A Social Security Administration employee's story about 9/11: "The most difficult, and at the same time most gratifying, work I did was to help relatives of 9/11 victims file for Social Security... One woman, in particular, stands out in my mind. Her husband was only in his 40's and she had 2 young boys. She ... came to my office with a picture of her husband, a tall, handsome man, with his arms around her and the children. We sat in the lobby of my building, with tears rolling down our cheeks, oblivious to the other[Social Security] employees walking past us. The human tragedy of that terrible day became so personal that it will always be part of my life. I always feel that the work I do is vital and of great service to the public, but never more so than during those months when we helped the 9/11 relatives"
On this tenth anniversary of 9/11, it is worth reflecting on the strength, compassion and competence that were abundant on that tragic day and the days following -- heroic sacrifices of first responders; the capacity individuals found within themselves to go on when faced with tragic losses, and the quiet way people did their jobs to help the families of the victims.
Besides remembering the losses, it is also good to recall how the nation came together in the weeks and months following 9/11, and how our institutions of government -- which, after all, is all of us working together through our representatives -- performed as they should.
Social Security is one such government institution that especially stands out. Often described as a program for retired workers and aged widow(er)s, the reality is that Social Security provides wage insurance against events, some tragic, that can take place throughout people's lives. Often described as a cold and inefficient bureaucracy, this stereotype, as the above story suggests, does not match the reality of the program or the vast majority of civil servants who carry out the program's important mission.
Virtually every child who lost a parent in the terrorist attacks was entitled to Social Security benefits every single month until his or her late teens -- benefits earned by the hard work and Social Security contributions of that parent who died. Those victims earned monthly benefits for their surviving spouses who care for these children, as well. Americans disabled in the Sept. 11 attacks received Social Security benefits that they too had earned for themselves, their spouses and their children. That's why 2,377 children who lost a parent and 853 surviving spouses received monthly benefits, and why monthly benefits were also paid to 642 people severely disabled as a result of the terrorist attacks and 99 of their children and spouses. And that's why over the first five years alone, $175 million in Social Security benefits were paid to people harmed by the terrorist attacks.
Every payday, from that tragic day until today, deductions from our wages are paid, without fanfare or press releases, into the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund, out of which those 9/11 families receive payments. Indeed, Social Security has a history of quietly going about the public's business, performing smoothly and with low administrative costs. Indeed, Social Security was among the first insurers working with families after the attacks, taking claims under emergency procedures so that benefits could be paid quickly, based on employer and airline records, without requiring death certificates. The first checks were received less than a month later, on Oct. 3. (Social Security was similarly quietly efficient and invaluable after Hurricane Katrina, but that will await another time.)
While most of us think of Social Security only as a retirement program, in fact Social Security's protections are by far the most important life and disability safeguard available to virtually all the nation's 75 million children under age 18. Through Social Security, a thirty year old worker earning $30,000 with two young children and a spouse caring for them, has, through Social Security, life insurance and disability insurance, both policies with present values each in excess of $450,000. Today, about 4.4 million dependent children -- roughly 3.5 million under age 18 and 900,000 adults disabled before age 22 -- receive monthly Social Security checks, totaling over $2.4 billion each month! Another 3.4 million children who do not receive benefits themselves nevertheless live in households with one or more relatives who do. It is the largest source of income for grandparents raising their grandchildren. Indeed, Social Security lifts 1.3 million children out of poverty.
As 9/11 reminds us, tragedy can strike at any moment. The Social Security Administration reports, for example, that 30% of 20-year-olds will become disabled prior to reaching retirement age. As soon as Americans begin working and contributing to Social Security, they are protected.
In addition to its life and disability insurance protection, nothing approaches Social Security in terms of providing secure retirement. Neither stock market fluctuations nor inflation undermine its value. One can outlive savings, but not Social Security -- even those who are fortunate enough to reach their hundredth birthdays! As billions of dollars of pension and home equity "wealth" disappeared over the past few years, no one raised the specter of Social Security failing to meet its current obligations. This is because Social Security is conservatively financed and it works. It is completely affordable, not just now but for future generations as well.
The attacks of Sept. 11 reminded us of the importance of family and heightened our appreciation for public services. They also showed the value of the traditional Social Security system -- reliable and necessary in an insecure world.
Nancy Altman, author of The Battle for Social Security, and Eric Kingson, Professor of Social Work at Syracuse University, co-chair the Strengthen Social Security Campaign (www.strengthensocialsecurity.com). The authors served as staff for the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (a.k.a. "The Greenspan Commission").
Follow Nancy Altman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NoSocSecCuts
Until that happens, Congress and Special Interests will continually keep attacking the program and trying to weaken it so that they can force all of us into a WallStreet Solution which allows them to siphon off a part of our money, for their benefit, and not ours.
The Social Security System needs to be 100% self funded,
needs to be restructured REGULARLY & ROUTINELY about every 10 years to maintain 50-70 year solvency.
The restructuring needs to be determined by choices made by voters, NOT POLITICANS.
REPUBLICANs keep trying to push the BIG LIE that Social Security won’t be around for today’s young people.
There is no reason, it can’t go on forever- unless sometime in the future, we stop having babies.
SOME REPUBLICANS are not adamantly opposed to increasing FICA contribution rates- why because that weakens the system’s long term solvency. If we had increased the rates just a tiny bit 20 years ago- there would be no problem at all today. It’s only a problem if we wait until it is crisis time.
ONE THING THAT IS A CERTIFIED-GUARANTEED TRAINWRECK !!!
Any of the various ConGames that involve something like:
We’ll keep it just like it is for everybody over age 55.
Any of these Schemes are predicated on TWO disasters:
1) New System is WallStreet-Based, they siphon off $$
2) Old System loses Revenue Stream = Bankruptcy
http://wwwÂ.thefreediÂctionary.cÂom/entitleÂment
__________Â_
You use the word as if it means "gift."
title = right of possession
entitle: to confer such right of possession
entitled: to have a right of possession
Because Social Security and Medicare create legal rights under law -and- because the very statutes under which they are created use the specific term "entitled" [42 U.S.C. § 402(a)(3) ], they ARE entitlement programs.
Thank you for your illuminating comment! -zz
The last time it was "SAVED" was about 30 years ago, during the Reagan Administration in 1983.
By the time that politicians get around to "SAVING" Social Security, it is so far out of balance, that the required fixes are too large.
The program needs to be Regularly & Routinely adjusted about every 10 years in order to maintain 50-70 year solvency- If that happens, any adjustments are relatively minor.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO TAKE THIS PROGRAM AWAY FROM CONGRESS, and turn it over to the trustees. About every 10 years they should come up with about 4-8 different proposals to maintain the long-term solvency. Then the voters could choose the tradeoffs that are most acceptable to them thru a series of runoff elections.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT TRUSTEEs never start acting like CEO (like they did at Fannie/Freddie). They should get paid a straight salary and NO BONUSES EVER.
The program needs to avoid "Mission Creep"; where they start adding things to the program, that were never part of it’s one basic purpose.
IT IS A GUARANTEED LIFELONG ANNUITY PROGRAM, IT IS NOT, AND SHOULD NEVER BE- AN INVESTMENT PROGRAM TO BUILD WEALTH.
There are plenty of other options for that already.
NO SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS AS PART OF A BUDGET DEAL. [Standalone-Fix]
Retirement Age matched to life expectancy
COLA matched to Senior’s Market Basket
FICA Contributions probably need to slightly increase
"Increase the payroll tax rate (currently 12.4 percent) to 12.6 percent in 2013, 12.9 percent in 2021, 13.1 in percent in 2031, 13.9 percent in 2041, 13.5 percent in 2051, and 13.3 percent in 2061."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run426.html
The fixes just change the estimated date when the trust funds are fully repaid. The fixes do not prevent it from being repaid.
I'm sure we're both roughly on the same page here.
The exact details can vary, but I can't really imagine a fix that doesn't include both rate-increases AND tieing the retirement age to life expectancy.
Adjustments need to be done REGULARLY & ROUTINELY every 10 years just like the census - to maintain 50-70 year solvency
The exact adjustments should be decided by voters not politicans
LOL! Good one!
Welcome to Reality
Should any political party attempt to abolish
social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not
hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes
you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other
Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid.
--The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part VI: Crises Abroad, Party Problems at Home; September 1954 to December 1954
Chapter 13: "A new phase of political experience"
and here's another:
"Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt’¬s commitment that social
security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older
Americans may live in dignity."
RONALD REAGAN 1983
. Paul Ryan's proposed 2012 budget, there's one major government program that it barely touches: Social Security. Now Republicans in both houses of Congress are preparing to dig into that sacrosanct entitlement as well.
three Republican senators unveiled a plan to cut $6.2 trillion by paring back Social Security over the next two decades. Under a proposal unveiled by . Lindsey Graham Rand Paul , and Mike Lee the qualifying age for Social Security would rise from 67 to 70 by 2032, while benefits for everyone earning more than an average of $43,000 over their lifetime would be reduced. Graham took pains to explain that he wasn't pushing for privatization but also slammed any tax increases to shore up Social Security, saying such a move would "destroy America." "It's much better to give up benefits on the end side than pay taxes now,"
Graham, , said that he could only find two other senators to join him at podium given political risks involved in tackling the issue. "It shows real reluctance of the GOP," . And while House Republicans have made privatizing Medicare and cutting Medicaid their top budget priorities, Graham said that Social Security reform needed to be moved to front of the queue. "It's place to start entitlement reform. Once you fix Social Security problem, move to Medicare,"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/republican-social-security-cuts
But 10 years ago America did come together to Attack Iraq and the Taliban. Ever since we have been paying the price of OUR vengence of 911 of 2 unprovoked WARS
So as you celebrate 911 and these WARS and Drone killings continue. I challenge your and America's gayity and meaning of it all. As if we were innocent before 911 in the ME too
"The tax cut legislation would provide for a transfer of General Revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund, ensuring no negative impact on Social Security solvency. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/07/fact-sheet-framework-agreement-middle-class-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-in
"Cutting Payroll Taxes in Half for 160 Million Workers Next Year:
The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last December by cutting workers payroll taxes in half next year. This provision will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year. As with the payroll tax cut passed in December 2010, the American Jobs Act will specify that Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act
for this relatively obscure piece of information. I try to follow the news pretty closely, but I never heard this before!
If we allow our congresscritters to default on the $2.6 Trillion surplus fund to "fix" the program, that effectively means that all the FICA taxes I paid, plus what my employers paid, over my working lifetime retroactively becomes "income tax". Does anyone have a clue what that makes my "real" rate of taxation? I believe that taxation without representation was why we dumped the last corrupt government we had. How could anyone say I was "represented" in this when I've been paying into the system over 45 yrs?
Allowing the theft of the SS surplus will retroactively create the most regressive taxation system in existence since the wealthy were exempted from contribution. For anyone crying about "redistribution of wealth" I would suggest you do the math on this from my perspective. Wealth is being redistributed, but not in the direction you think. If you make less than $106k you are about to be taken to the cleaners in the biggest grand larceny in history.
For example, lowering the automatic COLA wth chained CPI, just moves the date when the trust fund is fully repaid from ther late 2030s to the early 2040s.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run245.html shows what happens.
Your claim for social security benefits is no better than the claims of those younger than you.
It is well known that the MarketBasket of goods that the normal CPI is based on,
is radically different from what Seniors spend their money on.
IT IS ALSO WELL KNOWN that the current CPI slightly overstates inflation.
THE PROPER RESOLUTION IS TO CORRECT THE CPI's to as close as we can estimate the true inflation rate. REGULARLY & ROUTINELY every 10 years.
SAME goes for the SocialSecurity Program as a whole. It needs to be modified REGULARLY & ROUTINELY every 10 years- then the adjustments are small.
When Congress waits to SAVE SS every 30 years (last save 1983); then the adjustments need to be huge- WHICH IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT.
As long as we make the necessary adjustments, IN A TIMELY FASHION, the system can go on forever.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/investheld.html
The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances." - Ron Paul 04
for the whole thing go here
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215.html
He Said he has a plan that would save it for those on it now and I think maybe next 20 yrs,without cuts ? but that then,we could have the younger ones my sons age,not HAVE to pay into it ( can if they "choose" to,but,don't "have to
I personally want SS to stay around,but,not as it is,it needs fixing EVERYONE knows that. ( I was trying to help out some kids needing the dream act,by suggesting we support it,so there you have instant Millions paying into the systemHOPEFULLY )
or maybe go to a "flat tax" or something..it would bring in more revenue because ALL big and little will be paying into system to support safety nets,but I'm no economist..don't even know how to write a check,I'm a housewife,hubby deals with all that.
Ron Paul is no control freak..if Congress and American people want to keep it,he would pass something to allow it to be kept HE would KNOW if the new idea would work.
I just want an HONEST FULL discussion of it..not from PERRY and media..BUT RON PAUL and "we the people" the best way to have that is for me to post what he has said,in CONTEXT the complete arguement
it's up to all of you to sort through it..but please ..no fear tactics,no BS
let it all come out and let us read the back and forth hmm ?
In 2010 FICA deductions, for the first time, failed to meet payments. In spite of this, the Social Security trust fund grew. This was because of the interest paid to it every quarter by the Treasury. America certainly has a spending problem, but Social Security doesn't. It is the best managed program in government and it's efficiency (2% overhead) can't be matched anywhere in the private sector.
The only thing congress needs to do to "fix" Social Security is to not default on any of it's certificates and to get the economy running again. If we could also manage to solve the problem of an inequitable income distribution, which places too much of the GDP out of range of FICA taxation, the program would roll along unchanged for a 100 more years.
Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government.
" The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.
prt 1 ( started it half down his page
Social Security was never a deposit account for people to stash money for retirement. It is a defined benefit annuity, which you should price on the open market before you pass judgment. The system was designed so that current wage earners pay for current retirees. This isn't some diabolical scheme devised to rob people of their savings, but a well designed program with very low overhead.
Would you have preferred that the surplus fund, which I paid into while also paying for my parent's benefits, were kept in cash? That would have required a change in the law, since the Treasury certificates in the fund have been the only lawful medium of exchange for SS since it's inception.
Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
he has written books on economics..if the country is determined to keep SS HE of all the others can find a way to do it..so why don't you look up his plan ? :)
We've already tried your wonderful "Ron-Paul-Option".
Maybe you were asleep in school the day they covered:
the Roaring-Twenties, Black-Thursday, & the Great-Depression.
That's the reason that Social Security was created in the first place.
A lot of those former ENRON, TYCO, & WorldCOM millionaires, are now darned glad that there is a Social Security System
Those beyond the $106k ceiling still pay on the first $106k, but are unlikely to qualify for benefits, so the system is progressive in that regard. There already is plenty of money for SS benefits, except that it is in the form of Treasury certificates, and politicians of both parties are trying to figure out how to default on those certificates without trashing the bond market. They can only do this by convincing everyone that the system is "in trouble" and then obtaining permission to "fix" it via legislation. I still think this will trash the market, as investors tend to be a bit more financially savvy than the average voter, but they are probably going to go for it anyway. They have been dancing around the surplus fund and salivating for the last 3 decades. Their patience is about depleted.
"Social Security Disability Insurance Program (SSDI)"
"SSDI provides benefits to disabled or blind persons who are “insured” by workers’ contributions to the Social Security trust fund. These contributions are based on your earnings (or those of your spouse or parents) as required by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). "
"Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI)
The SSI program makes cash assistance payments to aged, blind, and disabled persons (including children) who have limited income and resources. The Federal Government funds SSI from general tax revenues."
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/redbook/eng/overview-disability.htm#1
You are also wrong in your theory that the Federal Government will not eventually pay back all of the trust funds in the next 30 years. You had it right in your response to Binea.