Social Security advocates who breathed a sigh of relief when Senate Republicans rejected President Trump’s demand to place a payroll cut in the latest coronavirus relief bill exhaled too soon.
The version unveiled Monday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) incorporates a provision even more menacing for Social Security (and Medicare too).
This is the so-called TRUST Act, which was crafted by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and has been bubbling along in Capitol Hill corridors since last year. ...
The TRUST Act — the acronym stands portentously for “Time to Rescue United States’ Trusts” — would work by ginning up a sense of near-term emergency about the finances of Social Security, Medicare and the federal highway trust fund. ...
Congress would then appoint bipartisan committees mandated to “draft legislation that restores solvency and otherwise improves each trust fund program,” as Romney has described the process. Whatever proposals these panels produced would be fast-tracked in Congress and not subject to amendment. (The bills would need 60 votes in the Senate.)
On the surface, this seems almost innocuous — so much so that the act has attracted co-sponsorships from a handful of inattentive and somewhat conservative Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. They should pay better attention. ...
Since the TRUST panels’ deliberations will be offered to Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the process rather serves what the GOP refers to as the need to gut Social Security “behind closed doors,” to quote an unwittingly revealing line uttered last year by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). ...
I'm confident this isn't happening in this stimulus bill but it shows the implacable hostility that Congressional Republicans have for Social Security. This won't happen because mainstream Congressional Democrats are even more devoted to maintaining Social Security. I understand that Manchin is in a red state and Sinema is in a purple state but that doesn't explain why they would support this. They're certainly isolated within their party. Even if you could force a vote on a bill to cut Social Security in any significant way, it wouldn't get a majority vote even from Republicans. It's hopeless. Americans love Social Security. Get over it, GOP!
Michael HIltzik is the finest journalist writing on Social Security matters in the nation. He gets it.
ReplyDeleteIt could just be addressing the long term financial status of Social Security, much like the changed made back in 1984 or so. Or would you just want across the board cuts when the money runs out?
ReplyDeleteNo one disputes that Congress needs to enact legislation to make the Social Security trust funds solvent for the next 30 years. The problem with the TRUST Act is that it provides for work product from a committee working behind closed doors, to be brought to a straight up-or-down vote in the entire House/Senate without opportunity for amendment. Making the trust funds solvent needs to be discussed and debated, with lots of input from us taxpayers. It shouldn't be done in a hurry-up closed-door manner. And the focus of this COVID-19 relief bill should be to provide immediate help to those who are hurting due to the pandemic -- not to add "pet projects" because this bill will be enacted quickly.
ReplyDeleteAmen @2:19
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't like the idea of a straight up or down vote without the chance for amendments. And Romney isn't trustworthy , to rely on for writing legislation regarding the future of Social Security. He'd probably like to see cuts in benefits. Hopefully this never happens.
ReplyDeleteThere's no Wall Street bailout that we can't afford, even bailing out foreign banks. We can afford a civilized retirement and disability program. The game is up as far as no money for people but plenty for criminal corporate and Big Bank Bailouts. Romney would let us eat cake if we don't work on Wall Street. Screw him.
ReplyDeleteEnough with all this insolvency nonsense simply raise the cap and/or make it apply to non-earned income
ReplyDeleteIt all could have been avoided if a certain age cohort would have, one that knew for a very long time they were very large and would be a drain on the system, increased the tax by 1%.
ReplyDeleteI dont think SSA will be there for my retirement. I expect to pay more in taxes for it. I expect my eligibility for Medicare to move to 70.
@12:13
ReplyDeleteThe changes in 1984 saved the trust funds very little and the intent was to make social security less popular. As to what changes need to be made to fix any purported solvency issue, none. Every year this is the threat brought up by both sides as a political football, and every year it turns out the estimated date when the funds run dry gets pushed back a year.
If people are seriously concerned about the trust funds, get rid of them. Make benefits come from the general treasury funds. Stop trying to balance two books when it's unnecessary. If the general treasury is experiencing solvency issues, that's a far greater problem and in that scenario, I suspect the social security trust funds are the least of our problems.
@12:00
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a bad idea to make Social Security Disability payable out of the general fund. One of the reasons the public would squash (electorally speaking) any politician who cuts Social Security is because it would rightfully be perceived as politicians stealing their money. Technically it is an insurance benefit they paid for, but still there is that connection. It is the dream of every politician wanting to cut our Social Security to sever that connection so they can more easily cut the benefit without committing political suicide.
@1:30
ReplyDelete12:00 here. I think you are probably right that the public's impression that the trust funds being separate from the general funds makes them untouchable, and cutting benefits would be stealing their money. I also think if those benefits were coming from the general fund, and politicians tried to reduce benefits, that would still feel like politicians are trying to steal their money, because it is.
But, you are probably right that overall it would make it easier to cut, because people don't understand it is an insurance benefit already paid for...which is frustrating.
In 2010 and 2011, under President Obama, payroll taxes, FICA, were cut by 2%. For two years. This reduced the amount collected and added to the "trust funds". So how is President Trump's suggestion different? Well, yes, the dollar amount could be more if dragged on for two years, but other than that, isn't the principle the same and if so, was it wrong in 2010 and 2011? I thought so at the time. Although cutting payroll taxes does put some additional money in the pockets of working people and does nothing for people who don't have jobs. Maybe that is the reason.
ReplyDeleteOnce we get the Boomers out of power, we will be able to fix it, like we have to fix everything else they messed up.
ReplyDeleteOnce you do we'll give you a partcipation medal. Wear your face masks while you're planning it all.
ReplyDelete