Dean Baker: In Two Weeks, Obama Will Support A Task Force to 'Reform' Social Security
By Susie Madrak Monday Feb 16, 2009 1:00pmDean Baker is the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and he shares some interesting information with us:
Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression.
This effort is bizarre for several reasons. First, the economy is sinking rapidly. While President Obama's stimulus package is a good first step towards counteracting the decline, there is probably not a single economist in the country who believes that is adequate to the task. President Obama would be advised to focus his attention on getting the economy back in order instead of attacking the country's most important social program.
The second reason why this task force is strange is that Social Security doesn't need reforming. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 40 years with no changes whatsoever.
The third reason that this effort is pernicious is that this talk of reform is occurring with the baby boomers just as the cusp of retirement. Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen their housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes.
Similarly, if they had been fortunate enough to accumulate any substantial amount of savings in a 401(k) account, they just saw much of this wealth vanish with the plunge in the stock market. The median late baby boomer household (ages 45-54) has a net worth of just over $80 including the equity in their home. This means that if they took all of their savings, they would have less than half of their home (assuming a median price $175,000) paid off, and nothing else.
The median household among older baby boomers would be doing a bit better. With a net worth of $143,000, this household could have most of their home paid off, but nothing else. And of course, half of the population has wealth less than the median, so they would be less well-prepared for retirement.
In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.
John Amato: If Obama touches the third rail of politics, he is truly clueless. How did that work out for Bush? I really don't get it. The konservative krowd have been trying to destroy it ever since FDR put it in place.
This keeps coming back mainly because Democratic politiciansin explicably keep using it as a yardstick of "fiscal responsibility." It's actually the opposite.
Any Grand Bargain that includes negotiating with conservatives on social security must be off the table. They want to destroy it. They always have.
Login or Register to post comments.
... is Barack nuts all of a sudden?
He touches this at his extreme peril.
It's radioactive.
Leave SS alone.
Period.
it is the President and not the blogger who is nuts?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/
"Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.
Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). "
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. What's lazy about it?
is the one I'm calling lazy. She just passed on a rumor and dressed it up as something ALARMING when Obama has stated his intent and approach to "reform". Either she didn't bother to know this or she's just jerking us around.
The Obama campaign learned from the ReThugs in one way --- give your program or approach a name that is hard for the opposition to fight. I expect dumb right wingers to fall for this but someone posting on the front page of a major liberal blog should at least have a clue.
so far the fake headline has generated 110 comments on THIS blog, and more at Huffpost. So, I guess it's served its purpose. I don't think the writer was lazy at all. Just devious.
I think it counts in the lazy column. Nuts was the question I raised about the original author, who is male.
We are a nation of lazy fat asses...and the Insurance Companies and Health care industry loves it! If Americans collectively took better care of themselves (beginning at childhood), we'd save trillions.
I'm 65 and weigh about the same as I did when I got out of basic training. Yes there are a lot of fat asses but I really think they are the minority.
What do you mean? The current numbers have slightly more than 50% of the American public being obese, with 30% being MORBIDLY obese. For the first time in history, we're seeing "adult onset" diabetes showing up in children, as a result of fast food-induced childhood obesity.
As for the part about how we'd save trillions...that's an explosive question, mainly because a lot of wingnuts will bring up the obvious camel's nose argument that, if we had universal healthcare, this would provide government with a reason to start trying to control what we eat. Ooooh...bring on all the dumbass 1984 analogies. I can't WAIT for that to start.
The paradox is that many of the poor are obese because of poor diets and cheap junk foods that are loaded with calories. A $2.39 box of Ring-Dings for dinner is much more affordable for the poor than a meal of steak, potato, and salad, costing about $10.00.
Those who CAN "take care of themselves" have the money to afford nutritious foods and are almost never obese.
So red meat is low calorie and nutritious? One can eat organically and nutritiously, and still VERY reasonably. Beans, rice, and collards for instance, dirt cheap and super nutritious. In supermarket checkout lines it's clear that people largely buy prepared foods and junk, which is the worst and most expensive way to keep yourself alive and healthy. It's really a matter of buying food based on common sense, not habit, convenience, and impulse. Combine this with routine exercise and the obesity problem is gone, with people having more money to give to the banks.
I agree, in part. A dispraportionate number of poor people eat junk food, but not because it's cheaper than healthy food. Many of them eat it just because it's faster, and they have less time to shop and cook.
Lot's of people tend to forget that we haven't had "welfare" in the U.S. since 1996. We now have WORKFARE, where single mothers have to spend hours on the bus every day to get to their minimum wage jobs. If they don't have two or three hours a day to spend preparing healthy meals, and shopping for groceries, it's not necessarily a character flaw. Although conservatives never pass up an opportunity to paint it that way.
and I didn't pay much more than the price you cited for a box of Ring-Dings.
This will sound mean, but here on the west side of Chicago there is an obesity epidemic...almost fat glorification. Many of my foreign friends tell me that's the first thing they notice when they arrive here. I stay fit too Ron(and besides regular check ups, I stay out of the doctors office) I don't want to sound too judgmental of overweight people (because that's so uncool), but I do think we can save by Americans being more active.
Why not just write "some say" and be done with it?
Over reacting to spurious rumors has become quite the pastime for too many front pagers.
We all decried and hated the Republican noise machine and their "some say" campaigns.
please stop doing the exact same thing. It's getting old, and it's dumb.
therefore is must be gossip worth printing and reacting to.
...that this little bit of "inside information" is *wrong*? Maybe it's just a rumor. Rumors are often false--or floated for completely different reasons than the recipients think.
this gossip could be right. Yes. And there is a chance I will be struck by lightning before I hit the submit button.
So, are you okay? Any lightning in your area?
yzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/
"Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.
Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). "
Appointing a task force made up of those guys is sure to generate complete inaction and no-change whatsoever for years and years to come!
No way! This is crisis headed for catastrophe!
We can't just sit by while the world crumbles around us.
The time for sitting on the sideline is over.
We need someone who will DO SOMETHING.
Right? Isn't that what we always hear? Doing nothing is bad. When people in the government DO SOMETHING, it doesn't matter what it is, it's always better than nothing. RIGHT?
No comment.
The smartest move if tweaking is needed would be to raise the full retirement age by an additional year.
Leave the early retirement age at 62 for reduced benefits, but raise it by another year for the full benefit.
Doing just that would probably fully fund the Social Security program for the next 50 years or more.
Sorry, NO!
My father-in-law is on his death bed at 70. Taking away a year at that age could be the only year or two some people may have. Get a clue!
TAX THE RICH! Why doesn't Obama ever address this? This country will never ever be worth a shit again, until we take back the 25% of total wealth republican's stole from working people over the last 30 years, to give to scum like the Bushies and Cheney's.
HEY OBAMA, TAX THE RICH! We need $$$$$$$$, and those greedy bastards have it all!
More specifically and germanely, just drop the SS cap, which makes SS the most regressive tax going. Problem solved:
"Among the arguments for funding Social Security is raising or eliminating the cap - the salary at which no more Social Security taxes are paid. In 2009, the cap will be on incomes above $106,800. Put another way, a worker who earns less than $106,800 will pay tax on every dollar earned. A worker who earns above that amount will owe no more tax on any dollar above $106,800.
As a result, workers who earn less money pay a higher rate of Social Security tax than do those who earn more. At an income of $213,600, the rate is one-half that of all workers who earn less than $106,800. The disparity increases as incomes rise. It is one way to let the rich become richer and the poor become poorer."
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1907
he has no intention of raising the eligibility age.
No one's 70 year old father-in-law would be effected by an adjustment of the full retirement age.
No one who is 60 today will be effected by the LAST adjustment to the full retirement age.
The earliest retirement age, 62, was not changed before and would not need to be changed now.
The difference between your payout at any given age starting at 62 and the next year up to 66, as it is now, is so minimal, there is virtually no reason for anyone to base a decision to wait or not because of it.
If you're 62 or more and not feeling too well, START taking your Social Security. They don't hand out special prizes for waiting until you reach your full retirement age.
Not at all. Leave SS alone.
Gossip." Huffington Post.
WORD, dude.
Insider gossip is worth exactly nothing. Social Security isn't in bad shape but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved to offer better benefits more efficiently. It doesn't hurt to look for incrental improvements.
of Tim Russert and getting him to agree with that would be useless to the Beltway Misinformation Elite.
Obama himself talked about how "easy" it would be to fix Social Security's solvency once and for all with a few subtle adjustments, making people with more wealth pay a tad more.
If this commission is just more bipartisan window dressing, then fine. But there's no reason to adopt *any* conservative ideas on Social Security. Their only goal is to destroy it.
Remember when Bush tried to put it in the stock market...? And we eventually learned that the Bush team was well aware of the approaching market declines-- WHILE they were pushing their SS scheme. They *wanted* to destroy that leg of support for the middle class.
Remove the cap.
Raise benefits.
The raises we have gotten leaves us below the poverty line. If we would have had raises to keep up with real inflation, we would be getting benefits of almost twice what we get now.
I can almost hear the screams now..
Return the lockbox.
Social Security should never be insolvent as long as they don't dip into it to pay for other stuff.
We have a winner! Between healthcare and social security, they don't have the money. Period. This has been delayed. What, people actually assumed the government could just keep borrowing to infinity? What's the total deficit? What's the total deficit WITH healthcare and social security IOU's included? What did everyone think Obama meant by sacrifices? Actually think the rich would sacrifice? Ya, that's obvious by the bailouts. In the not too distant future, deficits have to be dealt with. That means massive tax increases and massive cuts to social programs at the same time.
You can't have a proper pyramid scheme without a rake.
Social security could easily become insolvent if the economy is allowed to lapse into a long lasting depression. Barring that everything should be manageable.
There never was a lockbox.
It is a pay as you go system. Deductions made today pay benefits today. There is the Trust Fund which is the amount in excess of current account outlays. Its current account balance is $2.2 trillion but it was never intended as a fund for future commitments.
Social Security is a major component of the social contract, not a personal retirement savings account.
It is the social contract that says the most vulnerable of our citizens, the young and the old should not fall into dire poverty.
That they should always have a minimum standard.
To those whose describe it as a ponzi scheme, you have fallen prey to the Corporate mentality.
This is the contract, the social contract that Ronald Reagan was determined to break, by promoting the culture of unbridled self interest over everything and create the rapacious Predator Corporate State.
Thank you.
But it's gone now.
It was designed to be a pay as you go system, and therefore, would always be self-sustaining, because it would take some catastrophe for us to get to the point where those receiving SS benefits outnumber those paying into it.
However, now, you will get back a portion of what you paid into SS. I have been out of the workforce for twelve years now to take care of my kids, other than contract work I do as a freelance editor. Every year, I get a statement from the SS department telling me how much I paid into SS, and how much I can expect to get when I qualify to receive it.
The number is not pretty, because I voluntarily took myself out of the corporate world for so long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Amendments_of_the_1980s
The 1983 Amendments and the Social Security Trust Fund
The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken “off-budget.” Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget. It is a political way of using a cash budget instead of the more appropriate accrual budget, for all the budgets in the U.S. government. It is a way of disguising total debt.(Source: Webb, Roy, (1991). “The Stealth Budget: Unfunded Liabilities of the Federal Government,” Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond), 77,2 May/June.) This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993.[49] This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.
Reuters:
Although the Social Security lockbox enjoyed a prominent place on the national
stage just eight years ago, it has since virtually disappeared from public
discourse. In fact, not a single Member of Congress signed onto lockbox
legislation during the 109th Congress (January 3, 2005 - January 3, 2007).
However, the 110th Congress is reconsidering lockbox legislation, with 20
Members already announcing their support and dozens more expected.
A Social Security lockbox would require the government to use surpluses
exclusively to pay future beneficiaries. Currently, all "surpluses" exist only
as IOU's on paper, while the actual money is received by the general treasury
and spent on everything from war to Hurricane Katrina's toxic trailers.
However, if the budget continues to operate in deficit as it is now, lawmakers
will have to reduce benefits, raise the retirement age, and/or raise taxes in
order to pay back those IOU's.
According to its Trustees, the Social Security Trust Fund is expected to be in
deficit by 2017 and bankrupt by 2041.
Sorry Nichole, I usually agree with what you say but you have to have better sources. Open Wikis and wire service articles are poor, and in this case, wrong, sources of information. Here is the real source.
The 2017 date is not when SS is "in deficit". That is the date when the SS taxes collected do not meet the payments committed to. Yeah, a deficit of a type but that is by design. There will be trillions in credit in the system (admittedly stolen by the general fund but an obligation within the national debt none the less).
The 2041 date is not when the system is "bankrupt" that is when the surplus that is currently being built up (and will continue to be built up until 2017) will be exhausted. At that time SS taxes collected will not meet the payments committed to, rather they will fall shy by about 20%.
Sorry to pick nits. We do agree (I think) that 1. the system isn't broken 2. the system is regressive and 3. as much as I'd like to make it more progressive (by indexing the rate like income taxes) or at least flater (by raising the cap), now is not the time to open this box of worms.
I concur with, sympathize and share the problems with you about work done in the family which has no recompense other than your sense of duty fulfilled.
I did my duty for years and have nothing in the bank or in my social security statement to show for it.
We need to address that as a society. But it is a separate issue.
That is not what I was talking about.
On those (rare) occasions when I have FICA wages, I have deductions, the employer matches those deductions. That amount is tallied next to my name at the SS administration.
I am also self employed, I pay both sides of the FICA amount, over 13%. That is also tallied to my name.
HOWEVER, those actual payments are used immediately for today's recipients.
Every generation pays for that era's recipients then and there. It is not a personal savings account it is only a tally next to my name, it is the same for all of us.
The original act (thinking off the top of my head) established the SS Trust Fund for excess payments.
It is not and was not intended to address any particular demographic curve.
That is something that will need to be addressed as we approach it.
The 'lockbox' was something that Al Gore came up without ever indicating what the hell he meant and he took a hit for it.
He really needs to back off this if his intention is to "reform" Social Security. The reform it needs is more benefits for seniors, not fewer, not less monthly income, not higher Medicare costs for less medical coverage.
If the Democrats want to see some angry citizens, just let them TOUCH SS, and watch the rocks fly.
"Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes."
I was wondering when it would start to sink in with all the Obamatons.
There is ONE party ruling this country and you ain't in it.
Obama has been showing his true colors this whole time, but none of his worshippers clued in.
Maybe it takes more time with some than with others.
... in the reflected and absorbed wisdom of wheyghey.
Got anything constructive to add?
Would you rather have McCain at the helm?
I'll pass.
This is what Webster Tarpley says about Obama. I take him seriously.
Here is part 2.
with the same seriousness that Sr. Tarpley is due. And do you know where I can get tinfoil at a discount?
your choice.
but tinfoil is the hat cover of choice for those of us who bask in the reflected glow of Lyndon LaR.
Zbingniew Brzezinski has a book called the "Grand Chessboard" that he wrote in the 90s. It outlines a plan where the US can claim hegemony over central asia, including Afghanistan. He was a senior advisor (read checker and handler) to the Obama campaign and most likely is still an advisor (read checker and handler).
Tarpley is a LaRouchian nutball, but Brzezinski's influence on Obama is real.
Z-big is a kinder gentler imperialist. He's not one of those PNAC "crazies" that goes off half-cocked. He's going to help run this empire real smart like.
We'll see.
Ah, we only have two choices who are very very similar. You do remember that there were many more choices before the idiot masses forced the two 50%+1 centrists on us.
Just clue in on this fact and stop supporting the triangulating center.
(I have worded this reply in terms a faithful partisan can understand.)
Just mindless terms like "Worshippers, Obamatons" etc. Amazingly, the conservative bloggers use the same terminology.
Dude, when I'm surrounded by people with Obama T-shirts, ballcaps, bottled water, energy drinks, cookies, and all sorts of hip cool Obama accessories, you think I might start calling these people Obamatons?
How many hip cool Obama accessories do you sport?
I live in about as liberal a bastion as you can in Texas and the closest I am to being surrounded is by Brownies selling Girl Scout cookies at the supermarket.
I personally think it's tacky to wear that shit...not to mention whoring for someone else....probably a Klansmen with a shirt shop.
Give me a call when you Democrats make anything better.
If you believe that "God is in the mix" then make him PAY THE FUCK UP!!!!
is the ninny who, in overreaction to a New York Times article, which was itself an overreaction to an Obama comment on Social Securtity and Medicare being essential to any effort to get a handle on federal spending, wrote this bakc in January:
"President-elect Obama apparently believes that the crisis brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble will require defaulting on the national debt."
He is an alarmist and those who cross post his dribble deserve scorn as do those of you who react to it.
That there might be improvements? Why does everyone assume this is akin to gutting it?
Why does everyone assume this is akin to gutting it?
The premise of the rumor is that the task force will be composed of people who favor this. I think it's premature to assume that, and even if it were true, this could easily be a red herring on Obama's part, designed to distract and satisfy center-right voters, without actually DOING anything to change Social Security.
for votes he might get nearly four years from now?
CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!!!
based on rumors and gossip from pointy headed professorial types.
.....in the change I have in my right front pocket.
the gold standard
The Mofo from Midland wanted to invest SS or FICA deductions in the stock market (ah, those market forces always know best).
Can you even imagine the mess if he had gotten away with this?
All I know is, if Obama plays the "Social Security reform" game, my guess is, he will serve one term and the winds of history will sweep him back to Chicago with his tail 'tween his legs.
is to improve benefits for people who rather desperately need it (as Ron points out) what exactly is the problem? I think Obama and the rest of the Democrats understand the apple pie nature of this program and I doubt if it is their intention to damage it at all. Politically it is like throwing raw meat in front of the Republicans. Let them make the loony suggestions to "improve" social security and see how that comes out in the polls. None of their previous suggestions seemed to work out all that well for them. On the plus side, if they can manage to improve benefits it will provide an additional economic stimulus for some very deserving people and the Republicans would be committing political suicide with the people that program serves.
The only change that needs to take place is the artificial limits imposed on the tax rate of ss,this can be done for medicare/medicaid as well. The cap is now 106,800$ Raise the cap, or better yet, doughnut hole the tax rate up to 106,800$ then a jump to 500,000$ to 1 million taxed. The program will never be insolvent.
If republicans really want to whine about taxing people making half a million a year let them. Let them TRY to tell the nation why taxing the rich is harmful for a program that benefits everyone.
Contrary to what only the far left and the far right believe (strange bedfellows), Obama is NOT an idiot. He's the smartest politician I've ever seen in the Oval Office. Don't assume that just because he makes noises about doing something, he's actually going to do it. This is a trick we've all seen the Republicans use for years, and as much as we hate it, it's a good trick.
1. Appointing a task force doesn't mean they're actually going to CHANGE anything. The first phase is usually to "study" the issue, which takes months. Then they argue for months over what recommendations to make. Then, any recommended changes have to get through Congress, which they never will if they're counter-productive. So, yes, touching the third rail is lethal, but he hasn't touched it. The rumor is that he'll appoint a task force to look at it. That would go a long way to silence the concerns of the public about whether Social Security is as efficient as it could possibly be, without necessarily doing anything to change it.
2. If they DO "reform" it, what makes you think they wouldn't reform it by making sure that only the people who actually NEED it will get it? As it is now, Bill Gates will be collecting a Social Security check when he turns 65. Wouldn't it be nice if they "reformed" Social Security, so that it was no longer funded exclusively through PAYROLL taxes, included some contributions from income and capital gains taxes, and didn't go to people with a retirement income above, say $50 000 per year?
WTF? Who is concerned about that? News to me.
When was that last reform that came out in OUR favor?
Well, I remember when George Jr. was trying to destroy Social Security, and the progressive crowd put up all those commercials about the plumber (oh the irony) coming in to fix the plugged drain by bulldozing the house. Then the text-over at the end says something like "you don't FIX something by destroying it."
So, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that message has resonance. The idea that there are people out there who think Social Security can be improved (and they're right), but we have to give them something to believe in besides the usual conservative false dichotomy about either leaving it the way it is, or privatizing it.
I even remember one of my comic heros, Bill Maher, mentioning on the Larry King show a few years ago "in this day and age, there MUST be some way to get a greater than 1% return on Social Security. I'm sure we can improve it, but destroying it is not the best way."
So, the next time there is a conservative assault on Social Security (and we all know there WILL be a next time), we can offer more than just the false dichotomy of either privatizing it or doing nothing.
What is wrong with 'fixing' Social Security if there are changes that would be beneficial? An example is the early retirement age. Almost 2/3s of recipients have opted for early SS benefits. We keep indexing the normal retirement age upwards and leaving early retirement fixed at 62. If we were to index early retirement along with regular retirement, our problems would be solved. Do the math..ask an actuary!
It aint rocket science and it wouldn't be devastating to anyone. As the economy and the markets have been trashed, I doubt that many folks can afford early retirement anymore anyway.
Handing over the Social Security trust funds to Wall Street would be a sight to see. Talk about a "stimulus" package.
I've been paying into it now for nearly 45 years, and I've been getting statements in the mail each year that give me an idea on how much I can expect my benifits to be.
Should the floor drop out on my security net, I, along with MILLIONS of other Americans who have been planning on SS are going to be in for a very rude awakening.
I have a 401K that has been sliced to death by the screwed economy, and if I now see the same thing happen to SS, I'm going to be on very upset American.
Let's just hope "taking a look at it" doesn't mean f*cking it up.
Raise the cap.
I keep saying when the baby boomer generation peaks and starts downward, won't that help the dire outlook? And if it's solvent for the next 40 years, I don't see too many baby boomers that are going to be wheeling around the place then.
Perhaps no-one is considering that BHO wants to uncap the taxes on income after $102,000 and place a "doughnut hole" to infuse new cash into the system.
I've heard many people say that the answer to the economy and to the SS fund is to lighten up on the payroll taxes for lower income people and their employers and increase the tax on higher incomes and "richer" corporations.
Who knows. It might work. All I know is that it would lower my tax burden and then I could go crazy with Keynesian spending.
Is to remove the cap completely, no doughnut hole, but at the same time reduce the payroll tax to 5% or so. Imediate benefit to lower income people and to companies, esp small companies. Those who make millions in salary will pay the rate on all thier salary.
"Word has it"? "Inside gossip"? What, no "rumor mill"? This sounds exactly like the rumors about Obama keeping Bush torture policy and Obama allowing the DOJ to remain in partisan hands. Rumors, I feel it fair to point out that had people hyperventilating and rumors that ultimately proved false. It's just uniformed, hysterical bullshit until I hear it from Obama and I feel no more inclined to trust Dean Baker's theories about what Obama policies may be in the future than I am to believe it from Rush Limbaugh. Relax. Breathe. Obama is NOT going to reform Social Security even though I'm sure the Republicans would very much like him to and the Village bloviators would very much like this to turn into an anti Obama backlash.
"Word has it"? "Inside gossip"? What, no "rumor mill"? This sounds exactly like the rumors about Obama keeping Bush torture policy and Obama allowing the DOJ to remain in partisan hands. Rumors, I feel it fair to point out that had people hyperventilating and rumors that ultimately proved false. It's just uniformed, hysterical bullshit until I hear it from Obama and I feel no more inclined to trust Dean Baker's theories about what Obama policies may be in the future than I am to believe it from Rush Limbaugh. Relax. Breathe. Obama is NOT going to reform Social Security even though I'm sure the Republicans would very much like him to and the Village bloviators would very much like this to turn into an anti Obama backlash.
I am sure you will be roundly crticized since those Kool Aid packets you have been saving do not have a tinfoil liner you can use when they begin bombarding you with radio signals to distract you from the demise of Social Security.
"If they DO "reform" it, what makes you think they wouldn't reform it by making sure that only the people who actually NEED it will get it?"
This has always been the most obvious bafflement imho. Wasn't the original intention of SS to keep retirees from the worst deprivation?
For those with no other retirement provision. Honestly who would need SS on $50,000 a year while all generations behind suffer like dogs on stagnant wages? I have never understood such cramming of wealth to those who will live a helluva lot longer than those paying for it.
My own mother never worked a day in her life although able bodied and double dipped SS from two husbands.
for allowing herself to be bought off by this entitlement pyramid scheme in which the vast majority share a common brother/sisterhood in government dependency.
And what ever happened to until death us do part? Of course, if your father was the second of those two husbands I am sure you disagree with me.
You show your right wing roots there my little erstwhile friend.
See my post on the social contract above and hope when you are old and infirm that there is something there for you.
are you going to develop a sense of humor to go with your good sense?
from me. My mother was a difficult person who shook every dime out of every pocket. Dad is a castiron thug. He's 92 and drives around in his mercedes with a rum & coke between his legs.
I am afraid cast iron wasn't in my dad's gene distribution. The rum and coke did him in.
received a ton of flack back in the 70's for mentioning what Obama brought up here. The fantastic amount of money that pours out for equipment surgeries and meds on those of very advanced age.
And the implication of how many just plain do without. Including those who are vital and raising families doing without.
If we haven't noticed which sector of the population is dropping like flies, it is the children of the above "saved".
Unless they can afford retail for that emergency or lose their homes or get dragged into court or ruin their functioning through bankruptcy.
Totally punitive.
the long term care industry.
I'm for even distribution. LTC is a product of our society, just as the plethora of psychologists bloom when people don't have any decent friends to talk to.
Elderly who can afford LTC usually can because they can afford expensive insurance premiums. They have no business sucking up SS funds.
They never are required to give anything back to society even tho their demand for resources seem to be some sort of unmentionable given. "At what cost" is never asked and "to whom" does this cost fall.
Real story comes to mind: a 43 year old homeless woman with breast cancer is photographed in her car, in an alley, as cancer drugs flowed down the tube of an IV through the car window in the rich town of Boulder, CO. She was given a bed to die in one week before her death. That was 5 years ago.
Generations following this cushed-out bunch might hope for a quick and efficient demise.
Not that you meant it this way, but personally I take great offense at calling providing care for the elderly and disables an "industry." I can't believe we're still using Orwellian REAGANSPEAK after 30 years.
I was referencing the for profit long term care facilities set up by such caring entities as the Marriott Hotel chain and others who see the aging boomer generation as a "profit" center. I take offense at some things, but I mostly take amusement at those who take "great" offense at words which can mean one thing to them and another thing to those who uttered them.
You must be SO proud.
Till he takes out a family in a mini-van.
Maybe he is just giving them something to do to keep them busy and away from where they can do harm-he doesn't have to adopt all or any resolution a task force comes up with.
Babyboomers need to lower their retirement expectations. The younger generations lack the rescources and numbers to support the retirements that Babyboomers dream of. It really is a choice for the younger generations between feeding their own children or allowing their parents to spend their golden years vacationing. I have no problem with putting the parents up in the spare bedroom. I have huge issues with them vactioning in Mexico; while my kids do with out healthcare.
you assume it is either/or. The rest of the industrialized world manages to do both quite nicely.
.."managed." The times, they are a changin' ....
with ease, common sense and decency many countries provide and manage it as the right thing to do for ALL.
We should be saying how ALL of it's fucked up in the u.s. with unexamined outdated stupified visionless factioned separation of rich & poor. So we now have a pile of spacejunk that passes for provisions.
SS is the least of our problems? All of it is a non-functioning pile of unworkable irrational shards. The u.s. is more than ugly.
....that according to the rumor mill, the gossip is that Obama is going to start eating babies for breakfast every day but Saturday, when he'll have bacon. Why get so apoplectic over a rumor? If Axlerod or Emanuel or Gibbs or Obama himself mentions a Social Security task force, then I'd be inclined to believe it but so far there has been nothing from the administration about it. Not one peep. I can't understand why such a rumor would even be posted here. I haven't commented at Crooks and Liars for a long, long time but this promted me to sign up for an account to weigh in. So if Amato's goal was to sign more people up, then mission accomplished. If he really believes what Dean Baker says, then I rather doubt I'll be commenting here much in the future.
has another "alarming" rumor based article linked above.
I'm thinking PUMA - why else would anyone push this total crap if not to stir FUD where there is nothing?
until I remembered that even a secret Muslim would not eat bacon.
Unless it is tofu bacon. That could explain why he won't put on weight.
..but I have this odd notion that Social Security is the least of our worries right now! And, for full disclosure, I'll be 61 yrs old in about 3 weeks, and I'm not concerned bout collecting next year...I'm concerned about having shelter and food - and, somehow, I think more of you should be.
Several countries have gone bankrupt, and a few more are close. A bunch of Eastern European economies are on the verge of collapse. And, our own stinking banking system is all but defunct. We're about to "spend" $800 billion of new "funny money" on top of the trillions we've already spent on stupid wars and bailouts of robber barons on Wall Street.
Let us try not to be distracted. Time to focus on what is about to transpire - the collapse of our financial system....
The population is aging faster than people like that octopussy woman can produce. There will be more people on Social Security, than people working to pay. Those working and paying, won't be paying in as much, because service sector jobs don't pay squat. So this is tied directly to the borrowing and repayment of the debt. In the not too distant future, governments worldwide are going to be looking at social services everywhere, to skim down on spending. They'll have to.
...your comment would make perfect sense. I know that my generation was spawned by all those horny GI's coming home from war.
What I'm trying to tell you is that the entire, global economy is about to crash - so, there's no need to be worrying about how to fund Social Security going forward.
We need to focus on the crumbling economies, the world over, and how we'll deal with the civil and global unrest that will follow.
This is an Addendum to my comment: everyone here seems to think that we'll be living in the same kind of world after the economy crashes as we have been for the past 50 years. Once capitalism and fiat money, as we know it, is gone - that will not be the case.
I agree totally. I suspect those cheering so loudly for Obama now, will not be so cheery when the fiscal reality finally comes home to roost. You are right, it is the end of this economic era. What will replace it, is yet to be seen, but I'm sure it isn't going to even resemble the past few decades at all.
raise taxes.
Oh yes we will, and not on low income workers, we're going to raise the cap, maybe with a "doughnut hole," maybe raise the cap to $125,000, then put in a $200,000 gap, and then recap to the last penny. It's about time the notion of what constitutes a fair share of the cost of life in the USA is recast. Reagan made himself the tool of the would-be kleptocracy, and it's time to kick his guilded shibboleths to the curb.
Mr Amato asked:
=====================================
John Amato: If Obama touches the third rail of politics, he is truly clueless. How did that work out for Bush? I really don't get it.
=====================================
I'll splain it for ya -
1. Obama is NOT left wing. Never was never will be.
2. This kind of a fishing expedition does two things: one, it gets the Rethugs all creamy in their shorts thinking they're going to "kill SS" and turn that wealth over to their plutocratic buddies. when the fishing expedition FAILS, the Rethugs get hung out to dry as beign the extremists they are.
3. If it DOES (by some miracle) come up with an idea to EXPAND SS, then Obama gets to say "thanks" and clip that idea and stick it in some legislation.
4. There's a good possibility that this kind of thing just fizzles into nothingness, so he gets to say "We looked into it"
It's a feint, a distraction, some red meat for the red state douchebags.
If it isn't, then Obama will be in the process of scuttling the last vestige of security for the American Worker. But, as I said: he's no leftist...
than they were when we beat the crap out of Bush. If the "Task Force" comes up with the wrong answer, they will be beaten like a rug, just like Bush was.
Of course, Bush was stupid and went out without any kind of a plan, and as a result, we all got a lot of practice in laughing at the lies. I think we should have a little faith in our own power.
And we need to make sure Tom Geoghegan sits in that IL-5 seat, he's out in front that the 401-K retirement is a huge scam, and if corporations are going to kill off fixed-benefit pensions, we have to bulk up Social Security or generations following the boomers will retire to poverty the likes of which we haven't seen since Social Security was passed.
It all falls down, just as in the depression of the 30's, many won't feel it but most of us will. Less complicated. I would like this to be over.
what decent person wouldn't decline SS as their portion back to upcoming generations just as upcoming generations contribute up.
The ones reaping so many benefits now don't forget, were also given homes, retraining and college educations after WWII. They love america right or wrong. No problem here....
....Then ask one of our current day troops how honored and well-respected they feel as they gear up for their 4th breathless tour now into Afghanistan. For the thousands homeless, ask them how those benefits are flowing their way.
have no other means at all aside from their SocSec checks, and some of them get that money because they're orphaned or disabled, nothing to do with retiring. My 87 year old pop lives on SocSec and a teacher's pension, and believe me, he is not rolling in excess dough. And he's a WWII vet.
"So many" benefits? Keereyest!
raise the cap...all income gets covered under ss
get rid of taxes on cigs....let us smokers die early
i just solved all the problems
make me king
Is raising tax on beer 1900%!!!!
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021...
Crowned.
But what about all the fatties O is setting up as the newly scorned?
They should definitely be denied those billions in healthcare. Who, which group can we all get behind with enough venom to distract from just how fucked up this country is.
No, smokers should continue to be shagged. Let's keep them as a necessary scapegoat for societal pressures.
Mexicans too. Um, who else..this is a real opportunity.
is going to be a very busy man. Don't know where he's going to find the time to even discuss Social Security, when he will be once again attempting the bipartisan approach to the next economic stimulus bill in the spring or summer. It too will be at least as big as the one just passed. They have no alternative.
State and local governments face a shortfall of some 400 billion in finances, just to keep the status quo without layoffs and cuts to programs. The Stimulating Bill only replaces approx. 140 billion of those funds. Not enough. Stay tuned to Stimulus Bill The Sequel coming soon to Washington.
he needs to support a task force to reform the defense department.
Any chance this is like all the hoopla surrounding the Fairness Doctrine -- only on the Democratic side?
I mean, whatever you think of Obama and the people he's surrounded himself with, it's not like they're the Concord Coalition
Dubya thought he had a ton of capital after the 2004 elections. He thought he had the clout he wanted to mess with Social Security.
He didn't. And from that moment onward, it was all downhill from there.
It wasn't Iraq that began his downfall. It wasn't Katrina. Those came later. It was his attempt to ruin Social Security that became The Beginning Of The End for the Bush administration.
Hopefully Obama will take note of that. Otherwise, his fate will be the same.
As a boomer who just lost 30% of his retirement, set up through 401 plans devised by the federal government, and who expects to have to work until 75 before full retirement, let me suggest to Mr. Obama that the 66 percent popularity will rot in hell once he tries to welch on our Social Security.
You presume this is a done deal. I presume you are very foolish.
Raising the cap on Social Security's taxable income is probably the worst of all possible options.
The tax increase on small business owners would be huge. In states with high state tax rates, like California, small business owners could start hitting the 65% tax rate very quickly.
65% ????
How's that again?
[[65% ????]]
Combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate for a self-employed business owner = 15.30%
Top marginal California State rate on taxable income over approx. 45K = 9.3%
Top marginal Federal income tax rate now = 35%
Total = 59.6%
IF Obama returns to the Clinton era top rate of 39.6%, as he has promised to do, and IF he also lifts the cap on paying S.S. and Medicare taxes, then self-employed business owners in the State of California would be taxed at 64.2% on taxable income over Obama's threshold for the 39.6% Federal tax rate.
I'm gonna keep ringing this bell until you all come to dinnah wit' me. The reason Democrats generally and Obama specifically keep doing these "bizarre" things ("reform" social security; support the virtual repeal of FISA protections such as they were; vote for the Iraq Occupation over and over again; "impeachment is off the table"; etc, etc, etc) is because they only exist to represent liberal/progressive values BADLY. If they weren't there to do this you people might get up and start an ACTUAL movement for progressive change. Just think of it, ordinary people forcing the federal government to respond to their needs, congressmen forced to represent the true values of their constituents... IT'D BE MADNESS!
Enter the Dems to step in front of your parade and call it their own. Enter Obama to step in front of the nation and convince us all that he embodies the loose, disorganized disenchantment we all felt under Bush. Leave the job to us, they say. You agree to this and they sell you down the river for a bag of beans. They lose on purpose and split the loot with the Repugs while you're not looking.
"Now shut up and go shopping, you silly Utopian leftist idiot, while grown folks are talking. I've got a cushy consultancy to negotiate."
-ep
Elites in Washington and on Wall Street are arguing that billions needed to bail out banks, can be recovered by looting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A powerful array of think tanks, media, foundations, billionares are lined up to arrange for eldery pay for the bailout. This not a change I am looking for at the age of 66.
Where I live in Springfield, Mass....they just get on Disability or their kids. The Social security office looks like a daycare center. Dont have kids if your gonna force someone else to pay for them!
Sure we need to reform social security. Here are some suggestions:
1. Raise the cap. Time for some sacrifice that is truly shared.
2. Bridge the gap. That's the difference between what we boomers would have gotten from our now decimated (some would say looted, others would say gambled away) private retirement accounts and the present schedule of Social Security benefits. Circumstances have changed.
3. Replace Medicare for the old with Medicare for all. It's about economies of scale, stupid.
plembo's got it right!
"why this task force is strange is that Social Security doesn't need reforming. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 40 years with no changes whatsoever."
The problem is that every extra penny in the SS fund has been "invested" in T-bills. That's a nice way of saying it isn't there anymore. The only way SS stays afloat is when there are more people paying into it than taking out of it. That will change very soon if the 15% unemployment climbs above 20%.
When repigs talk about reforming SS they really mean they want to get rid of it. A good way of curing the patient is killing it according to them.
What really needs to happen is remove the cap on salary earnings and extend personal FICA taxes to cover non salary earnings. I don't care if the fat cats make $1 in salary and $10 million in bonus, it all needs to be taxed. The surplus from that could go to fund national health care. Something every other first world nation has.
Although I am in favor of the stimulus package that Obama has cast upon us (not sure entirely what it is comprised of), I feel that he brought it out too soon without checking with whom these funds will land in the hands of. Look at what happened when the interest rates were lowered years before. The greedy and the corrupt found a way to suck it all in. Our society has become corrupt. Certain groups of people are making way too much money way too fast and way too easy. Thereby bringing the cost of everything up and the greedy having a ball with it. How much food can one person consume in one day? How many cars does one person need to get somewhere? How many houses do you need to sleep in? Etc., etc., etc. Too much - too fast. This is the result of our poor economy. That is only one aspect of it. We were fine until the Europeans introduced us to outsourcing. A way to save money for the greedy. How about the politicians that are in-play presently. They practically are all liars, cheats, dishonest and out for themselves. Why aren’t more citizens standing up and challenging the corruption that lives in our society? Why are so many people just sitting there and reading our words? Get up and do something before it is too late. You might loose your job. Your wife might loose her job. Your parents might loose their job. Your daughter, your son, your grandchildren will loose their jobs. You will loose your house, your car. My name is Josephine and I am the founder of www.LeapforPatientSafety.org. Please visit our website. Our focus is the corruption that lives in healthcare. What a disgrace? Please start by considering to add your name and comments to the “Improvement in Quality of Patient Care Petition” http://www.petitiononline.com/patients/petiti... and help protect the good healthcare professional that cares about you and can help you feel better. Many thanks.
jccicchi@yahoo.com
Login or Register to post comments.