Gang of Six looking at Social Security changes

[Wiseacre]

First of all, as it stands now we due for about another 9.6 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years according to the CBO if nothing changes. And that's the optimistic view. There's only one way out of this, and that is increased economic growth. More revenue coming in as a result, and less expenditures going out for unemployment and the like.

The left may not like it, but allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2012 would be sure fire way to guarantee the economic growth we need would not happen. So you get an additional 3 trillion or so in revenue MAYBE, raising taxes on everybody would put a damper on everybody at a time when we definitely don't need it.

Some say okay, just raise taxes on the rich. Still a damper, but not as bad. Problem is, instead of 3 trillion is more revenue, now you're only getting 700 billion over the next 10 years according to the CBO. MAYBE not that much, rich guys are good at not paying taxes. So now you've still got 9 trillion in new debt and a sluggish economy. What then?

Answer: cut spending. It's the ONLY answer, which is why everyone else around the world who is in financial trouble is doing it. EVERYBODY. I'm going to tell you right now, if we don't find a way to come up with a bipartisan plan to deal with the debt and deficits, we're fucked. Doesn't have to be draconian, but it's gotta show a steady long term reduction in spending that eventually leads to balancing the budget and cutting into that debt. Revenue increases have to be a part of it when it makes sense and doesn't hurt economic growth, like in the 90s when Cinton raised taxes. But the lion's share has to be spending cuts in the big ticket stuff: entitlements and defense.

 

[auditor0007]

Sen. Mark Warner: 'Gang Of Six' Looking At Social Security Changes, Not Raising Tax Rates

Meet Mark Warner, future President of the United States....and my Senator! A self made Millionaire who can surely help put this country on the right road.

Stupid Democrats don't want to discuss making changes to entitlement programs or cutting anything. Stupid Republicans don't want to discuss increasing revenue. It sounds pretty much like the people here at USMB.

 

[DaGoose]

Someone in the comment section nails it:

PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security really amounts to a compulsory savings program of OUR money from OUR paychecks for OUR retirement*. Unfortunately, instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our politicians have put the entire SS surplus into the general fund and spent it (they stole it!).Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less dollars coming in due to the economy (fewer payrolls, therefore less SS payroll taxes) this ponzi scheme is collapsing faster than a Madoff scam and that is why our politicians are in a hurry to slash (reform) SS because now they would have to borrow the funds and pay interest on the new debt as well. GET IT?

This comment nailed it even better..........

Every paycheck I've ever gotten, the government has *required* me to pay medicare taxes. The government has also required my employer to contribute an equal amount to medicare to medicare. This is NOT an entitlemen*t program paid for out of the general tax fund. This is a retirement insurance program that is run by the federal government*, funded by every single wage earner in the country. I think I have every right to enjoy the benefits of medicare, after a lifetime of contributi*ons, when I reach retirement age. The same is true of social security retirement income. Every paycheck, big chunks of my money go to Medicare/m*edicaid/so*cial security. Now the government can't afford it? We can afford to spend $75M an hour on the war machine. The ware machine isn't even considered during these discussion*s.

.

 

[Granny]

Sen. Mark Warner: 'Gang Of Six' Looking At Social Security Changes, Not Raising Tax Rates

Meet Mark Warner, future President of the United States....and my Senator! A self made Millionaire who can surely help put this country on the right road.

Mark Warner is an asshat who damned near taxed Virginians to death. I was damned glad to see him out of office. Virginians got more of the same from his protege Tim Kaine. Former Gov. Holton has been grooming Tim for decades to make a run for the Presidency and if he doesn't make a run in 2012, he'll do it the next go round. Holton's efforts are probably his was of thanking Tim for marrying that fat, ugly daughter of his.

Someone in the comment section nails it:

PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security really amounts to a compulsory savings program of OUR money from OUR paychecks for OUR retirement*. Unfortunately, instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our politicians have put the entire SS surplus into the general fund and spent it (they stole it!).Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less dollars coming in due to the economy (fewer payrolls, therefore less SS payroll taxes) this ponzi scheme is collapsing faster than a Madoff scam and that is why our politicians are in a hurry to slash (reform) SS because now they would have to borrow the funds and pay interest on the new debt as well. GET IT?

They nailed part of the problem. However the Biggest problem with SS today is not only that it is used as a slush fund. It is that over half the people who collect are actually collection SS disability, or Survivor Benefits. And the Vast majority of those people will never work enough to pay in anywhere near what they get. SS was meant to a pay as you go savings program. It has become much much more, and that of course is where the sustainability part comes into play.

Not to mention that even people who do work all their lives and pay in the whole time. Are now living much longer and end up collecting more than they paid in. When SS was set up there were something like 26 People paying in, for every 1 collection. Today it is 2 to 1, and by 2020 it will be 1 to 1 or less.

So just like with Medicare. Doing nothing, is throwing granny over the cliff just as much as scraping the whole system and not replacing it would be.

Granny's being thrown over the cliff??!!

You are right - so is everybody else. The shit has already hit the fan with part of Obamacare taking effect in 2011. Medicare recipients have not had any increased COLA raises the last two years, due to the fact that there has been no inflation the last two years. (My ass!) My understanding is that there will be no COLA increases for the next 5 years. Medicare no longer pays anything toward an annual eye checkup. There are more other cuts in Medicare coverage, as well. I read an interesting article in National Review about insurance increases having a lot to do with Medicare cuts. It's a mess. And, yes, SS has been a slush fund for our elected representatives for decades - to fund whatever Pig in a Poke project they desire. Legislative IOUs to SS are never going to be honored. And things are going to get a lot worse.

But I'll tell you this: Obamacare is so much the Cat's Pajamas that our Senators and Representatives have exempted themselves altogether from being covered by it. Think about that the next time you vote.

 

[sparky]

Granny's being thrown over the cliff??!!

well it's just a matter of convincing the general public to do so Granny....

 

[waltky]

AARP drops longstanding opposition to Social Security benefit cuts...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cuts
June 17, 2011 | Washington – AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, was dropping its long-standing opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington's debate over how to revamp the nation's entitlement programs, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The decision, which AARP has not discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush's plan for partial privatization. AARP now concludes that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain. "The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens," according to John Rother, AARP's longtime policy chief and a prime mover behind its change of heart.

The shift, which was vetted by AARP's board and is now the group's stance, could have a dramatic effect on the debate surrounding the future of the federal safety net, from pensions to health care, given the group's immense clout. At the same time, AARP runs the risk of alienating both its liberal allies, who vowed to fight any benefit cuts, and its 37 million members, many of whom were deeply opposed to such a move. To win them over, AARP was preparing coast-to-coast town hall meetings to explain the problem and possible solutions.

In an early sign of its new approach, AARP declined to join a coalition of about 300 unions, women's groups and liberal advocacy organizations created to fight Social Security benefit cuts. "The coalition's role was to kind of anchor the left, and our role is going to be to actually get something done," Rother said. Leaders of the coalition, dubbed Strengthen Social Security, agreed that AARP's views would carry weight in Washington but predicted that the group would see a bigger backlash from its members than it expects.

Read more: AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cuts - FoxNews.com

See also:

Ryan open to changing Medicare reforms
06/16/11 - Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday that he is open to reforming Medicare in a way that would leave a traditional fee-for-service system as an option for future seniors.

Ryan, speaking at a policy discussion hosted by The Hill and sponsored by No American Debt, an advocacy group, said that he has consistently been open to an optional version of his controversial Medicare plan, which Democrats have seized upon as a campaign issue. “I have always said all along all of those ideas are ideas we should be considering when it comes to legislation,” the House Budget Committee chairman said. “When you are down in the details, there should be a fee-for-service option alongside premium support. “They are all good ideas,” Ryan said.

Such an option-based reform could eventually emerge as a compromise way to prevent Medicare’s bankruptcy, which the entitlement program’s trustees estimate will occur in 13 years. In response to Ryan’s comments at The Hill’s event, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped Republicans. “Republicans are not fooling anyone. They voted to end Medicare and now they can’t take the heat,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “The only plan Americans want is called Medicare and we must strengthen it, not weaken it. What you’re hearing now is a lead balloon crashing to the ground.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, Ryan’s House-passed budget — and the response to it — was a major topic at Thursday’s policy discussion. The congressman also expressed cautious optimism that the meetings Vice President Biden is leading to find a deal to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling would be successful. In addition to Medicare, the Wisconsin Republican discussed his budget’s plan on tax reform, saying that the current code was standing in the way of economic growth because it sowed uncertainty in the business community.

With that in mind, Ryan came out strongly against making further short-term changes to the payroll tax, an idea the White House is considering to spark the sluggish economy. In the aftermath of a string of disappointing economic reports, administration officials in the Biden talks have discussed extending a payroll tax holiday for workers included in last year’s tax-cut compromise and giving similar relief to employers.

MORE

 

[JimH52]

There needs to be a comprehensive package. Everything needs to be on the table. That includes increasing the retirement age, examining who is eligable, and increasing revenues. Until both sides can come to that eventual conclusion, the wheels will continue to spin. Social Security should have NEVER have been used to implement a war.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think the retirement age oughta be raised by a year or two down the road. Hell, people are living a lot longer and we need to cut costs, not for current retirees or people who are within 10 or 15 years of retirement but for the younger guys who have the time to plan ahead now. I'd bet money if you ask the younger crowd about it, they'd rather have a solvent program when they hit 68 or 70, even if it means they have to work a year or two longer.

I also think the SS benefits oughta be eliminated for those who don't need it. What are we doin' sending a check to Warren Buffett, that's just dumb.