In the wee hours of [Friday] morning, when most people were sleeping, the Senate took a vote that has momentous implications for who will win in 2016 and beyond. In three resounding votes over the last two days, Democrats rediscovered and reclaimed their legacy.
Just before recessing until April 13, the Senate passed a budget resolution. Prior to final passage, it voted on three separate Social Security amendments. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) offered an amendment protecting all Americans against cuts in their Social Security earned benefits. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an amendment only protecting current beneficiaries from cuts. And around 2:30 a.m., Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) offered an amendment advocating the expansion of Social Security.
The results were revealing and important. Every Democratic senator who was present but two voted to expand Social Security. Every Democratic senator but one voted against cutting Social Security's modest benefits.
In sharp contrast, no Republican voted to expand Social Security. Every Republican but a mere six voted to keep open the option of cutting the earned Social Security benefits of every American except for those fortunate enough to already be receiving those benefits. (Sorry, those of you who are a month away from retiring or have a disabling or deadly illness or accident in your future. The Republicans refused to vote to protect you.)
13 comments:
Oh, please---there are no proposals offered or seriously contemplated by anyone by anyone to actually cut Social Security benefits at any time in the foreseeable future. More left-wing scare-mongering.
And these results surprised no one ever.
Cut all of the "unearned" benefits, keep the "earned" with the possibility of expanding those after the "unearned" are gone.
The real social problem is in the SSI program. Fraud is rampant and systemic. Generational SSI is replacing generational welfare in many communities.
"Oh, please---there are no proposals offered or seriously contemplated by anyone by anyone to actually cut Social Security benefits at any time in the foreseeable future. More left-wing scare-mongering."
Increasing the retirement age is a cut in benefits. Changing the method of calculating a cost of living increase is a cut in benefits.
Face it. Republicans refuse to consider any increase in revenue (Remove earnings cap/increase FICA rate) and Democrats refuse to consider any benefit cut (Increase retirement age/reduce COLA formula)
At some point, either one or the other or some compromise that includes both increased revenue and reduced benefits has to be reached. There are solutions, including adjusting the benefit formula by moving the bend points to increase benefits for lower earners, but something has to be done at least before 2033. It will be done at some point, but the sooner the better so the modifications can be smaller.
Posturing by both sides solves nothing.
@5:26
You need to read the reputable studies on improper payments. They convincingly show that only a small percentage of claims involve fraud.
Without SSI we would have many more elderly and people with disabilities who were severely impoverished and/or homeless. You're entitled to your opinion, but most Americans would not be okay with that.
With all due respect, MOST Americans have no idea the SSI program exits at all. Whether they would be for it or against it is another story, but most have no idea it exists or equates it to Social Security Benefits.
At the ODAR in which most of my cases are heard, the ALJs aggressively push "amended onset dates" to eliminate as many back benefits as possible. Or, since the average case now takes 2 1/2 to 3 years to get to a hearing after the initial application, a denial by one of the rabid "twenty percenters" which is appealed will run a worker with a good work record up again the DLI (Date Last Insured)so that the only benefits which can sometimes be obtained may be SSI. Contrary to the belief of Agency employees, many injured workers don't immediately apply for benefits and lose valuable processing time until they lose SSDI eligibility. Most disabled workers in my semi-rural area have had an application or two turned down and never appealed until they were indigent and no longer had insurance or means to obtain medical care. By the time their case is heard, SSI may be all that is available, especially with ALJs cutting benefits as much as possible.
Not all SSI recipients have poor work records!
If you did a lot of working before becoming disabled (unless you were very young), you'd have a 10-year or so window of insurability. Just saying...
12:40 you are wrong. let's say I worked for the last 20 years and I quit working in 2010. My insured period would be from 2005 to 2015 I would only have 5 years from the time I stopped working not 10. That is I would be insured for 20 of the last 40 quarters through December 2015 of course that depends on when I stopped working 2010.
2:10, exactly! 11:36 here. Now let's say you thought that your medical problem might improve, and you spent 6 months to a year in treatments before you realized that impairment was going to be permanent. Then it takes 3 years to get to hearing and receive denial from ALJ Fifteen Percent. If you appeal the decision, it will be another 1-1 1/2 years for the Appeals Council to act and in most cases, to ratify the ALJ denial. The Claimant can no longer file a new claim until all administrative remedies are exhausted. Now, only 6 months, if that, remain before the DLI. By the time the case comes before an ALJ again, the DLI will be at least 2 years old. Where I practice, the ALJs don't like to reach back much longer than a year to award back benefits, so they'll hold a gun to the now destitute claimant's head (figuratively) and only accept a date amended so recently that no SSDI will be awarded--all the former worker will be eligible for is SSI. Isn't this such a beneficial, compassionate system?
3:27: I had a rather heated conversation with another attorney over cocktails at a NOSSCR conference a few yrs ago about the scenario you describe. This attorney felt it was very important to file appeals to the AC and federal court on the denials from the low-paying ALJs. He said you were doing a disservice to your clients to not file all available appeals. I countered that it was often better for the client to skip the AC and just file a new app, given the growing time delays and low percentage of winning at the AC or fed court. I have had many clients eventually obtain benefits on new apps who had worsening conditions or a better ALJ draw a second time. Some of these claimants might have had their insured status lapse if I had instead opted to file all appeals first before then arranging a new app.
Most of these comments are about the efficiency of the Agency and how it works to quickly (or not) resolve claims, not about the original topic of expansion or reform.
Separate issues. Part of the problem, however, is that the inefficiency of the Agency impacts significantly how far the money goes. Let's fix the efficiency problem first. By the way, I am a middle class conservative, and I have long advocated raising the top amount removed from paychecks to infinity, and also starting withdrawals after $10k of income, with credit given for the $10k. But if you do that, top earners should not be penalized by reduced benefits - these are earned benefits. These arguments remind me of the movie "Dave" - the accountant Murray identified where agencies could save to allow for a desired program. The philosophy of balancing the budget needs to be reinstated, and those Democrats who do not understand that constant expansion without cutting costs and unnecessary/outdated programs is not good for the country. And the jealousy toward the rich needs to stop.
Post a Comment