slash Social Security?

Dear MoveOn member,

You can't make this stuff up. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is at record levels and home foreclosures are soaring. Congress can't get it together to act on these issues. But there's growing momentum in Washington to—wait for it—slash Social Security?

Believe it. Republicans are campaigning on benefit cuts. Conservative Democrats like Steny Hoyer are echoing their talking points.1

Everyone's counting on the Deficit Commission to do the dirty work. The commission is stacked with conservatives who've embraced cutting Social Security, and both houses of congress promised to fast-track a vote on its recommendations.2 3 That means that even though no jobs bill can pass congress right now, Social Security cuts might.

To stop the cuts, we need to send a crystal-clear message to members of Congress: Americans reject benefit cuts, and we expect them to do the same. Can you sign our promise to oppose cuts to Social Security? We'll use your signature to pressure them to sign a pledge protecting Social Security while they're home in your state for recess. But we need a strong response to make our point.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html



snip................


From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

"On-Budget"-

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.

This change took effect for the first time in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 1969, which President Johnson presented to Congress in January 1968. This change in accounting practices did not initially put the President's budget proposal into surplus--it was still projecting an $8 billion deficit. However, it is clear that the budget deficit would have been somewhat larger without this change (it is difficult to say how much larger because this change was mixed-in with the other legislative, budgetary and fiscal policies the President was urging Congress to adopt). In early 1969--just five days before leaving office--President Johnson sent his 1970 budget message to Congress, also using the revised accounting procedures. At this point, a year later than his initial estimate, he was projecting the budget for 1969 to be in a net balance of $2.4 billion. (The fiscal year 1969 began on January 1, 1969, even though the President had released his FY 1969 budget almost a year earlier.)

snip