Social Security reforms could be bombshell for House GOP

[ProSense]

Source: The Hill

Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, and led some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes

While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.

“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/128903-social-security-reforms-a-potential-bombshell-for-new-gop-house-majority

---

Deficit Reduction Plan Draws Scorn From Left and Right

[katandmoon]

1. Puts REPUGS in a tough positions?! So why *DID* Obama appoint Simpson/Bowles of all people to head

the Cat Fud Commission? They are both noted SS foes.

That is not a rhetorical question. I have asked it repeatedly because I want to know. But so far -- crickets.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

9. Yeah

He coulda been like me and told them all to go f themselves.
And now be broke, unemployed and damn near helpless.

But Nooooo, he's the friggin President!!

How did he do that? By telling to go f themselves? Nope.
He kissed ass and played the game.

[Scurrilous]

13. Did I take a wrong turn and wind up in Freeperville? n/t

[Kolesar]

15. Don't mind him, it's just the "airplane glue" talking...eom

[dionysus]

30. !!!!!!

:spray:

[NeoConsSuck]

23. You still don't understand this 3 dimensional chess thingy

Obama appointed them so middle class voters can finally see how anti-middle class the repubs are. Then when Obama implements their recommendations, the middle class goes ballistic and never votes another republican into office again. Mere mortals like you & I can never expect to see the chessboard like Obama does.

Seriously, my take on your question is Obama appointed them because he is a corporatist, he was never a progressive, and we were fools to think he was. He takes his marching orders from the same people the republicans do.

I like Krugman's take on this commission:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&hpw

[katandmoon]

24. Thank you. I agree but I'm still waiting for ProSense to weigh in.

[CurtEastPoint]

2. Would raising the cap, currently at 106,800 take care of it?

I found this LTTE (apparently) which asks what I ask:

The 2010 cap on Social Security wages is $106,800. That means individuals who earn more than that amount of wages no longer have to pay 6.2 percent Social Security for the rest of the year.

So, imagine being CEO of, say, Wells Fargo. John Stumpf, received compensation worth $21.3 million for last year, according to materials filed with U.S. regulators. That means Lucky John paid into Social Security with only part of his very first check. And despite his company receiving a huge bailout, this man and many others like him contribute virtually nothing of their salary into the Social Security system.

In contrast, most people I know never come close to reaching the yearly maximum. In fact, most people aren't even aware there is a maximum.

Is it fair that middle and lower class workers have to pay 6.20 percent of their entire year's earnings into a system that allows someone like John to pay a percentage that doesn't even register significant digits? With Well Fargo paying dividends of less than 1 percent annually on savings accounts, I think people like John can surely help out by paying into Social Security in the same proportion that most of his customers contribute.

Larry Hoffman

Grass Valley

[ProudDad]

7. Yes... (n/t)

[Jim Lane]

20. It depends

Right now your Social Security benefit is based on the wages that were taxed. (For each year of your life, the wages you earned then are carried forward to the current equivalent as of your retirement. The best 35 years are then the basis for your benefit.)

If Lucky John is taxed on his full $21.3 million, then, when he retires, his Social Security check will be gargantuan.

So, if those newly taxed wages are included in the benefit computation, the drawback is that some retirees draw Social Security checks that seem disproportionately high. On the other hand, if they're excluded, and Lucky John pays taxes on $21.3 million but the year is credited (as it is now) as only $106,800, then Social Security looks less like social insurance and more like redistributive welfare. Each of these options has drawbacks.

As of a few years ago, when the numbers were crunched (I think by the Social Security Administration) in the course of analyzing alternatives, eliminating the cap but not paying the higher benefits would eliminate the entire projected shortfall. Eliminating the cap but paying the corresponding benefits still eliminated a good chunk of the projected shortfall, something like 75% IIRC. Of course, these numbers have probably gotten worse because of the subsequent recession, but that's the general picture.

[eridani]

26. That could be fixed by a cap on benefits that 90% of recipents would never notice n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

34. There is actually nothing to take care of.

SS is solvent under the most pessimistic scenario for the next 29 years. 25 years from now 'raising the cap' might be justified, if in fact we have not grown or inflated our way out of this supposed problem.

John Stumpf should be paying higher income taxes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. It will be interesting to see how this plays out

The big question for me is how willing President Obama and Democrats are to possibly accept the commission's ultimate findings and vote for them. Although I'm not as worried as some people are about President Obama and/or the Democrats in Congress embracing any draconian measures regarding Social Security (among other things), I do wonder why Obama pressed so hard for this commission to be created. I hope that it was more of a strategic move to get out in front of the Republicans on the issue of the deficit and force the Republicans into potentially taking a massively unpopular vote on the deficit commission's recommendations. :shrug:

[Action]

17. Why the commission

Obama wanted someone to come up with ideas in a bipartisan way.
This was one way to do it. 2050? I'll be dead by then.

[ProudDad]

4. Since us old fuckers who have to live on Social Security

don't have to piss away our days on "day jobs"...

We have plenty of time to make the congresscritter's lives a living hell if they fuck with our money!

Good luck, fuckers... :nuke:

[Plucketeer]

8. I'm with ya there!

:kick:


GOP JOBS PLAN

[lovuian]

6. yes they won't be reelected if they mess with

social security

[The Uncola]

10. Bullpucky.

It'll end up being blamed on the Hippies and Professional Left, just like every other major fuckup we fought to try and stop.

meh

[SemperEadem]

12. exactly

even those who are on it will vote against their own interests if it means that the socialist nazi muslim goes down in defeat while they dig into their open tin of little friskies.

[pnorman]

11. George W. Bush Reveals His Biggest Failure Was Not Privatizing Social

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/george-w-bush-reveals-his_n_772209.html

[Dave From Canada]

14. The retirement age isn't going to be raised till 2050. What's the big deal?

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Well, if you were five like me

you'd be worried.

[eridani]

27. The big deal is that the current economy has decimated the lifetime incomes

--of people just starting out. And now those ratfuckers want to impoverish them in old age. Life expectancy for low income women is already DECREASING.

[Dave From Canada]

29. Wrong. Just because the economy is bad now, doesn't mean it's going to be bad for the next 50 years

[eridani]

37. No, but all evidence available indicates that people starting their careers

--in a fucked economy will never, ever catch up. By the time the economy improves, it will be too late for them. And the economy will indeed be bad for 50 years if we don't get some serious demand going by reversing the flow of income to the top. The current administration shows no signs of doing that, and the Repukes sure the hell won't.

[ProudDad]

38. In 40 years it will be worse...

MUCH worse...

The Long Emergency...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency

We're just seeing the beginning of it...

[Warren Stupidity]

35. why should it be raised at all?

It is a big deal as it is a benefit cut. We should be finding ways to LOWER the retirement age, not raise it.

[StarburstClock]

18. Current propaganda dictates that we must enact "austerity measures"

to pay for all the financial fraud of criminal banks or else we'll have "chaos"! The entire paradigm is a fraud. We should double Social Security, enact universal health care, get out of 2 criminal wars, prosecute war criminals and start enforcing regulations for the 1st time in 30 years. If we don't, nothing changes, it can't.

[Octafish]

31. Double-plus Good Kick and All

Every word, except I'd triple SS payments. In addition to kick-starting the economy, it would improve the quality of life of many millions of Americans.

Hey! A most hearty welcome to DU, StarburstClock!

[SidDithers]

19. K&R...nt

Sid

[4dsc]

21. "not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit"

enough said. This should be said be every democratic party member in the coming year.

[cstanleytech]

22. Gotta love it how the repubs risk being fried either way because

if they vote no to it the the dems can use it in 2012 to hammer them about not being truthful or honest in wanting to cut spending and if they vote yes then alot of the voting public will not be happy with them where as the danger to the dems as a party is minimal no matter what they do almost as long as the majority of the dems dont support it.

[defendandprotect]

25. Depends on how much cover Obama gives them.... it's Obama's commission....

[sarcasmo]

28. We need jobs you A$$hats, stop talking about Social Security and create good paying jobs.

[TomCADem]

32. This Is What I Am Talking About. Don't Give Republicans A Free Pass!

[high density]

33. OK Dems, time to learn the "NO" word, just like we've seen the Republics doing for years.

Thanks so much.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. dont' hold your breath