I think I was the first one to write publicly about this. Here's Mother Jones sounding the same theme:
With Hillary Clinton now officially running for president, progressives are upping the pressure on her to embrace their policy agenda, including the Holy Grail of expanding Social Security benefits. ...
But it's actually Republicans, not progressives, who have essentially guaranteed that Social Security will be a major issue in 2016, setting up a battle that will provide stark contrast between the two parties on the issue ...
Dylan Scott wrote last week, House Republicans passed a little-noticed procedural rule back in January that will ensure a heated debate on the Social Security at the height of the presidential campaign.
As things stand now, in the final three months of 2016, the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund will run out of money and beneficiaries will see an immediate 20 percent cut in benefits. Luckily, there's an easy fix: Congress can simply reallocate a small amount of payroll tax income from the larger Social Security retirement fund to the disability fund. ...
But just as Republicans in recent years have turned once routine debt-ceiling votes into near-catastrophic showdowns, the Republicans' new procedural rule blocks the House from voting on this simple fix unless they also address the long-term solvency of the program by cutting benefits or raising taxes. Progressives expect House GOPers to use the rule to force through benefits cuts in late 2016.
Or at least that seems to be their plan. But what House Republicans have actually done is set up a battle that will force the two parties and their respective candidates to take a position on whether to expand or cut Social Security benefits in late 2016—just as Americans are picking their next president.And, please, if you're a GOP leader, just dismiss this out of hand because it's coming from Mother Jones and because you're sure the public will support your Social Security cuts once you explain that that you're only trying to save Social Security. Everyone knows it's really the Democrats who are recklessly endangering Social Security. Fox News reports this all the time.
12 comments:
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is always good advice, no one ever said.. I mean other than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and a few other nuts.. No need to fix the program when one can just illegally borrow/steal from another program that is working. Might as well screw up as many programs as possible so bigger government will be needed to fix it??
@ 8:08...I concur.
There are lots of other govt. programs that are solvent. Let's just take some of that money to keep SSI going!
8:08: why does "fixing" Social Security always involve cutting benefits and harming the most vulnerable (disabled and elderly) members of our society?
It shouldn't involve cutting benefits to anyone that has paid in. It should only cut benefits to those that have never contributed. I mean, it's not like they still aren't coming out ahead, does it.
10:52: so you'd cut SSI? Let those folks figure out how to survive on the measly amounts offered by the states?
SSI, let's first how they were able to exist for 40-50 years without working..
There is another easy fix - increase the DI payroll tax rate. Right now, it is 0.9%, and raising it 20% would give 1.1%. So total payroll taxes would go up from 7.65% to 7.85% (an increase of $2 per week if you make $50k/year). No one will notice that small an increase.
That's also a "fix" for the main Social Security program - increase payroll tax rates slowly and modestly. Most people prefer this to cuts, but somehow almost all we hear about are cuts.
12:01, most people who get SSI haven't "existed for 40-50 years without working." 24.5% are under age 21.
Of the older ones, a good deal of them worked sporadically, either too long ago or too little to qualify for SSDI (they may have gotten UI, relied on family members or TANF, or worked below the level to earn credits since then). Or they might be insured for a small amount of OASDI and get SSI to top them up. There are more seniors getting concurrent benefits Title II/XVI than getting just SSI.
And there's of course the group of SSI recipients that spent most of their adult years incarcerated. SSI keeps some segment of that population from reoffending, and that's good, since jail and prison cost a lot more than $733 a month per inmate.
If my SSDI check gets cut 20%, I'll have to acquire a taste for Meow Mix.
Obviously you haven't priced Meow Mix lately.. Fancy Feast a buck for a 3 once can. Cat's eating better than I am...
Many of you that comment about SSI apparently live in an alternate universe. Many of my clients who end up with SSI worked long and honorably then became disabled. Many claimants don't apply for a year or more because they expect that their condition may improve and they may be able to go back to work. Once the realization takes place that their impairment is permanent, they apply for SSDI/SSI. A surprising number of claimants don't request reconsideration within the 60 appeals period and merely apply a second or third time before finally taking their case farther up the chain. (Yes, many may have some cognitive limitations). Because it now takes about 3 years from initial application to the date of hearing, more time elapses, and the Date of Last Insurability (DLI)looms. There are a number of scenarios which lead to a former worker losing quarters of eligibility (perhaps quarters of unemployment within the last 10 years). By the time some of these claimants accumulate the necessary evidence and get to a hearing, they may have lost eligibility for SSDI, and can only obtain SSI.
Increasing Social Security taxes is a great way to fund general government expenses, other than Social Security.
That is how the taxes are used now, and that is how increased taxes will be used then.
I guess SS should borrow from other solvent government programs. It certainly has been an affective way to indirectly fund them.
Post a Comment