I generally don't post about the silly ideas that various Representatives and Senators have for Social Security legislation when there's no hope of passage or even of the proposal having an impact on Social Security legislation that may be passed at some indefinite time in the future. I'm making an exception for the latest utterance by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. He's proposing that Social Security's guaranteed benefit payments should end, that Social Security benefits become subject to annual appropriations. This, of course, is going nowhere. I doubt that he could find more than one more Senator who would publicly agree with this or more than a handful of Representatives. Senator Rick Scott, who has expressed his own absurd notions about Social Security, might agree with him. So why post about this nonsense? Senator Johnson is in a tight race for re-election against a Democratic opponent yet to be decided in a primary election. That race may determine control of the Senate in the next Congress. Johnson has touched the third rail of American politics. Here's hoping his audacity gets him the reward of spending more time with his family.
By the way, Johnson argues that if annual appropriations are good enough for the Department of Defense, they should be good enough for Social Security. If Social Security were to receive the whooping budget increases that the Department of Defense has been receiving, Johnson's idea might not be so bad!
18 comments:
I’m sure there is a large section of the general public that would agree with him. It’s surprising how detrimental people can be to themselves. Previous elections show this clearly.
Agree. Just look at the last one.
There are no third rails anymore you can pretty much say or do anything and get or stay elected. Dont think so? Look at AZ and MO.
I sure do hate when the government use the term "entitlement" in a derogatory way. Workers in the United States pay into those funds with every paycheck! Meaning, these people are ENTITLED to get them back when needed. One can't use this term as congress does. It really is as easy as looking up the definition of the word. It just eats me up when I hear "Don't call my Social Security an entitlement!", as I know they were somehow led to believe entitlements are wrong. When in fact, they are entitled to the money they paid in, back if needed for disability or retirement. I will gladly set people straight that were misled by construing of the word "entitlement". Just hand them a dictionary...
I have a friend whom calls his retirement, which is SSA, his "government check". I asked him why he thinks the government gives him that money when he worked for almost 50 years paying into it. I told him, it may come from the government offices, but it's the money that you paid in all those years coming back to you. He still insists it's welfare for the old, however, I think inside his head, he is rethinking how he sees his retirement check.
Isn't Rick Scott of Florida the guy who wants the sunset social security in 5 years? You know the guy who keeps winning elections.
@3:01 Agreed. I also do not like the term "entitlement" or "welfare" when it comes to Social Security Disability (SSD).
It is basically an insurance claim. Do we call a claim on a auto insurance claim an "entitlement"? No we don't. It is an insurance claim.
Now, you can argue SSI is welfare because presumably the worker did not pay enough into the program to be eligible. But for SSD, this is not welfare. It is an insurance claim.
The vast majority if Senators and Representatives don't want any part of changing SSA in any way. For every one on the Republican side that wants to reduce/end SSA, there's one on the Democrat side that wants to expand it. There might be 10 or so Republicans in the Senate that have somewhat similar opinions to Johnson. Politically, it is poor judgment to express such a position, because the voters are nowhere near this position. Particularly, Johnson, in Wisconsin. Maybe Lankford, Cotton, and Rand Paul could get away with this...Johnson, maybe not.
Well, I am glad my mother has not lived to hear of this. She lived on Social Security for her last 25 years and always freaked out whenever politicians (always from the GOP) threatened her sole income (unfortunately this made her prey to some letter writing scammers who dunned her for donations to "save" social security). She survived the Great Depression in her childhood and teen years and was (I feel) ever anxious that it would return.
I agree with the commenter above - there is not third rail anymore. The old rules have been thrown out by the GOP, especially under Trump, and now they've been thrown out by the Supreme Court, which can make up any sort of nonsense. I was going to wait until age 70 to start Social Security, thinking it was safe, but I applied to start it earlier, because I no longer think so.
The Republican Party will keep trying to push the Overton Window on Social Security until they get it privatized.
While Senator Johnson's proposal is never going to see the light of day, when will Congress get serious about bolstering Social Security? Do they wait until 2039 to make changes needed to continue paying full checks to millions of Americans? Eliminate the cap on social Security taxes should be the easy start. Or cap it at a much higher amount. Will this mean some (a small percentage of workers) will get a lower rate of return on their Social Security taxes? Yes, just like it is now.
It absolutely is a third rail. These GOP senators are outliers. The MAGA republicans are much more populist in their messaging and seem to have no desire to legislate except on culture war issues. The fiscal conservatives and think tanks that supported privatization are now a small minority within the GOP. If you think seniors or younger electorate would not immediately turn on them for threatening SSA benefits you are not paying attention to politics. There is no serious movement to privatize or end SSA benefits. The MAGA base hates wallstreet almost as much as they hate democrats, so privatization would also be political suicide.
And if not for the democrats opting for the most progressive candidate in the primary race, Ron Johnson would have had a difficult time keeping his seat in November. He is not a popular senator.
All i gotta do is call it socialist and poof!
And that's because a handful think it's a good idea?
Very few SSA changes have been effective within a year or two. Even doing away with filing and suspending so a spouse could file on one's record was phased in. Most SSA changes of any significance are many years away.
3:01 and 3:10 shows the level of understanding of the programs that most have. The we paid in and want our money back out, when in reality if that is what they got they would be broke before 2 years. You are getting back more than you paid in. Your Medicare premium is 75% subsidized by the government unless you have IRMA, it is entitlement, it is socialized welfare healthcare. Sorry you dont like the truth, but that is the actual truth. SSI is a straight up 100% welfare program, always has been since it was federalized.
Charles, I like that you spotlight politicians who want to cut Social Security. Every bit of publicity makes it a bit more likely their constituents will notice and vote them out of office.
Post a Comment