Traficant proposed this in 1999. Good idea or no? You decide.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

Congressman Traficant introduces Constitution Amendment protecting Social Security and Medicare

Traficant's resolution would amend the Constitution by requiring that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds be held in separate and independent trust funds segregated from all other moneys controlled by the federal government. The measure stipulates that the money in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds can only be spent on Social Security and Medicare.

I tend to think this amendment should have been passed. I think that it is wrong to spend SS and medicare funds on anything else besides ensuring stability of SS and Medicare. I don't care what new program people want to spend it on I think that if someone pays money into SS and medicare that they should have a guarantee that money will not be touched.

What do you think?

[ShaneGR]

1. Being from NE Ohio, I think he was a criminal

I personally know one guy who was forced to clean horse stalls and pay off part of his check every month in order to get a job with Trafficant. He set new standards and I'm glad he's gone. Whoever those asshat New Jersey people drafting him for President are, they must be Republicans.

[Bandit]

2. It is pretty tough to get a constitutional ammendment passed.

Make it law but not part of the constitution. IMO It is a way for him to look like a man who cares while knowing all along it would never pass a three quarter vote by every state and Congress. It's an easy out. If he was serious he would have proposed a normal bill requiring these things. Majority rule might pass that.

[goobergunch]

3. FULL TEXT (fairly long)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The moneys of the United States held for purposes of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program and the hospital insurance program maintained under the Social Security Act and related laws of the United States as in effect on or after the date of the ratification of this article, or any other similar programs subsequently maintained under the laws of the United States, shall be held in separate and independent trust funds and shall be segregated from all other moneys of the United States. The receipts and disbursements of such programs (including revenues dedicated to such programs) shall not be included in any budget totals set forth in the budget of the United States Government as prepared by the President or any budget prepared by the Congress. The Congress may make no law authorizing the use of such trust funds for any purpose other than for providing for the prompt and effective payment of benefits, payment of administrative expenses, and payment of such amounts as may be necessary and appropriate to correct prior incorrect payments. No agency or instrumentality of the United States, or any officer or employee thereof, may use or authorize the use of such trust funds for any purpose other than as authorized by the Congress in accordance with this article.'.

ON EDIT: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hj40ih.txt.pdf

[papau]

4. Pointless - Real only if it, forces them to invest in non-gov securities

otherwise the investing of Trustfund investments in gov securities makes as much sense and provides enough security of funds.

But no one ever said Traficant had a brain under that mop of hair.

An equivalent amendment would be to require Congress pass and the President sign FIT increases as needed to fund SS benefit checks when payroll taxes in any given year are not enough. And that is the equivalentof the effect of investing in gov bonds when payroll taxes exceed benefit payments, and then saying that the SS assets can be used for nothing else.

This current system has nothing wrong with it and does not need to be fixed - the actuary's project no problem until 2043 - if the money being being stolen now to finance the tax cut for the rich is repaid by the rich via the government buying back the bonds being given the SS system today in lieu of the stolen money.

Of course the money needed to buy back those bonds will require a tax increase for the rich - and THAT IS THE BUSH CRISIS.

Stealing the money now is ok with the right wing GOP - but raising rich folks taxes in 2018 so as to pay it back is a CRISIS that requires lower SS benefits - perhaps hidden by setting up individual accounts for a further rip off of the SS payroll taxes via investment fees to Bush friends.

There will not be lower SS benefits needed until beginning in 2043 - but only then in relation to what is in current law - and no need for any reductions prior to 2043. And the 2043 reduction is easily understood as increasing the normal reitrement age for full benefits to age 70 - meaning retirement at 62 will involve 3 more years of "reduction for early reitirement - or 30% less benefits than under current law at age 62" - BUT AGAIN NOT NEEDED UNTIL YEAR 2043 - and no way to avoid this reduction by game playing changes now.

ALL the fixes proposed will not eliminate the 30% reduction - unless SS funds are invested in non-gov bonds - and those investments do well. And for this we do not need individual accounts - and hell - we do not want individual accounts as that just means that the reduction could be more than 30% as the government moves the investment risk off of its books and off of its back and onto the backs of the folks depending on SS payments. And if the intermediate set of assumptions are low, and praise God better economic results occur between now and 2043, NO REDUCTIONS WILL EVER BE NEEEDED!

The GOP con that the media seems so happy to sell to us is just that - a con. Ask any Actuary. - As in email or DU mail me if you need details as I am an Actuary.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

5. We would not be in such a jam

and have to increase FIT if we would just stop spending that money. That money belongs to seniors.

[camero]

6. The best way to protect it.

Is to means test it. The program was originally started to keep seniors out of poverty and we have it being treated as if the government were a bank.

Wealthy people drawing SS raises my ire because they already can pay for the costs of thier retirement.

You say everyone pays into the system, so they should get benefits?
Hogwash, we all pay into the school systems and not all of us have children. We pay because when we have an educated populace, most of the time we have a more informed populace.

We can treat SS and Medicare the same way. Besides, we all know that there is no lockbox despite what the pols say.

Also, we should eliminate the caps on SS taxes.