GOP Senator Proposes "Temporary" End to Social Security and Medicare

[cawacko]

It was pay-as-you-go until a decline in the birth rate and many additional benefits added over the years created a future problem. So, in the 1980s, SS taxes were increased to build a surplus to handle the shortfall (one of the few times government has done something in advance of a problem) caused by the retirement of the baby boomers 2010-2030.

The SS law requires any surplus to be put in special treasury securities. So, that money is now in about $2.5 trillion of securities which are currently being used or will be used soon (not sure). The securities must be redeemed to pay the shortfall between revenue and benefits.

The older generations got much more back than they paid in while younger generations will be breaking about even (I have a chart if interested). That means it was much more of a subsidy program than it is becoming. Medicare is even a larger subsidy program in that we usually pay in much less than is spent on our benefits.

It depends on what other factors change if they remove the cap. If they remove the cap but don't increase benefits then it becomes more of a welfare program and loses a lot of the political popularity of the SS program. If they do raise benefits then you haven't really gained anything. I have not seen anything showing removing the cap would cover the shortfall even though some of our posters claim it would.

That money is not competing for other spending since infrastructure, climate change, etc. come from the general fund (or state funds on issues such as teacher's pay). SS spending only comes from the SS trust fund paid by the 6.2% payroll tax from workers matched by employers.

There are many benefits that were not part of the original SS program added over the years that could be cut without hurting needy people. Early retirement at 62 could be eliminated (about 70% of recipients retire early). Workers who reach full retirement age (66) can now collect full benefits with no penalty which means those probably making their highest career salary are collecting full SS.

Another suggestion is reducing benefits on a sliding scale based on the person's income.

SS is not in trouble because "Congress spent the money on...." as we often hear.

Appreciate the response.

I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Appreciate the response.

I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.

Let's be honest: Even a Texas housewife living in a trailer home knows that spending more money than the family takes in will only end badly.

Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.

While the trend is to fault Presidents, let's not forget that it's Congress that passes budgets. Presidents only sign them.

https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/17/don...c-that-itll-weigh-down-the-economy-for-years/

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

 

[Earl]

The radical, Democrat Socialists pass trillions in useless spending bills causing uncontrolled inflation.

 

[Flash]

Appreciate the response.

I understand that the money received from removing the cap goes strictly to S.S. What I meant by opportunity cost is eliminating that cap is a massive tax increase. So once you do that the chances of another large tax increase probably aren't good. Therefore we are basically deciding that all this new revenue should be earmarked only for S.S. when we have many competing interests out there. That's the challenge.

It would be a large tax increase for those making higher incomes. The current cap is $147,000 which only includes about 5% of income earners.

 

[cawacko]

It would be a large tax increase for those making higher incomes. The current cap is $147,000 which only includes about 5% of income earners.

Yes. (Tax increases are generally targeted at those with the most money.). But unless one believes we can tax them at 100% there’s only so high we can go (both economically and politically). So the opportunity cost factor is still at play.

 

[Yakuda]

Good luck with that shit. Why does it need to be "better"? It's fine as it is, which of course is what he hates.

If you think SS is fine the way it is that only proves you're an idiot.

 

[anonymoose]

Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.

Why only call out republicans? Dims raise taxes and raise spending even more. The effect is about the same. Even your graph bears that out.

 

[Flash]

Yes. (Tax increases are generally targeted at those with the most money.). But unless one believes we can tax them at 100% there’s only so high we can go (both economically and politically). So the opportunity cost factor is still at play.

The SS taxes for a person making $1 million would go from $18,000 to $124,000 (half paid by employer). I assume those wanting to remove the cap want to remove it for the employer, also.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why only call out republicans? Dims raise taxes and raise spending even more. The effect is about the same. Even your graph bears that out.

It's a given that Democrats are spendthrifts. Remember the meme below? The problem is that Republicans used to be the ones that held the Democrats back, not race them to see who can spend the most money.

If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, then you would see the problem instead of acting like a fucking Democrat by refusing to accept personal responsibility for your party's fiscal malfeasance and trying to blame only the Democrats.

 

[Flash]

Let's be honest: Even a Texas housewife living in a trailer home knows that spending more money than the family takes in will only end badly.

Why can't the Republicans see the same when they cut taxes and raise spending? It isn't fiscally responsible to force debt upon our grandchildren.

While the trend is to fault Presidents, let's not forget that it's Congress that passes budgets. Presidents only sign them.

The president does more than sign the budget. He prepares the budget and submits it to Congress. They usually pass it without too many major changes due to its complexity. Also, about 70% of the budget is mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare..) which does not give much flexibility in making the budget.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The president does more than sign the budget. He prepares the budget and submits it to Congress. They usually pass it without too many major changes due to its complexity. Also, about 70% of the budget is mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare..) which does not give much flexibility in making the budget.

Presidents can recommend whatever they like, be it going to the Moon or invading Iraq, but they can't do anything without the consent of Congress.

Congress controls mandatory spending, too. They can add or remove whatever they like. That's why the Republicans are talking about cancelling Social Security and Medicare.

Example; Rick Scott's plan:
https://rescueamerica.com/12-point-plan/

https://rescueamerica.com/steps/6-government-reform-debt/
Many government agencies should be either moved out of Washington or shuttered entirely.

https://omny.fm/shows/the-regular-joe-show/rjs-08-02-22-whole-show

“In an interview that aired Tuesday on “The Regular Joe Show” podcast, Johnson lamented that the Social Security and Medicare programs automatically grant benefits to those who meet the qualifications — that is, to those who had been paying into the system over their working life....

…“Johnson suggested that Social Security and Medicare be transformed into programs whose budgets are appropriated by Congress on an annual basis.”

 

[Flash]

Presidents can recommend whatever they like, be it going to the Moon or invading Iraq, but they can't do anything without the consent of Congress.

Congress controls mandatory spending, too. They can add or remove whatever they like. That's why the Republicans are talking about cancelling Social Security and Medicare.

All true but not reality. Congress doesn't pass a budget much different than what the president submits. Controlling mandatory spending is political suicide. We both know that nobody is going to cancel Social Security or Medicare; however, it must be fixed in order to continue paying full benefits.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

All true but not reality. Congress doesn't pass a budget much different than what the president submits. Controlling mandatory spending is political suicide. We both know that nobody is going to cancel Social Security or Medicare; however, it must be fixed in order to continue paying full benefits.

Which is exactly the problem. Why do you think Congress fails to do it's job?

 

[Flash]

Which is exactly the problem. Why do you think Congress fails to do it's job?

I don't think they fail to do their job. The Budget & Accounting Act (1921) created the system requiring the president to submit an annual budget to consolidate spending and created the OMB to collect and create a unified budget. Previously, each agency submitted its own budget request which made it impossible to control the budget. It is a very complex process and Congress does not have the necessary staff to complete the job.

They can always make changes in the president's budget and they do, but that defeats the purpose of a unified budget. They hold hearings and the 13(?) appropriations subcommittees each pass the budgets of the various departments and agencies.

 

[anonymoose]

It's a given that Democrats are spendthrifts. Remember the meme below? The problem is that Republicans used to be the ones that held the Democrats back, not race them to see who can spend the most money.

If you were as smart as you believe yourself to be, then you would see the problem instead of acting like a fucking Democrat by refusing to accept personal responsibility for your party's fiscal malfeasance and trying to blame only the Democrats.

I blame them both, stupid.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think they fail to do their job. The Budget & Accounting Act (1921) created the system requiring the president to submit an annual budget to consolidate spending and created the OMB to collect and create a unified budget. Previously, each agency submitted its own budget request which made it impossible to control the budget. It is a very complex process and Congress does not have the necessary staff to complete the job.

They can always make changes in the president's budget and they do, but that defeats the purpose of a unified budget. They hold hearings and the 13(?) appropriations subcommittees each pass the budgets of the various departments and agencies.

Acts are written by which branch? LOL

Which brings up another problem such as Citizens United. Congress punting to SCOTUS is another example of them not doing their job. Why? Because they are constantly running for office.

Like Walmart putting out Christmas stuff in September, House Reps face reelection every two years. That's not working in modern America. We, the People are in sore need of election reform. Part of should consider making Rep terms four years with a four term limit. A three term limit for the Senate is another consideration.

The bottom line is that Congress isn't doing their fucking job by failing to create and pass for signature acts and bills that serve the best interests of the nation.

Not an accountant, but spending the nation into bankruptcy isn't in the best interests of the nation. It's only in the best interests of a few.

 

[anonymoose]

Rick Scott who isn't a nobody among GOP senators has proposed ending Social Security and Medicare legislation in five years. Ending it. Letting the law for both "sunset" along with other federal legislation.

Scott further says he doesn't want the end to be permanent, rather that Congress would then pass better Social Security and better Medicare than we now have. You can take it from there depending on your faith.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/democ ... -medicare/

What a putz. I'd prefer permanent.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I blame them both, stupid.

Your mother must be so proud!

 

[anonymoose]

Your mother must be so proud!

She's dead.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

She's dead.

So she's not proud of you? Are you an atheist who believes all she ever was is dead?