Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Josh Marshall: Stop Saving Social Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:12 PM
Original message
Josh Marshall: Stop Saving Social Security
Edited on Thu Nov-01-07 05:14 PM by antigop
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057584.php


I said last night that I disagreed with the oft-stated claim that it just gets harder to 'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis the longer you wait. In fact, as I thought about Obama's proposal to remove or retool the cap on Social Security taxes I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether.

Many have argued that having this debate at all buys into the right-wing argument that there's a 'crisis' that needs to be solved and thus that the politics are all wrong. But put that aside, let's talk about whether it makes sense even on substance.

When it comes to the policy and number-crunching nitty-gritty of Social Security I'm definitely an amateur. But I think I've got a decent sense of the political-economy of the question. We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy US government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.

We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.

The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.

If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.



<edit> fixed format
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. The real right wingers are pissed because jr wasted all his time in Iraq
instead of concentrating on dismantling the New Deal. It's what Ron Paul and the rest of those bastards are all about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. I would be suspicious of any body of any party that starts about social security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mpendragon Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. 3 things I'd do . . .
1. Reduce the deficit with less military spending (especially Iraq), add a new marginal tax bracket for the over $250k/year crowd at 40-45% (in the 50's it was 80-90% for income over $400k) to pay off debt incurred because of the war, roll back a portion of the tax cuts, and modify Medicare D to allow for better negotiation for lower costs.

2. Pay off foreign debt with cheaper American dollars unless there is a good reason why that wouldn't work.

3. Tie future social security payments 20 years from now to a cost of living metric instead of wage growth. The delay might make the change more palatable to the AARP crowd.

The first two help keep the feds out of the social security cookie jar and the last one should be enough to keep social security solvent moving forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC