Tom Reed is the Ranking Republican member on the House Social Security Subcommittee. He recently held a town hall meeting on Social Security in his district. The Olean Times Herald report on the town hall says that Reed was asked about the impending shortfall in the Social Security trust funds. Reed answered that "We need to make sure we keep the economy humming and get people working.” That means he doesn't want increased taxes which means the only way to deal with the shortfall that is acceptable to him is to cut Social Security benefits, although Reed certainly didn't say this. Congressional Republicans carefully avoid saying that. They always imply it's some sort of puzzle that someone needs to figure out, as if there's some way of dealing with the shortfall that doesn't involve cutting benefits or raising taxes, which is nonsense. Apparently, no one at the meeting challenged Reed on this.
10 comments:
Appears that no representatives, well versed in Social Security cared enough to make and appearance.
I mean, a third alternative is that he's ignorant on how little is spent on administrative costs and believes there is fat to cut. There's not, at least nowhere near enough to address his concerns, but he could believe that.
Cutting SSA's $12.x billion admin budget to the bone would do literally nothing vis-a-vis our benefit payment shortfall problem.
There's a third option to keep solvency of the raided trust funds and keep benefit amounts the same (or even raise them!) that doesn't involve raising taxes or messing with benefits at all, and that would be a simple reallocation of general fund money to SSA benefit payments. We could cut the defense budget by a single-digit percentage and that'd be enough.
We need to stop framing the debate as such. The trust funds have received ample surplus funds via FICA taxes, etc. over the years such that there is, at least in accounting land and on balance sheets, more than a $1 trillion in surplus--still.
However, Congress didn't keep any of that money on hand or elsewhere for easy cashing in when needed and instead spent that excess on tax cuts and wars over these past few decades. Now that current incoming FICA money and other sources of income for benefit payments is not enough to meet current payout demand, Congress is lying and reframing this as a situation where benefits need to be cut or taxes raised, when in reality the situation is that these benefits are due and owed and should be paid, but since current FICA intake can't cover it and they raided the trust funds (only treasury IOUs are there), they would have to make up the difference out of general fund/budget money, and they don't want to have to cut anywhere else (or raise taxes), so naturally they cry cutting benefits is the only solution.
Stop buying into this framing and describe the situation like it actually is and hold elected officials accountable to pay benefits properly owed. We all should be telling them to make the uncomfortable choices on how to make up the shortfall THEY CREATED by raiding the trust funds in a way that doesn't include (immoral, bad) cuts to benefits.
I am going to be frightfully blunt; if SSDI is cut by 21% I will be absolutely homeless and I will not likely survive it. I started "paying into the system" at 16 years old and no one told me what the heck Social Security taxes were all about or gave me an option to "OPT-OUT"
I am sorry if I offend anyone, but what the hell are the Democrats most concerned about today..1) Impeaching Trump 2) Increasing Migration and all of the costs associated with it 3) The GREEN NEW DEAL..it's B.S....I worked my butt off all of my life and I do not want to be left standing when the music stops..CONGRESS YOU MUST ACT!!! My family helped me as much as then can, but I will NOT be homeless because the US Government spends TONS of MONEY on migrants, wars, and foreign aid.
DO NOT TREAD ON ME and DO NOT CUT MY BENEFITS!I earned them...
It's interesting that you list migrant costs (and foreign aid, for that matter) alongside war when describing things that I guess you think are huge costs for us. "War," no matter how charitably you define those costs, dwarfs foreign aid, migrant costs, and every other category of spending save healthcare and SS benefits, which you don't want cut.
You've really bought into those scare tactic-laden propaganda pieces--it isn't migrants or foreign countries receiving our aid that have put us in a position where our elected officials don't feel there is enough money to keep paying full SS benefits, it's that we spend $1 trillion or so every year on "war" and that our tax revenues are too low thanks to all the tax cuts (almost exclusively benefiting the middle and upper class at the expense of the poor).
Man, this country really needs to develop some class consciousness.
@4:19
I'm confused by your statements that "only treasury IOUs" are in the trust funds and Social Security has received "ample surplus funds via FICA taxes."
Just to be clear, FICA taxes ARE Social Security taxes (or at least a subset, medicare taxes are also FICA). There is no other tax which has created a surplus and Social Security taxes do not create a surplus on their own because they do not account for inflation. As to the trust funds being full of "treasury IOUs," that's correct, but that is necessary.
Consider what would happen if SSA did just keep cash in the trust accounts. Social security tax is 6.2%, paid by both the employee and employer. The average annualized social security benefit for 2019 is approximately $15,600 year. That means, unless the average recipient earned $125,806.45 ($15,600 ÷ .062 ÷ 2), benefits paid exceed taxes paid in. The average individual income in the US is around $75,000, depending on the source. But that would need to be the historic, non-inflated figure because again benefits adjust for inflation whereas the tax does not (nor could it reasonable, given that would be absurdly prospective, requiring estimation of potentially decades of inflation).
The average 65-year old worker who is entering retirement this year would have had an average income of $75,000 income historically, not inflation adjusted, when the average worker doesn't even make that much income in the current year.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/intRates.html
In any event, I agree Congress needs to make hard choices. My point is "raiding" the trust funds didn't cause this, and in fact "raiding" has allowed continuing operation as the interest paid covers shortfalls built into the system, mostly exacerbated by inflation, lack of wage growth, and lengthening of lifespans since the Social Security Act was enacted.
If we are going to still use the Trust Fund model, then the only way to reach full actuarial balance is either to cut benefits or raise revenue or a combination of the two. No mystery.
But there are a whole lot of ways to do either that will not have serious impacts on the vast majority of people. Removing the cap on earnings only affects people with annual incomes over $130,000. Sure, they would have to pay more but its not like they would suffer greatly. And, unless their benefits are capped, the increased payments increase their benefits so the cost is not as great as would be imagined.
Benefits could also be cut by raising the retirement age, a Republican favorite, but if done while also adjusting the PIA and benefit formula, it could be done in a way that does not reduce the benefits for the average beneficiary at all and with only a slight reduction for all but the highest earners.
One thing I noted at the Larsen hearing was the notion that we can't raise taxes because the millennials don't think SS will be there for them anyway and they would object to higher taxes. It is a common millennial belief that they will never get SS so why should they pay in.
It took me a while to understand why they believe that, aside from buying in to the propaganda about SS going broke. It finally dawned on me that they don't believe they will collect SS because they simply cannot imagine a world where they will be old. Don't really blame them. I felt that way too in my 20's and 30's but now, many years later, it happened, as it happens to use all unless we die first.
Wow 2:37 you could not be more wrong, if you even tried.
We know we will be old, in fact, some of us are now taking care of the old, as caregivers to those that did not plan for a future of being old. In that caregiving, we are working our way through the destroyed social services system we inherited. Those tax cuts sure looked good at the time didn't they, but now it sure would be great to get Grandma some in home services so we don't have to put her into longterm care. Here is a little real information for you, Boomers are not prepared for retirement, have little to no savings, no understanding of Medicare costs and expect that the government is going to take care of them!
Why don't I believe SSA will be there for me? Well, first they keep moving my retirement age, to ages that are totally beyond anything that came before and are not in touch with reality. We also expect that they will change Medicare and put that beyond our grasps.
Be careful insulting the younger generation, we are coming into power now and Boomers are fading out. One way for us to take care of you that you need to remember: Soylent Green. Enjoy your time at Shady Pines Ma!
@4:35--They keep moving retirement age? The change was made in 1984 and phased in to go to age 66 and then later 67 and that's for full benefits. You can still file at 62 and receive a reduced benefit. It's been changed ONCE..ever. Plus, during that time the annual earnings test has been abolished for those who are at full retirement age whereas before there was a test for ages 65-72 and later 65-70. So the age has been changed once but SSA can now pay benefits to those who are full retirement age and under 70 that are still working and making good money.
Average life expectancy for someone 62 is in the range of 82-84 years old so even if you decide to work to full retirement age, you can receive benefits for 15+ years if you live to the norm for life expectancy.
So tell me 2:15 how many spry 70 year old nurses, teachers, office works do you know? Do you want a 70 starting your next IV?
If it is soooo wonderful to work to 70 for FRA then why the hell are so many Boomers not doing such a wonderful thing?
Post a Comment