Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
It is probably just me, but it seems that every time we hear about a proposed deal to extend the debt limit and avert a government shutdown and a debt default, the plan does nothing more than cut the taxes on the wealthiest Americans and Corporations. The latest proposal by the so-called Gang of Six is just one more example of Congress attacking the Middle Class.
“The cuts in the Gang of Six plan aren’t minor, either. It proposes a chained CPI adjustment to Social Security, which may not be a bad idea when combined with other measures to boost benefits and strengthen the program, but on its own is tantamount to a $1,300 cut each year for recipients over their lifetimes. Strengthen Social Security co-chair and former Obama adviser Nancy Altman has denounced the idea as an overly harsh cut. “The chained-CPI is poor policy, and given that seniors vote in disproportionately high numbers, it is equally poor politics,” she said.” Think Progress This latest attempt by both sides of Congress to claim victory over the imaginary debt crisis just seems to be another attempt to please their corporate masters.
Does it bother anyone else that a group of Senators from both sides of the aisle would call themselves the “Gang of Six”? These Senators are doing their best to terrorize the Middle Class so maybe the moniker is appropriate. While some of the details of this proposed plan have not been agreed upon, what we do know troubles someone like myself who may be utilizing Medicare and Social Security in the next few years. “These tentative changes include repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and establishing three simple tax brackets for individuals, while cutting “tax expenditures” and adjusting the corporate tax rate to between 23 percent and 29 percent.” Business Insider How can a tax rate be lowered for major corporations who pay no taxes now?
The proposed cuts to Social Security retirees is especially disturbing. “Lawmakers and the Obama administration are reportedly considering switching to a “chained” Consumer Price Index. According to the advocacy group Strengthen Social Security, the chained-CPI could lead to annual Social Security benefit cuts of $560 for those aged 75, $984 for those aged 85 and $1,392 for those aged 95. “The proposal to shift to the chained-CPI is actually a stealth attack on Social Security,” said Joan Entmacher, director of family economic security at the National Women’s Law Center, during a Friday conference call with reporters.” Huffington Post Is anyone surprised that the Congressional terrorists would be considering reducing payments to Seniors and reducing corporate tax rates? Just why is Social Security being discussed when it has no impact on the Deficit?
I have a novel, Gang of America idea to suggest that would actually reduce the deficit and protect Social Security. Actually, it is not my idea, but the idea of the vast majority of Americans who are repeatedly telling Congress to tax the wealthy and Corporations and to leave Social Security alone. I realize my Gang does not have much lobbying power, but we have millions of votes. Congress, it is time to get on board with the Gang of America’s ideas and you just might save the economy and your jobs. Let’s hear your ideas to “fix” the imaginary debt crisis.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
kderosa,
what is your evidence that “almost any change is going to be upheld”? do you think that today’s court would allow the fleming facts to control?
I do not know of any Supreme court that has struck down a change in benefits for failing the rationality and arbitray test, but I only had time for a cursory review.
The future of social security isn’t going to be decided by courts or politicians, but economic law. The system is untenable, started with 17:1 contributors to retirees, a ratio now nearly 3:1 and falling to 2:1.
Employers do not “contribute” half of social security taxes. The 6.2% employers pay comes by reduction in employee compensation. Employees pay – directly or indirectly – 100% of government coerced contributions to this ponzi scheme.
The future holds:
Rapid increases to the qualifying retirement age
Increases to social security withholding rates
Lifting and elimination of social security withholding caps, just like Medicare
Means testing against IRA’s and 401(k)’s to get your “contributions” back
Outright reductions in benefits, and manipulated COLA adjustments
Raf,
I don’t agree with everything Obama has done or is doing. The downfall to most (not all) republicans is that they can’t seem to be able to criticize their own party. My mother in law (a staunch republican) still claims GB was the best president ever. Statements like this make me wonder if the world isn’t de-evolving. I strongly disagree with things Obama is doing. The bottom line in this particular discussion, however, is that polls show American’s don’t want social security touched; they know they’ll need it and want to rely on it. I think the repubs are going too far and it will hurt them in the end. Most people are conservative in some areas, and not so much in others. But almost nobody (except the crazy radical tea baggers) wants a fanatic. They’re too far to the right….funny thing is if they just reigned it in and came to the middle a little, they’d probably get more votes.
I visited some friends in Florida recently. Their neighbor hates Obama and said he can’t stand all of the social programs, people sucking off the system, using it in any way. He was quite mad. After some time it finally came out that he’s been on disability for forty years. He’s been collecting benefits for most of his life. He didn’t seem to have any trouble hauling bags of dirt over his shoulder while working on his garden though, or pushing a wheel barrel. Go figure.
@rafflaw, now tell us how many times the court has struck down a change in benefits for failing the rationality and arbitrary test?
As you know, or should know, almost any change is going to be upheld.
Sense,
you are trying to rewrite history. George W. gave tax breaks to millionaires and that law was renewed under Obama. The argument made by the Right and the Blue dog Dems was that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to not hire employees. The fact is that they didn’t hire during Bush and they are not hiring now because they can send jobs overseas for less and in some instances are given incentives to send jobs overseas. Raising taxes on the wealthy has little or no impact on jobs and the last 11 years are evidence of that fact. All it does is put money into the hands of large contributors.
kderosa, in all due respect, one of the lessons learned in law school is that you have to read the entire case before commenting on it. You claim that the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor, by a 5-4 decision, stated that Social security does not create a contract that can not be broken by the government. First of all, the case involved a law that outlawed Social Security benefits for someone who was alleged to be a communist. The fact that he was never declared by any court to be a communist and that there was no law saying that being a member of the communist party was illegal, did not concern the majority. Do you honestly think that someone today who loses benefits without the benefit of trial would suffer the same fate?
The court stated that as long as Congress had a legitimate reason to amend the Act to reduce or change, it could not prevent the change of terms. “While acknowledging this latitude, the Supreme Court in
Flemming nevertheless indicated that congressional action may be subject to some constitutional restraint:23 “Whether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth in Title II [of the Social Security Act], it is not for us to say. The answer for such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts. Our concern here, as often, is with power, not with wisdom.”
Helvering v. Davis, [301 U.S. 619] supra, at 644 [1937]. Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program such as this, we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification. Thus, only if Congress were to act in a totally irrational and arbitrary manner would due process
considerations invalidate a subsequent amendment…..” http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss2.pdf
If today’s Supreme Court thinks that the changing of Social Security benefits for current retirees is irrational and arbitray, Fleming v. Nestor would not be a bar for the court to overrule Fleming v. Nestor. While Social Security does not create a contract, it and Fleming do require the “changes” to be rational and not arbitrary.
“Once you familiarize yourself with basic human nature, the mysteries of the universe tend to seem mundane. Gee people’s daily expenses have skyrocketed, I wonder why they dont want higher taxes?”
Yes, but until the last two years everyone was doing rather well…markets were up, housing market was raging, etc. People wanted better schools, better everything, but didn’t want to pay for it….even when their cups were overflowing. Now its a different story, I agree. Now isnt a good time to raise taxes.
The fact is GB was giving tax breaks when people truly didnt’ need them (there is a difference between need and want). Oh wait, he did send everyone a few hundred bucks, I remember! If you’re poor, you might eat (or drink) pretty well for a week…then you’re still poor. When you’re poor, a few hundred bucks won’t change anything.
I fail to see how investing a person’s hard earned money via Wall Street is better than contributing to Social Security. Have we forgotten so soon that we, the taxpayers of this country, had to bail out the big investment banks? If these banks were so successful at investing people’s money, why did we have to bail them out?
So….I didn’t provide money out of my paycheck with the promise I would get something back? I’m confused….so I’m now owed anything? How strange….I guess I’m confused on this entire concept. I thought it was MY money the gov was investing and I was supposed to given money back.
I guess it’s really not my money coming out of my paycheck…and that everyone should have known from the beginning that it was a donation. How silly of us! If this is a stupid concept to believe in, I guess 98% of America must be idiots…because I think they believed they were investing their money with the idea they’d be getting it back.
Either way, without people will become homeless rather quickly….but since the republicans only care about the rich, and the rich could care less, it’s no bother at all.
To kderosa….yes, sadly most Americans aren’t savvy enough to save for themselves. Rate of return? This is a foreign language for some. I started saving and worrying about retirement at 20 years old (I was working 60 hours a week at 16 years old). If you want people to be knowledgeable enough to save (the right way) for themselves, it’s going to take some time. How long have we relied on social security? You can’t just take it away with one quick grab without helping people learn what to do with their own money. Is it our responsibility? Should we know already? Yes and yes…but then I think you’re giving people too much credit. Like it or not, most people are not smart enough for this….and would still eventually be on one or more social programs.
Do you really think the dimwitted rednecks (i.e., republicans) out there (e.g., 60%of Florida), can even count let alone invest?
Rafflaw is right, I didn’t destroy that right, the Court in Fleming v Nestor destroyed it. Embarrassingly, rafflaw doesn’t realize that and he’s a lawyer.
Someonewithsense,
“That being said, social security is the only thing keeping millions of
seniors from the poor house. Without it, they’d likely starve and/or
be out in the cold. The reality is that people don’t save, or can’t
save, and employers don’t care anymore. Taking away social security,
or cutting it, will only force millions to welfare, food stamps, etc.
and cost the taxpayers more in the long run.”
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Sense and ekeyra,
Kderosa did not destroy the reality that social security is our money, along with the employers contributions. To reduce benefits for currently retired workers is outrageous.
Sense,
“And we’re forgetting the most important part……it’s our money. If
you don’t’ want to pay me social security, please give me back what
I’ve put into – it right now. It was a contract of sorts; the gov
takes XX percent, and I get XX dollars back. ”
Um no actually. Kderosa had a post destroying this absolutely naive perspective.
“If you want to change that, you should
do so starting 80 years from now so the people who have put into it
aren’t being swindled.”
So let me get this straight, before i was born a bunch of people decided to do something stupid with their money, like letting the government take care of it. Then when that goes to hell because surprise the government spent it, you expect the next generation to pay for your financial fuck up because YOU got swindled before they were even born? In what reality does that make sense?
“What’s funny to me is that people are so angry about taxes being
raised. EVERYTHING costs more…gas, food, etc. it’s all gone up and
up and up over the years”
Once you familiarize yourself with basic human nature, the mysteries of the universe tend to seem mundane. Gee people’s daily expenses have skyrocketed, I wonder why they dont want higher taxes?
Mike,
“That should be taken into account the next time you comment on social justice for “your” people. As much as you pretend to care for your brethren, you turn a deaf ear to the economic realities they face, due to the racism of this country.”
I think you have me confused with someone else… I garuntee I have never claimed nor will ever claim I have a “people”.
There is no such thing as a pension anymore. Maybe 10 to 15% of
employers have one, and those are slowly fading. So forget that.
There are 401k’s, of course, with (if you’re lucky) a modest
contribution by your employer. This, however, will never carry you
through retirement. Do you have any idea what your cost of living in
retirement will be? Look into it. People tend to think they can live
off very little because their house will be paid off, kids gone, etc.
You’ll be surprised. Your 401k will disappear very (very) fast.
That’s if you didn’t lose half of it when the market took a dive.
That being said, social security is the only thing keeping millions of
seniors from the poor house. Without it, they’d likely starve and/or
be out in the cold. The reality is that people don’t save, or can’t
save, and employers don’t care anymore. Taking away social security,
or cutting it, will only force millions to welfare, food stamps, etc.
and cost the taxpayers more in the long run. I’d be willing to make a
very large bet on it. These people aren’t dirt bags and low
life’s….they’re people who worked 30 to 40 years for a company, saved
what they could, and still require social security to live. Everyone
says it’s our responsibility to save…and this is true. But things
happen….illnesses, accidents, etc. And do the math…who can save
that much? You need much more than you think to live in retirement.
These people are your fathers and grandfathers (and eventually
you)….and they’ve earned the right, after 40 plus years of hard work,
to relax for a few years until the reaper (most likely a republican)
comes and takes them. People should not be forced (yes, forced) to
work full time at 70 years old. Or do we all really have to work
until we die now?
We have good jobs, but my wife’s employer does not match her 401k and
does not offer a pension of any kind…and her healthcare is 80/20 (so
we obviously use mine which is MUCH better). This is a reputable
employer whom you would all know if you heard the name. She’s been
there 19 years. She saves, puts into an IRA, 529 for our kids etc.
but if it weren’t for my income and retirement, she’d be up a creek
without social security.
And we’re forgetting the most important part……it’s our money. If
you don’t’ want to pay me social security, please give me back what
I’ve put into – it right now. It was a contract of sorts; the gov
takes XX percent, and I get XX dollars back. I have it in writing –
every quarter I get an update. If you want to change that, you should
do so starting 80 years from now so the people who have put into it
aren’t being swindled.
What’s funny to me is that people are so angry about taxes being
raised. EVERYTHING costs more…gas, food, etc. it’s all gone up and
up and up over the years…its costing more than ever to keep our
country running yet our taxes haven’t been raised in forever. People
want everything, social programs, the best schools etc. but don’t want
to pay for it. They think they’re being taxed heavy now…ha! Look at
France…great healthcare, etc. but do you know how much they pay in
taxes? For a country such as ours, we pay very little in taxes.
Perhaps it’s time to let go of the GB tax breaks….after all, they
were only used as a ploy for re-election anyways.
Elaine,
Great Maher clips!! I don’t know if I can ever clean the garage again!
rafflaw,
I thought you might enjoy this segment from Real Time about the tea party:
Elaine,
Too true and too funny!
Elaine-
The stinkin’ gummint is going to have to pry my tumor out of my cold, dead fingers! Dadgummit!