The Republican Party has, again, been rumbling about getting rid of Social Security. Or rather, "fixing" it, in their parlance. Much the same way Las Vegas developers "fix" old casinos, dynamiting them to dusty non-existence.
In late July, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his Republican "Roadmap" of budget proposals, which included moving Social Security to private accounts -- something the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office later estimated would cost more than the current system. (He also suggested privatizing Medicare, albeit with voucher payments whose rates grow slower than skyrocketing health-care costs.)
With little question, these proposals would, indeed, wipe out the budget. Unfortunately, they would also wipe out Social Security, Medicare, and most elderly Americans.
Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) however called the proposals, "a pretty good list of options."
No doubt, since a month earlier Mr. Boehner had been speaking with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review about Republican priorities for economic cuts. "I think Social Security would be the most logical place to start. It's just a matter of numbers."
Most likely, the real human beings whose lives would be affected by the cuts might quibble about being considered just "numbers," but that's semantics. Minority Leader Boehner added that he wants to not only reduce payment, but move eligibility to age 70. Further, he'd like to stop paying some people who are otherwise eligible for Social Security. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you are retired," he asked, "why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?"
Why, indeed?! Of course, one reason we're paying these people is because, during the course of their lives, they actually paid money into the Social Security system and are legally owed it back. But that's nit-picking. By the same Boehner logic, though, one might ask, "Why are we cutting taxes for the wealthy at a time when we're broke?"
It should be noted that many of John Boehner's comments about cutting Social Security came in the context of how we should pay for the Afghanistan War.
This is a continuing mantra among Republicans. Sharron Angle, running in Nevada for the U.S. Senate, wants to get rid of Social Security, although she calls it an adjustment. Out of existence. "Tea Party" darling Rand Paul, Republican nominee for senator from Kentucky, disdains Social Security as nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and, like John Boehner, wants to raise the age to 70.
Privatizing Social Security was something George Bush brought up when he was president. It died a fast death. Yet John McCain brought it up again when he was the Republican standard bearer. Mr. Bush's plan would have cut benefits by 1 percent each year for many people -- that meant a 20 percent reduction after 20 years of retirement.
How critical is Social Security? The nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) has estimated that if seniors had no Social Security to rely on, but only their "other" income, nearly half "would be poor."
And yet the Republicans continue to push cutting Social Security. Because that's who they are. Here's the thing -- and let's be blunt:
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 a few Texas oil millionaires.... Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
And here's another thing:
That quote above isn't mine. It was said by President Dwight Eisenhower. On November 8, 1954. And if his point is not clear, it is about his own Republican Party. Because Democrats have never tried to cut Social Security -- they created it.
But Republicans have been harping about getting rid of Social Security since it was introduced by Franklin Roosevelt. Republicans hated the program in 1935, and been fighting to gut it for the past 75 years. They called Roosevelt a "socialist." They called him a "dictator." They compared him to Adolf Hitler.
Sound familiar? The Republican Party is an old, broken record against Social Security. And it's a record that a near-totality of Americans remain adamant against. While the far right dreams of ending Social Security, a recent NASI poll shows 88 percent of Americans say Social Security is "more important today than ever." Yet Republican politicians, for 75 years -- and today, more than ever -- keep trying to gut it.
Because that's who they are.
If Dwight Eisenhower was around today, he'd be vilified by his own Republican Party for saying what he did over half a century ago. Yet it holds just as true today -- if any political party attempted to abolish Social Security and unemployment insurance, you would not hear of that party again. They are a tiny splinter group, and their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Yet once again -- and again and again -- the GOP tries to do just that. And here today they are once more trying to abolish Social Security. And filibustering in the Senate to withhold unemployment insurance. And still calling any president who opposes this a socialist and comparing him to Hitler. Again and again. And again. It's who they are. And they keep telling us. This isn't about Barack Obama. Or Franklin Roosevelt. It's about the Republican Party.
For 75 years this month, the Republican Party has hated Social Security. And they keep trying to fool you that all they want to do is just "fix" it. "Adjust it."
But in the words of George Bush, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
"If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you are retired," he asked, "why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?"Why, indeed?! Of course, one reason we're paying these people is because, during the course of their lives, they actually paid money into the Social Security system and are legally owed it back."
--- I agree with the authors sentiments that they are legally owed the money. But they are also required to take it. Why not have an opt out option? If Bill gates does not want to receive Social Security he should have the option to decline the money. Not everyone would decline it, but I am sure there are some people in this country who would refuse the money. Why not give them the choice of receiving social security.
“Instead of raising Social Security Retirement age we should be looking to lower it. Offering early retirement to those 55 and older even at a lower rate than the current 62 1/2-63 would help solve unemployment two ways, opening jobs for younger(cheaper) workers and getting the near retirement aged people off the Unemployment roles.It would also keep many of them in their present housing which will lower mortgage default/bankruptcy rates.Paying for this is simply a matter of removing the cap on earnings.â€
I wonder how clear the Republicans must make it for the American Public to finally understand that the Republicans in congress are not working for the people
Didn't Wall Street recently just about self-destruct in the wake of deregulation that allowed financial institutions to do what the laws passed after the Crash of '29 prohibited, so there would not be another crash?
Why would we want to put all our money in the stock market? I lost my retirement there. The divorce took the rest, and now all there is, is Social Security. I was never rich, but I thought I was going to be OK.
With the economy in a dungeon due to Republican and Democratic tinkering, and jobs being few and far between, I'd hate to see life in America WITHOUT Social Security.
Lincoln was a Republican. So was Teddy Roosevelt. What happened to that Grand Old Party?
Traitors like those should be easy to spot in any country and shunned by the electorate forever, but there's something dissonant about the picture to an outside observer like myself . You said they've been attempting to gut social security for the last 75 years - if the statement above was true, it follows that they shouldn't have lasted as a major political party that long. Why does this party which clearly works against the interest of the vast majority of Americans continue to hold power and even from their minority position, able to block or delay crucial legislation? Why has no one exposed them for the real enemies of the people that they are?
Fear. False Evidence Appearing Real. They fear the opposition. All those who have been demonized by the very party that tricks them and enslaves them.
If georgie boy would've had his wish we'd all be in serious trouble. Privatize is a code-word for giving it to my friends or connected donors.
And, more importantly, the program is in no financial risk whatsoever that would require any kind of benefit cutting, even the easy cutting like denying benefits to wealthy retirees who don't depend on the SS income.
If we were in trouble sure, he'd be the first to go. But we aren't. Not even remotely close. All the doomsday scenarios are based on misinformation. Like using population graphs showing the demographic shift to more old people per young person and ignoring the fact that we actually will have more **contributors**-per-retiree than we used to because old timey women didn't do work that got taxed while modern women do.
The ONLY danger is letting the republicans who have borrowed from the trust fund ( at 5.5% interest ) pass an act of congress defaulting on repayment. Executive order can't even do it it takes an act of congress.
-------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
-------------
If we let them walk away with the 1.5 TRILLION they've borrowed to fund their wars then yeah, SS is in trouble.
And yeah, they may have to raise taxes to pay that back. But call it what it is, a War Tax. And if you don't like paying it END THE WARS.
A simple means test would help solve the SSI solvency problem. Gates, Buffet and yes McCain don't need to collect, it is simply another tax by another name.
Simply remove the people who have never paid a cent into it from getting anything - a lot more then people then you'd think. If a old guy gets a young girl pregnant that child gets SS until they are 18. There is no reason for that. If a guy makes enough money that his wife can stay home she gets about 38-50% of his check simply for being married to him - his check is NOT reduced. A dual working couple doesn't have this option nor does a single person.
Second, after that is done we look at a method to remove the fraud problems from the disability portion. Disability is a great program and very hard for some people to get on it but many estimates show about 25-35% of people are not disabled. Case in point is the children who get it by their parents saying they have asthma or some other health concern. Correct me if I'm wrong but disability is for people to get help who can't work. I would rather see the truly disabled get a little more and the savings go back into the program then see someone take advantage of it.
Have the wealthy pay up to about 500K a year. Won't hurt 'em at all.
Lastly we have the people work a just a little bit longer. After all the other things we probably don't even need to do this.
All we need to do is hold the militaries hands to the fire and make them pay back the money they borrowed.
The ONLY danger SS is in is that the people who borrowed from the fund won't pay it back. And it is against the law for the federal government to not pay back it's debts. So they have to.
And if we were going to default it is a no brainer that we would default on foreign debt first, not debt owed to American citizens.
SS has a 2.4 trillion surplus. Yes that will shrink as the boomers retire but their retirement was what the surplus was bulked up for. The people screaming that its in the hole are projecting numbers out DECADES which is idiotic. Furthermore, they are the same people who have been screaming about the programs imminent collapse for three quarters of a century.
They've been wrong for 75 years and they will, doubtless, continue to be wrong for several centuries more. Then maybe they'll get sick of being wrong and stop whining.
Seriously I know you have a good idea but it just brings up the blood from a turnip saying. You're never going to get it and we aren't ever going to get rid of the military - at least as long as about 100 nations that would love the chance to hurt us still are around.
So in the real world we need real answers and solutions - right? That means stopping the stupid programs that have no need and serve no purpose. An added bonus is that they are just stupid - paying someone money simply because they are LUCKY enough to get married to someone who is LUCKY enough to make enough that they can make that DECISION to stay home just isn't right. Anyone whe makes the case that some love child of an old man should get SS simply because his dad was LUCKY enough to find a young girl to have sex with is no reason to tax others to pay for that child.
SS is in trouble right now just as your budget would be in trouble if you were spending more then you make but had a bank account to draw from. You wouldn't be too smart if you didn't look at the long range implications of that situation would you? Especially if you had obligations to your kids who also paid money into that bank account.