Bleak Outlook for Social Security...you voted for change, you got it

[jtown1123]

http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1347

Voting for Change – But What Kind?
By NCPSSM | November 3, 2010

We can’t help but think of the old saying that goes “be careful what you wish for…you may just get it.”

A frustrated American electorate went to the polls and, as historically happens in midterm elections, voted out the party in power in the US House and even shifted the balance in the Senate. So, we’ve spent the morning looking at what this shift potentially means for America’s seniors. Specifically, what do these newly elected members say about Social Security and Medicare? The answer is, to put it mildly, discouraging:

“Social security is a bad investment…you could probably do no worse sticking your money under your mattress…let young working people opt out, the sooner the better, let ‘em opt out and get a better investment.” Rand Paul, KY Senator-elect

“I have been arguing for many years in favor of Social Security personal retirement accounts.” Pat Toomey, PA Senator-elect. In Toomey’s book, the first subhead under the “Transforming Social Security” chapter is “Personal Accounts Lead to Personal Prosperity.”

“Social Security, whether we want it to or not, in its current form cannot survive and will not exist for us…”I do think the retirement age issue is going to have to be confronted…The other is giving people the option of taking some of their Social Security money, at least a potion thereof, and investing it in an alternative to the Social Security system itself.” Marco Rubio, FL Senator-elect
And that’s just in the Senate. In the House, long-time Social Security advocate and chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, Earl Pomeroy, was defeated by conservative Rick Berg. Pomeroy was the House sponsor of legislation to provide COLA relief to seniors and was expected to be considered by the House this month. That legislation is now unlikely to get any attention in this new climate on Capitol Hill. His replacement, Congressman-elect Berg, opposes raising the payroll tax, reducing benefits, increasing the retirement age, or privatizing Social Security but proposes allowing oil and gas drilling in National Parks as a way to raise revenues for Social Security.

“There’s a huge opportunity right now to take those mineral assets that are on the federal government’s balance sheet and shift them to Social Security.” Congressman-elect Rick Berg, R-N.D
It’s unlikely that drilling in National Parks will be seen as a serious option for funding Social Security; however, COLA relief legislation is definitely a serious issue for millions of seniors facing the second year in a row with no cost of living increase.

And let’s not forget that the President’s fiscal commission has clearly targeted Social Security for benefit cuts, an increase in the retirement age (which is just another form of benefit cut), indexing or countless other mix-and-match reforms using Social Security funds to balance the federal books. The commission’s proposal, if there is one, will be presented to a lame duck Congress next month. That means many of the pro-Social Security advocates defeated at the polls yesterday–members who are literally packing up their offices–may have to cast one last vote on their way out of town. It’s a vote that could change Social Security forever.

Share|Topics: Social Security, entitlement reform, fiscal commission | 1 Comment »

[no limit]

1. Change you can believe in indeed

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Not the kind of change I can believe in.

:puke: Thanks Obama, thanks for the partisan catfood commission BS. :puke:

[tabatha]

6. Obama did not say what this jerk said.

I predict nothing will be done on SS before 2012, but there will be lots of noise and fighting and the voters will see who is on their side and who is not.

[caty]

8. I agree.

I don't see anything except a lot of infighting among the repubs and the teabaggers. Nothing that will help the middle class will be accomplished.

[no limit]

17. So why did Obama waste money on this commission if he wasn't going to listen to it?

[TheWraith]

28. For fuck's sake, the commission hasn't said WORD ONE YET.

And yet people go around talking like it's solely meant to kill Social Security, and has the power to do it. Complete with snarky labels like "catfood commission," which is fearmongering bullshit to rival "death panels."

[countrydad58]

30. Maybe why the pessimism is so high

is because the comm. is full of SS Haters!

[no limit]

31. Are you aware of who is on the panel? The fact they havent said A WORD YET is by design

they weren't going to say anything before elections. Why do you think that is?

[Hannah Bell]

36. no, they're waiting until everyone's busy with christmas to say their word & get their vote.

[sabrina 1]

40. So, you haven't been following Alan Simpson's (co-chair of the Commission's)

remarks on what they plan to do? They certainly have said, far more than, one word on SS. None of it good.

And who in their right mind appointed that Republican anti-SS fraud to head a Democratic Commission on the Deficit?

[earth mom]

41. Sounds like you are looking forward to many tasty cat food dinners.

:puke:

[countrydad58]

43. Well I Guess today

that crow in your mouth,must be tasty!

[sabrina 1]

9. A Commission he was against as a candidate.

In a debate with Hillary he dismissed her proposal to appoint commissions by stating that their only function was to do an end-run around Congress's authority to openly deal with these issues, allowing Commissions to make recommendations then forcing Congress into a vote on THEIR recommendations.

Then he changed his mind.

And now he should disband it because they refused to do this dirty work before the election so that the vote on the Commission's recommendations would come when they didn't have to show the public whose side they are on.

This was one of the worst strategic decisions made by the leadership of this party.

Since he made the mistake of appointing this Commission to begin with, their recommendations should have been forced to a vote BEFORE the election. Republicans would have HAD to reveal their intentions for SS and Democrats could have used it as a #1 issue in the campaign.

Now, all Repubs have to do is to say that this was the Democrats' Commission and the SS proposals will be included in an 'overall package' to reduce the deficit. We already heard what Hollins had to say when asked if he would vote against any messing with SS. He refused to answer directly, saying 'we will have to consider the WHOLE package'. So, it looks like they were all in on it. Either that or Democrats are the worst chess players ever.

Who is advising this president?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. +1

[Ikonoklast]

13. You realize those votes will not have the force of law behind them, right?

Any recommendations coming from ANY committee of any kind outside of Congress do not get passed as a law, only as a "Sense of the Congress" vote.


Any proposed legislation coming out of this committee must be sent to hearings, debated, etc., just like every other proposed piece of legislation voted on by Congress.

People here pushing the meme that somehow any recommendations coming from that commission are going to instantly become law, are not being truthful.

[no limit]

15. The commission was set up by the white house

Any recommendations they make are on behalf of the white house. And the only reason they won't become law is because the president failed to get the republicans on board for their own proposal.

So this bullshit that the president is not responsible for this commission is just that, bullshit.

[Ikonoklast]

20. It also needs 14 of 18 votes on any issue to even get out of the committee.

So, no matter what happens, the White House is responsible.

Gotcha.

Yes, the Deficit Commission was set up by Executive Order.

Yes, the Republican Party voted against it.


And, yes, if any recommendation doesn't get 14 out of 18 votes, it doesn't ever get anywhere. Congress will never see it.

And it still won't instantly become law.

[no limit]

23. Yes, I'm glad you agree. The white house is responsible

They chose the people on this commission. So when they made the majority of the members Republicans and blue dog Democrats (such as Kent Conrad and Max Baucus) that was their design. They are responsible for it.

[Ikonoklast]

24. And the Senate Republicans voted against having it.

They see it as a trap, and any vote taken for or against the recommendations being used against them.

[no limit]

25. What does that have to do with anything?

You are telling me that the president is wasting millions of dollars of tax payer money for something that doesn't matter in anyway? And the reason he appointed conservatives to have a majority on this commission was because the republicans were going to vote against it anyway?

Give me a break.

[sabrina 1]

32. That's when they were in the minority. I'm sure they were very

happy to see Alan Simpson on that Commission, and Grover Norquist advising it, not to mention all the other Republicans both on the Commission and advising it. They haven't said much about it at all. Objecting to it was just part of the game they play. Now, and especially since there are only a couple of what might be called, Progressives on the Commision, the rest on the Dem. side are mostly Conservative, you can count on the proposals being 'austerity' measures aimed at the working class. And you can also count on Republicans basing any legislation on deficit reduction on those recommendations.

This was a huge mistake as far as the American people are concerned.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Really? You've seen the recommendations already?

I will tell you this...if this country does not get its financial house in order, and I mean in the immediate future, Social Security going out the window will be the least of our worries, as the economy implodes under a crushing debt burden and the money becomes worthless.

That is the reality of the situation.

[sabrina 1]

35. Really? And exactly how would cutting SS benefits help

this situation? Since SS had nothing to do with the deficit? I really want to see this. Hard to believe that people have not informed themselves about these issues so are only too willing to fall for the lies they are told.

Yes, we have seen some of these recommendations. Thanks to Alan Simpson's big mouth. Not to mention you can go see them for yourself by reading or watching the presentation of such luminaries as Grover Norquist (I'm sure you trust that guy with the Government Budget). We also know the views of all of the members of that Commission, and of many of the advisers. Why do you ask? Were YOU not following the 'work' of this Commission and if you don't know, you assume no one does?

The economy CAN be fixed. SS benefits should be raised in order to help the economy for one thing. But there are easy ways to fix this economy, someone just has to be tough enough to do it.

But I am really interested in your 'reality' of the situation.

[Hannah Bell]

37. social security is in good order. the banksters are out of control.

[countrydad58]

44. Yep.

We saw Simpson & Bowles Hogwash today! Dont preach about costs, when Obama is breaking is thin little back,bending over to repukes to give millionaires tax cuts to the tune of $4 Trillion

[sabrina 1]

21. And those recommendations will be the starting point for any

legislation that is proposed.

Or are you saying that Obama was wrong about such Commissions? A commission's recommendations was the basis for the decisions in the eighties regarding SS. So I would say he was right when he was a candidate.

And if this is not the case, why spend millions of dollars on this one?

[Historic NY]

3. Oil and gas drilling in National Parks to raise revenues for S S....nuts...

SS is funded by payroll tax and increasing the salary cap is one way to make up losses.

[LiberalArkie]

5. But, But, that would mean that the wealthy would have less take home and less to invest in jobs

[napi21]

4. Mean of me to say, but I'm GLAD I'm 67! I won't b around for all this BS to take effect.

My heart goes ut o all of you young people and what a country you are going to have.

[mwooldri]

22. I hope you have a long and prosperous life.

This BS may take place sooner than you think, and honestly, we'll need everyones help, yourself included, to ensure that we all don't have to deal with this. This may start happening when you're 77, in full health, and finding that Social Security has been turned into a Wall Street Personal Retirement Account, and that your money is coming from that and not Social Security. Then we're all at the whim of a Wall Street Stockbroker who gets to decide whether we eat or not.

Obviously right now the Congress we will soon be having is definitely the opposite of Progress. We need Progress, not Congress!

[napi21]

27. I have too many bad habits to live that long. I'll help you fight

as long as I can, but I hate to say that I feel there's far too ay people against us and far more than are for our goals. You have to remember I a from an era BEFore reagan, and all this BS that's happening now & for all those years since him has been working against the avg, person, and I really don't see it getting better. I'm so sick of hearing ONLY RW statements from ALL the media and don't kid yourself, it's the media that determines our elections and the success or failure of our Presidents Ed, Keith, Rachel, O'Donne;;;, & even Matthews sometimes, are dots on the head of a giant pin that is constantly stabbing everyone.

[Greyhound]

7. K&R for more of that "change". n/t

[texastoast]

10. Why are you quoting RWers?

Why don't you post Dem talking points on this issue?

Or are you here just to further diminish Obama's agenda?

[jtown1123]

12. Obama has made it clear he knows very little about how Social Security it funded

I am not willing to give any Democrat a free pass simply because they are a Democrat. I expect Democrats to defend and fight for Social Security. Obama has repeatedly said we will need to make "tough choices" on entitlements (a.k.a. Social Security and Medicare. Obama is WEAK on Social Security....how do you explain choosing fiscal hawk Social Security haters Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to his Deficit Commission? Wake up.

[displacedvermoter]

14. I tried to get Democratic talking points on SS

during the campaign, and the House leadership and my own Congressman just mumbled. Now let us see what transpires.

As for Obama's agenda, he appointed this commission, so I think he is getting what he asked for.

[jtown1123]

16. Democrats foolishly chose the anti-privatization stance whereas

the real threats come in raising the retirement age, "personal accounts," means testing, price indexing, etc. I was impressed for the Dems who stood up strong and said they were against all cuts in ANY form

[pipi_k]

18. Wait a minute...is it just my imagination, or...

was it not that long ago that we had 8 years of Republican control of nearly the
entire government and their wish to fuck up Social Security....

and nothing happened.


Was it all just a TV reality show?

[Hannah Bell]

38. when the republicans are in control, dems will fight. they need no one to

be in complete control so both teams can say the other one twisted their arm.

[opihimoimoi]

19. ROOKIE SYNDROME...ya never let a rookie do a root canal...never...

[thereismore]

26. That bad huh? Well at least I'll have a personal account. What can go wrong?

:crazy:

[mwooldri]

45. AIG? Enron? Royal Bank of Scotland? Bank of America?

Need I list any more?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Catherina]

39. Rec'd and bookmarked. n/t

[defendandprotect]

42. Given the sad change we've gotten ... we need more change in 2012 ... a new

liberal Democratic contender for president !!