Barbara Kennelly, the President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, writing in the
San Francisco Chronicle:
Charles Dickens' Ebenezer Scrooge feared the Ghost of Christmas Future more than any other he'd met during his long Christmas Eve night. I can relate. After watching congressional passage of the White House-Republican negotiated tax deal, I, too, fear for the future. I fear this tax package is the first step toward radical changes to Social Security that will impact generations of working Americans.
While some elements in the tax package provide desperately needed stimulus for millions of Americans - including far too many who are suffering near-Dickensian levels of poverty and fear - this deal also diverts $112 billion in contributions from Social Security. A "tax holiday" may sound like a wonderful gift for workers now, however this one is wrapped in Washington promises that could turn out to be as thin as tissue paper.
As we've seen in Congress these days, it's easy to enact tax cuts but virtually impossible to allow them to expire. ...
Retirees and their families will watch helplessly as Social Security becomes dependent on general fund revenues rather than worker contributions, which have successfully funded the program for 75 years. Proposals like this threaten the program's independence at this time of unprecedented deficits, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars.
...
Conservatives have long dreamed of a payroll tax holiday because it fulfills two ideological goals: lower taxes and weakening Social Security's finances.
Ms. Kennelly ought to acknowledge that her organization took more than 24 hours to announce opposition to this FICA holiday and that AARP actually supported it! If there had been rapid, united opposition to this plan, we might not be where we are today.
7 comments:
Social Security has been dependent on general fund revenues when payments are made out of the trust funds.
The FICA and SECA dollars needed to pay current beneficiaries are indeed dedicated funding dollars.
But the surplus dollars have been lent to the Treasury, spent for current expenses, and (artificially) lowered the deficit.
Paying out of the trust fund is just like paying for all other expenditures.
To be accurate, you need to separate the dedicated funding for current expenses for beneficiaries versus general fund revenues needed to pay out of the trust fund.
The cash dollars can't be in 2 places at the same time - the Treasury and the trust fund.
Don Levit
Dang, Don, you are one tiresome dude, riding this tired, lame hobby horse off into the sunset. Could you find another blog to bug other than this one? We really are weary of hearing the same meaningless stuff all the time. Thanks! And Merry Christmas.
I don't even read his posts anymore. As soon as I see his name I scroll right past to the next post.
Sorry Don, but ditto. I agree with Ms. Kennelly. This is a very slippery slope...Leave the funding of Social Security alone.
Anonymous 1, 2, and 3:
Can you cite any objective sources that state I am wrong about surplus money spent out of the trust fund?
I have supplied objective sources attesting to my statements about the trust fund surplus.
What are you getting tired of - objective statements from reputable agencies, or your inability to discuss this issue intelligently by citing objective sources.
Maybe you're really getting tired of not being able to intelligently back your positions, other than what you hope to be true, or feel to be true?
Don Levit
No, Don, the point is that it DOES NOT MATTER. It has been happening for years, everyone knows it, and you don't have a better solution. So why keep harping on it?
Oh, I see.
We realize there is a problem, but it is too late to do anything about it, so we'll just keep on doing what we've been doing.
Don Levit
Post a Comment