achieve. Well, I think that maybe the focus should be on domestic economic security because that's the main priority right now.

I mean if OBL's main goal was to bankrupt us-wouldn't it seem we need to pass policies that keep citizens and infrastructure healthy and strong.

And why would Little Boots tell us that OBL hated us for our freedoms, and then proceed to dismantle them?

Social security is a successful program that aids us and also helps our economy--distributes money from the bottom up instead of Reagan's trickle on bullshite. Social security is not broken and they should keep their greedy hands off of it.

:puke:

we would get only the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-4MokVSsgs

and their paid whores in Congress

Why is that NEVER on the table? Ever.

How the DLC Does It

Robert Dreyfuss | April 22, 2001



Earlier in the story, Dreyfus says this about DLC's financial owners:



http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it

They move around and change the names, but never think that they've gone anywhere or their goals have changed.
:thumbsup:

If someone's taking home a nice pension from a job or the military or a gov't job and has, say, a personal IRA they're cashing in on and/or has stocks paying dividends, etc. what is wrong with cutting back on the Social Security benefits?

Personally, I think the income cap for FICA tax should be removed. Nice regressive tax there, eh?



Or did people just read the headline and react without reading the article?

already pay full income taxes on any Social Security benefits they may receive. They worked and paid into the system. You don't like this because you don't think they deserve it.

While most people do not fall into this category, this sets a precedent to reduce benefits.

It begins. Then it gets bigger and bigger and bigger until those that get very little are forced to give up a portion of what they may receive.

While I agree that the rich may not need Social Security, the fact remains that they too have paid into this system. What is due to them they have earned whether you like or I like it and that is the way it is. Period.

No cuts. None damn it!

http://www.concordcoalition.org/social-security/social-security

And Medicare falls under that trap, too
http://www.concordcoalition.org/health-care/medicare/medicare-and-health-care


Saw this article when it came out over 5 years ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701238.html



Even cutting the military budget drastically like we'd all love to see wouldn't help. It's going to have to be a combination of higher taxes and benefit cuts. We can't ignore the elephant in the room any longer. Yeah, it sucks. No ifs ands or butts about it. But U.S. insolvency just isn't in anyone's best interest, is it?

did you bother to see just who was on that concord board of directors? Paul Volker? Peter Peterson? Charles Robb?

SS is not broke, it doesn't need 'fixing', if things go the way they are now, raising the cap would take care of any problems in the future.

Problem now is the PTB want our money(the rest of it) and they don't want to pay back what they've borrowed from it.

SS funds will not be fixed merely by removing the income tax cap.

republic.

:eyes:

Anyone who thinks Social Security is insolvent is braindead.

you're not worth it

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_peterson.html


wow...what a right-wing propagandist. :eyes:


Saying the same thing many on the left are saying.
Saying the same thing David M. Walker has been saying for years.


If you refuse to accept that changes must and will happen, then I can't help you.

SS should never be means tested; doing so converts it from a right that you paid for into a special privilege for the poor, which makes it that much easier to cut or eliminate, with the RW demonizing the recipients. Think Welfare Queen.

I was brought up thinking it *was* a welfare system, for the elderly poor, who lacked the means to take care of themselves. I was raised by some pretty right-wing parents, though, so that may have something to do with my perceptions....

If it's a right, what exactly does that right entail? If it's not a welfare benefit for the elderly poor, what is it?

a "welfare system" that all workers fund.

a "welfare system" that capital DOESN'T FUND.

If you pay the premiums (taxes) and you meet the criteria for which you are indemnified, you are entitled to the benefit.

It's simply insurance. It is not welfare, and for that reason alone, cutting benefits for the wealthy is a bad idea.

Lift the earnings cap, but do not cut benefits.

a right-wing propagandist to some even:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_peterson.html

so instead of going on trips and buying toys I've put my money in my 401(k) and now you want to take away my ss because I've planned ahead and saved money?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

At best they're middle class. Having a "nice" job and being "wealthy" are two diametrically opposed things. People who are wealthy don't need to work, they live of the fat of other people's labor. Military officers and federal workers are MIDDLE CLASS workers not "the wealthy."

And they could easily be required to pay more.

If you've paid off a whole life policy, aren't dead, and your dependents are on their own, the insurance company is not allowed to say "Gee, you seem well set up. We aren't going to pay off your policy because we don't think you need the money."

Dear cat food commission,

There is no real serious problem here for decades. All that is really needed is to raise the cut-off level for the tax, and to ensure that income regardless of source - earned, dividend or capital gains is included in the annual income calculation so that wealthy get taxed on this too.

Problem solved.

see my post just above.

--and not worth responding to.

Yet you still insist on citing it.

I wonder why.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you should not hear from that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid"

This from a conservative in 1954. The attacks on Social Security will never stop!

Why are you letting this even be considered, Obama?

The first lie is that the program isn't sound. The program has been used to fund many other government expenses for years, because there's been no 'lockbox'. It's a program that has operated at net revenue for years -- why can't it be allowed to operate at a net loss for some years, and be paid BACK from other tax revenue? Better yet, paid BACK from the defense spending. THere should be a pile of IOU notes in that lockbox -- not just the IOUs it has handed out to those who have not yet retired, but the IOUs that it is holding from the other government activities which were funded using SS funds. The net revenue was 'borrowed' - except when you don't intend to get it paid back, it's called 'stolen'.

:grr:

As in SSI,and if the cost of living increase is deferred again, I'm pissed. Because it is getting worse to survive as things like groceries light bulbs and the other stuff you need to exist has gone up dramatically. So for me half of the month,after bills,and groceries ,meds and vital stuff like soap&TP,and pet food/litter I am basically broke until the next check. If I didn't have my critters I would lose my mind in this house.When I get social security,I won't get much,I dunno if disability pays more or not,all I know is poverty and being sick it SUCKS to live because having a life and the means to live your life without anxiety and the grind of never being able to make ends meet is only for rich people...!!!!

"...income beyond $106,000 is exempt..."

....what everyone should be asking is, "Why do I have to pay Social Security tax all year long on my income while the rich don't."

even afford to rent Charlie Rangel from now until election day.

If that's the case, then I agree with a cap on payments. It's absurd to think that because a person is wealthy they should pay $50k per year for a retirement benefit that would come in at $25k (I'm ball-parking...I don't know what the maximum payments or benefits are per year). If, however, the benefits are paid based on salary and the wealthy person receives an amount as a percentage of his/her salary, then yes, the cap should be raised or eliminated. Nobody should ever be forced to pay more than what they will ever be entitled to receive in benefits. If you think I'm wrong, fine. Explain it to me in a civil manner.

By the way, I'm Canadian, which is why I'm not sure of payments/benefits of SS.

also because if they weren't capped, high-earning workers would end up paying more than 60% of all collections -- turning the program effectively into welfare.

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-07-2010/maximum_monthly_social_security_benefit.html

Sad isn't it...all that power the Democrats have right now, and the RepubliKans are running the show :puke:

These people must be stopped!!!

beings as how the WSJ is a murdock rag now. I believe our President when he said there would be no cuts to social security.

its absolute rubbish

just had no idea it might be regressive...

we'll have a lot of 62+ y.o.'s coming for food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment comp, Medicaid...

they could actually REDUCE the rate of the tax.

and is not in the amount of trouble the DLC and Republicans like to pretend it is. These bastard just can't stand any program that benefits the serfs.

If Obama signs off on this we'll be able to believe one thing he said - that he didn't worry about being a one term president. No doubt he'll be richly rewarded for his part in destroying the working and middle classes just as Clinton has been.