This week's deal to raise the debt ceiling should remove any doubt about the power corporate interests have over our government. The deal, hammered out by the president and Republican congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems squarely on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass.
But the deal poses a larger threat. A provision in the agreement creates an appointed "Super Committee" in Congress that could circumvent normal rules and slash cherished programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
How could this happen? Prior to this week's debt agreement, it's been extremely difficult to cut Social Security benefits, because doing so required 60 votes to overcome an almost certain filibuster in the Senate. And rightly so - Social Security is the most successful and popular government program in the history of the United States.
Yet the so-called Super Committee, which will be appointed by congressional leaders in both parties to consider additional budget cuts, will enjoy authority that no other entity or special legislative process has ever had: it will have the power to propose Social Security reductions that are guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and therefore can be adopted by a simple majority. And unlike most measures in the Senate, the Super Committee's recommendations related to Social Security will not be subject to unlimited debate - a standard protection against drastic action. Further, no amendments will be allowed. Make no mistake, those who crafted and agreed to the Super Committee were well aware of this and there can be no doubt Republicans plan to take full advantage.
So ultimately, if the Super Committee's recommendations propose cuts to Social Security, the only means to block them would be to strike down the entire Super Committee bill. But there's a dangerous trapdoor - failing to enact the overall Super Committee bill would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts that will be strongly opposed by powerful constituencies.
In short, unless congressional leaders appoint progressives willing to stand up to moneyed interests, the Super Committee will be nothing less than a chopping block for Social Security.
Here's how it would work: assuming all 6 Republican appointees support Social Security cuts, it would only take one Democratic appointee to include them in the committee's final recommendation. Once cuts to Social Security are included in that final Super Committee bill, the Senate's 47 Republicans would need just four Democrats to produce the majority needed to pass them, and unfortunately finding those four Democrats probably is not all that difficult.
And ironically, the inability to amend the Super Committee legislation will provide some senators with the perfect excuse: "I didn't like the Social Security cuts, but I had to accept them as part of the entire bill."
This means that the identity of the Democratic appointees to the Super Committee will be critical. Because sadly, there are already a handful of Democratic senators ready to take an axe to Social Security; and regrettably, some of them are well positioned to sit on the Super Committee. So it's essential that every Democrat appointed to this perverse Super Committee pledge to reject any cuts to Social Security.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi understands this, and has promised that each of the Democrats she appoints to the Super Committee will oppose entitlement benefit cuts. Democrats should urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the same commitment. America's most cherished social program must be protected.
Follow Russ Feingold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/russfeingold
Sen. Bert Johnson: President Obama Deserves Our Support: A Democratic Response to Rep. Conyers
I'd educate you but I have work to do.
Google is your friend.
Social Security has NEVER added one cent to the Federal Deficit.
Social Security has NEVER added one cent to the U.S. Public Debt.
And it won't do either of those any time soon - certainly not during the lifetime of the baby-boomers.
For 2010, the U.S. Treasury paid interest (on the bonds of the U.S. owned by the Social Security Trust Fund) to the Trust Fund in the amount of about $108-billion.
There is NO Social Security deficit. If disbursements exceed receipts, then some of the bonds are redeemed - and the U.S. Treasury would have to replace those borrowings on the public marketplace, and those bonds would then be owned by individuals or other governments, including China, Japan, and the UK.
Here a link - see for yourself:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html
At the end of 2010, the Social Security Trust Fund had a POSITIVE BALANCE OF $2.4-TRILLION. For the calendar year 2010, Social Security Trust Fund receipts (tax collections) exceeded disbursements (Social Security payments) by $90-billion.
That $2.4-trillion is loaned to the U.S. Treasury, and, like China, has received Treasury Bonds for these loans. For 2010, the Social Security Trust Fund received about $108-billion in interest payments from the U.S. Treasury.
If nothing is done for the next 25-years, only then will Social Security start running out of cash. It will have turned those bonds into cash, and the Treasury would have to finance those bonds elsewhere, like China, the UK, and Japan - the major holders of our Public Debt. In short, THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL SECURITY FOR A QUARTER CENTURY. But, at any time, a simple fix would make Social Security secure for a century. It happened to Medicare some years ago: lift the ceiling of the current $107,000 to unlimited earnings.
Will anyone speak up for Social Security? How about you, Senator Feingold?
Here's the link - see for yourself:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html
These redeemed (private) bonds must then be refinanced in the open market - and for the amounts redeemed, the new bonds issued become part of the Public Debt in the hands of the public - individuals or governments.
The Trust Fund has the U.S. Treasury Bonds in a 'lock box' - shown during the administration of George W. Bush.
It is similar to what happens when shares of stock are sold. No physical shares change hands - only book entries effect the transfer. The physical shares are locked up on a vault about 6-levels below ground in sealed containers in very large denominations.
My statements are true, and Mr. Feingold can say it. Senator Bernie Sanders says it regularly. Senator Harry Reid has said on multiple occasions that 'Social Security is not up for discussion - there's nothing wrong with it now or any time soon'.
Just an aside in case Feingold reads these comments: if America was worth saving, the day the Patriot Act was declared unconstitutional every member of Congress who voted for it would have been arrested, thrown in jail and put on trial for sedition. You would have had the Senate chambers all to yourself.
The whole personhood thing started back in 1886; it was a clerk's side notes on a
court ruling out of California that started the ball rolling so that
corporations are legally considered "persons". Thom Hartmann wrote an
entire book about it called "Unequal Protection"
JFK once told the press that it was the keeper of man's conscience...and that it was their job to point out the wrongs in government....
today the US msm is nothing more than...the former USSR's...Pravda....