Tag Archives: Social Security

Robert Reich Has Great Advice For The POTUS But Obama Won’t Take It

I couldn’t agree more with  American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator Robert Reich.  He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.  The man knows a thing or two.

I really wish President Obama would heed his words…

Robert Reich

“Occasionally I may make some of you angry because I’m going to reach out to Republicans and I’m going to keep on doing it,” President Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser last night. “Even if some of you think I’m a sap I’m going to keep on doing it because that’s what I think the country needs.”

Given the current state of the Regressive Party I don’t think this is what the country needs, at least not in the way Obama has been reaching out — putting compromises on the table before negotiations have even begun (cutting future Social Security benefits); setting lines in the sand and then caving (insisting the Bush tax cuts would not be extended to incomes over $250K and then extending them up to $400K); giving them easy escapes from the consequences of their policies (avoiding the fiscal cliff); allowing them to use the filibuster to thwart a large majority of voters (background checks before gun purchases); trying to reassure them by moving to the right (increasing deportations); and legitimizing their views (setting up Simpson-Bowles deficit commission and saying government budgets are like family budgets).

The way to “reach out to Republicans” is to be mercilessly tough on them — using the powers of the presidency to punish and reward them (and their constituents), holding them publicly accountable, leading the charge against the filibuster, and not giving an inch. When Obama reaches out to them as he has, congressional Republicans see only weakness, and they’ve used that weakness against him time and again.

6 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Republican Ideology, Robert Reich

Obama Bets Social Security Cuts That The GOP Won’t Accept His Tax Increases

This pretty much echos (in much more detail) my post from a few days ago…

Addicting Info 

Social Security Card

President Obama may be using the chained CPI as a gambit to get political leverage against Republicans for 2014 and beyond, even if he doesn’t realize it. Despite that, many people, particularly those on the left, are upset with President Obama’s decision to tie Social Security to a chained consumer price index (CPI), because it amounts to a cut in Social Security payments overall.

However, while the chained CPI is in his budget proposal, so are increased revenues from closing tax loopholes, something GOP leaders have been adamantly opposed to ever since the fiscal cliff.

Social Security payments are currently tied into the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which means that payments increase as the CPI-W. According to theWashington Postthe CPI-W does not reflect the substitutions the average consumer makes for products and services as prices on those things increase. A chained CPI does, and thus, increases at a lower rate.

The reason changing the way Social Security payments are calculated to a chained CPI is so maddening, and why it reduces payments, is because it assumes that inflation isn’t actually happening as fast as the CPI-W says it is. So Social Security payments could eventually fall far enough behind cost of living that people would be unable to make any ends meet on Social Security. Furthermore, it’s possible that calculations regarding rising cost of living could just as easily be underestimating those increases, rather than overestimating. If this is the case, a chained CPI would be even worse for people on Social Security.

The concept has been batted around since the fiscal cliff debacle, when members of the GOP said that this type of action on the so-called “entitlements” could get them interested in revenue increases. At the time, it sounded like some halfway decent compromise might be possible, but now, the GOP has pulled back, with Mitch McConnell (R-KY) saying these reforms “are modest,” and John Boehner (R-OH) repeating his familiar refrain of no more revenue.

The Daily Beast discusses a twist in this, which is the way the chained CPI is a political gambit for Obama. He reaches out with cuts in Social Security, which the Democrats don’t want, and insists on new revenue as part of the deal. Republican leaders follow Boehner and others, refuse the revenue, and Obama gets to say, “I tried, but they won’t work with me.”

Author Michael Tomasky believes that Obama has a genuine belief that the GOP will eventually come around on revenue increases and put forth a real effort to compromise on deficit reduction, however, he also thinks that what will actually happen is the above, simply because the GOP keeps saying, over and over, that Obama got his revenue in the fiscal cliff deal, and therefore we are done with that and all there is left to discuss is spending cuts.

Tomasky is likely correct in his prediction. Another part of the chained CPI concept deals with tax brackets; the CPI-U, which is what is actually reported as “inflation,” is what the government uses to adjust tax brackets so that people don’t get pushed into higher tax brackets merely because of inflation. Under the chained CPI, the tax brackets would change more slowly, and the phenomenon known as “bracket creep” could become more common.

Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge fame, calls this a tax increase, and he’s right. It would result in a tax increase on Americans over time, but more quickly than the current system.

“Bracket creep” is only part of the revenue in Obama’s budget; he still wants to close loopholes and reduce deductions for the highest income earners, something that the GOP is, and has been, adamantly against for practically forever. When these are paired with the tax increases the chained CPI represents, it does seem less likely that enough will favor Obama’s budget proposal to get it through.

The Washington Post article quotes the president as saying, “If you’re serious about deficit reduction, then there’s no excuse to keep these loopholes open.” But the GOP won’t accept closing loopholes, they won’t accept eliminating deductions, and they pretty much won’t accept anything that means increased revenue anymore, unless that revenue goes to pay for more tax cuts.

With Democrats strongly opposed to a chained CPI, and Republicans strongly opposed to more tax increases through closing loopholes and eliminating deductions for high-income earners, it’s not especially likely that his budget proposal will pass. But Tomasky’s prediction remains the likeliest: Obama’s offering an olive branch, trying to find middle ground, and GOP leaders are still balking because of the tax increases. His budget won’t go through, and not only will we not see a chained CPI, but he’ll get to point at Republicans as the stubborn ones behaving in their obstructionist manner, since he’s going against his party’s wishes to find some way to make something happen.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Budget Cuts, Chained CPI

Republicans move the budget goal posts again

Official portrait of United States House Speak...

It looks to me that no matter how much President Obama acquiesces to GOP demands, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t (from both sides)…

The Week

President Obama’s months-delayed budget was finally released today, and it’s being sharply criticized from both sides.

Liberals suggest the president is a “sellout” for proposing cuts to Social Security and other entitlements by using a “Chained CPI” calculation, while Republicans are falling back on their familiar “tax-and-spend liberal” attacks.

John Avlon sees this political posturing as a good sign, noting that the budget “is not a positional bargaining document, designed simply to rally the base at the outset of negotiations.”

While it’s possible the White House is trying to triangulate its way to a “grand bargain” on the budget, what’s striking is that Obama has given Republicans exactly what they’ve asked for — and it’s still not good enough. Republicans remain unwilling to consider additional revenues as part of any package.

In the midst of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations last year, an aide to Speaker John Boehner told Bloomberg that the GOP leader wanted to include a Chained CPI calculation even more than he wanted other entitlement cuts, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) explicitly told the Wall Street Journal that if Obama offered a Chained CPI calculation for entitlement benefits, Republicans would consider finding additional revenue.

Said McConnell: “Those are the kinds of things that would get Republicans interested in new revenue.”

To the annoyance of many liberals in his party, Obama included the Chained CPI in his budget.

But as Greg Sargent correctly points out, the GOP has moved the goal posts: “And so we have a moment of clarity in this debate once again: There is literally nothing that Obama can offer Republicans — not even things they themselves have asked for — that would induce them to agree to a compromise on new revenues.”

1 Comment

Filed under Chained CPI, White House Budget

Liberals fuming over Social Security cuts in Obama’s budget proposal

Barack Obama, pictured here on February 15, 2013, will become the first serving US president to receive Israel's presidential medal (AFP)

Barack Obama, pictured here on February 15, 2013, will become the first serving US president to receive Israel’s presidential medal (AFP)

Regarding President Obama’s Budget Proposal:  It’s been said that President Obama is an excellent chess player.  In my opinion, there’s a method to his madness when dealing with this extremely dysfunctional Congress.  Sometimes it’s worth looking at this situation through a more pragmatic lens.  I believe that the POTUS knows they will not accept his offer because he is asking for revenue (raising taxes on the wealthy) in exchange for these cuts.  However, whatever his next step is, he can truthfully say he offered the social cuts they had been asking for.

It would be great if Progressives were not so damned reactionary and simply analyzed the situation…but hey, that’s just my opinion.

The Raw Story

President Barack Obama will make key concessions to Republican foes next week when he unveils his US budget that proposes cuts to cherished entitlement programs, the White House said Friday.

Obama’s fiscal blueprint slashes the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, in what a senior administration official described as a “compromise offer” that cuts federal spending, finds savings in Social Security and raises tax revenue from the wealthy.

Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner are opposed to new tax hikes, after the president secured $600 billion in increased tax revenue in a year-end deal.

Boehner’s party controls the House of Representatives, and passage of the president’s budget is unlikely if it contains new tax revenue provisions.

But Obama’s concession to conservatives in the form of reduced cost-of-living payouts for Social Security benefits could revive consideration of a deficit-reducing “grand bargain” that has proved elusive in recent years.

Such cuts to public pension programs and public health insurance for the elderly — seen as sacred cows for Obama’s Democrats — have been longstanding demands of Republicans.

“While this is not the president’s ideal deficit reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan like the CPI (consumer price index) change that were key Republican requests and not the president’s preferred approach, this is a compromise proposal built on common ground,” the official said.

Obama is willing to “do tough things to reduce the deficit,” but only in the context of a package that includes new revenues from the wealthy, the official added.

Liberals immediately fumed that Obama appeared to be caving in to Republicans, with the group Democracy for America worried about the “profoundly disturbing” proposal for Social Security cuts.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, warned the move would slash $120 billion from Social Security benefits over 10 years, and pledged to “do everything in my power to block” Obama’s so-called “chained CPI” proposal.

Even moderate Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told MSNBC television that he has “serious concerns” about its impact on seniors.

The White House insisted that the Social Security cut was part of a recognition of the need to make some painful changes in federal programs in order to reduce spending.

“This isn’t about political horse trading; it’s about reducing the deficit in a balanced way that economists say is best for the economy and job creation,” the administration official said.

Obama’s new revenues will draw in part from capping retirement savings plans for millionaires, and closing some loopholes that benefit the rich.

The annual budget deficit is projected at 5.5 percent of gross domestic product for the fiscal year ending in September. Under the Obama budget, that would decline to 1.7 percent of GDP by 2023.

Combined with the $2.5 trillion in savings already achieved since negotiations in 2010, the Obama budget would bring total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion over 10 years, slightly higher than the overall goal agreed to by both parties for stabilizing the national debt.

But Boehner warned that Obama had “moved in the wrong direction” by making skimpier entitlement cuts than he had offered in negotiations with Republicans last year.

And “if the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward,” Boehner said.

3 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

VIDEO: The Devastating Impact From Sequestration As Told By Local News

In case you haven’t heard how the sequester has impacted other areas of the country…

Think Progress

The automatic spending cuts that went into effect at the start of March are spread out over a host of domestic programs and are having a real impact on communities across the country. Sequestration is cutting jobsshutting down essential services, and hurting state economies.

While the consequences of the reductions are not leading the national evening news, local broadcasts have actively chronicled their brutal impact. ThinkProgress has the video report:

All told, sequestration is predicted to reduce GDP growth from 2.6 percent to 2 percent for 2013, and eliminate some 700,000 jobs by the end of 2014. Social Security, Medicaid, some anti-poverty programs, military pay, and the ongoing costs of the wars are exempted. But Medicare’s provider payments, the military’s overall budget, and non-defense discretionary spending are all getting hit.

The last area of spending is being cut five percent, even though it was already scheduled to reach its lowest level in fifty years before sequestration took effect. It’s the main area of spending Republicans have targeted in their budgets. But there’s only so much efficiency to be found in any given program. At this point, even a five percent spending reduction harms services and programs most Americans would consider essential.

Comments Off

Filed under Sequestration Effect

Paul Ryan Budget Reduces Spending To Lowest Levels Since 1948: Report

Paul Ryan Budget Spending

Paul Ryan’s “Ayn Randian”  economic philosophy has prompted him to put forth a budget that would affect the working class and very poor in the most adverse way, while giving the top 1% more tax breaks and other perks.

The Huffington Post

Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed budget would reduce government spending outside of Social Security and interest on debt to its lowest levels in over six decades, Investor’s Business Daily reported Wednesday.

Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, unveiled his latest fiscal proposal on Tuesday, laying out $4.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. The blueprint aims to balance the budget in 10 years by slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to aid the poor, including food stamps. Ryan’s plan would also repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

“This is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan,” Ryan said on Tuesday. “It’s also an invitation. This is an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats, to come together to fix these problems.”

Under the House GOP plan, government spending would hit its lowest levels in 65 years. Investor’s Business Daily’s Jed Graham reports:

By 2023, under Paul Ryan’s budget, the entirety of federal spending outside of Social Security and interest on the debt (16.4% of GDP in 2012) would shrink to 11.2% of GDP, a level not seen since 1948 — before ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, the interstate highway system and almost before the first baby boomers were born.That is nearly 25% below the 14.6% of GDP average over the past 64 years. In the only three years over this span that saw spending on the main functions of government (outside of saving for retirement) dip just below 12% of GDP, the unemployment rate averaged 4.5% or less, shrinking safety net outlays while bolstering the spending capacity of state and local governments.

Graham also calculates that by leaving Medicare expenditures out as well as Social Security and interest, spending levels would shrink to 7.9 percent of GDP by 2023, the lowest level since 1938, before Social Security and Medicare programs were created.

Click here to read more on Ryan’s budget plan.

Comments Off

Filed under Poverty, Rep. Paul Ryan

Would A $15 Minimum Wage Work?

Jobs Cityscape   -   http://mariopiperni.com/

Seems there’s no real concern for “the people”…just “the corporations”.  Ask the SCOTUS Justices who voted to allow Citizens United.

Mario Piperni

Diana McGinness believes so.

“Cut, cut, cut entitlements!”

“Reduce the debt!”  We need to broaden the base (i.e more taxes on the 47%)!

“Reduce the size of government!”

Turn on any cable news network and that’s all you’ll hear.

And the only answers the politicians have are:  raise more taxes and/or cut entitlements (not defense, of course) or both.

We hear the GOP wants to cut food stamps and other programs that help the poor.  That something must be done with SS and Medicare because they’re going broke and Medicaid needs to be cut back, too, because we just don’t have the money.  And the Democrats refuse to let these programs take a hit.

People are tired of paying taxes to help the “lazy 47% who don’t pay taxes, is the complaint.

The economy is too sluggish, it’s not growing!

So we’re in gridlock as usual with no answers that either side is willing to accept.

Is there an alternative?  Maybe.

What if we could add  $169,260,000,000 to the economy?

Add $25,389,000,000 to the treasury each year in the form of taxes (without increasing anyone’s taxes.  Over 10 years, that’s $2.5 trillion add to the Treasury that could be earmarked to reduce the debt/deficit.

Reduce the costs of programs providing food stamps, housing vouchers, and the big one – Medicaid?

Collect $10,494.120,000 more annually in FICA premiums to shore up Social Security and Medicare.  That’s over $1 trillion in 10 years, that would surely strengthen each of these programs for the coming years without making major changes in the program.

How, you ask?

Increase the minimum wage to $15.00.

Using 2010 numbers, the poverty level for 1 person under 65 was $11,344.  That’s someone making $218.15 per week, or $5.45 an hour.  The working poor receive assistance in the form of housing vouchers, food stamps, and Medicaid and pay little, if anything in the form of federal taxes.

Using the federal minimum wage in 2010 of $7.25 and the then number of working people making poverty level or less in wages of 10,500,000 you can extrapolate those numbers as follows:

10,500,000 x $7.25 per hour for 40 hours @ 52 weeks = $158,340,000,000 in wages annually. FICA at 6.2% for these workers would contribute $9,817.080.000 to SS/Medicare. Of course, some of these are part-time jobs, so this is merely an example.  But for every person who can be removed from government assistance, that’s less tax dollars needed to support them.

And if you think a person flipping burgers doesn’t deserve $15 per hour, consider how much of your tax dollars are going to subsidize their wages so they can be paid $7.25 to flip those burgers.  One way or the other, the consumer/tax payer is paying a considerable amount to get that burger flipped.

Now change the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and extrapolate the numbers:

10,500,000 x 15.00 per hour 40 hours @ 52 weeks = $327,600,000,000 in wages annually.  FICA would be a contribution of an additional $10,494,120,000.  Over 10 years that would be over $1.4 Trillion dollars.

With a 15% tax rate, those wages would contribute $25,389,000,000 annually in revenue to the Treasury and could be targeted to directly reduce the debt.  Over 10 years that would be a $2.5 Trillion deduction, in addition to the reduced expenditures for food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid.

Add an additional $169,260,000,000 increased purchasing power to the economy.

Increasing the minimum wage would also add to the treasuries of states in the form of sales tax, income tax, among other taxes these dollars would generate.

A two-person working household could generate $30 per hour providing them income to save and possibly purchase a home.

The counter-argument will be that increasing the minimum wage will reduce jobs.  There are many studies that disprove that argument. There are several papers (links here) that refute that argument.

The other counter- argument will be that the cost of everything will go up and the jobs will move overseas.

First, these are service industry jobs…now 7 out of 10 in the U.S.  - it’s going to be hard to ship them overseas.  Are you going to order your burger from the McDonald’s in China and have it flown over to the pick up window?  I think not.  Nor is the Wal-Mart worker going to be shipped over there either so you can restock the shelves yourself.

As for the cost…two things to consider.  Are you going to pay $15-30 for a McDonald’s Big-Mac?  I think not.

Prices are determined based on the floor (the lowest price a seller can sell a product for) and the ceiling (the highest amount a consumer is willing to pay), and on competitor pricing.

And while the prices may go up — if the consumer is willing to pay and competitors are not competing — the consumer/taxpayer is already paying.  If the end game allows your taxes to be reduced and you, the consumer, have the freedom to choose where you will make your purchases — based on competitive prices and your willingness to pay and the fact that you have more money to spend then haven’t we all won?

When you look at the trillions of dollars that are currently not being invested in our economy via our workers, but are sitting on the shelf waiting to invest…the only question I have is is – who better to invest in than the workers and our economy?

An interesting idea but my concerns would be the impact a $15 minimum wage would have on American competitiveness in global markets. Diana addresses this point.

Yes, that is an argument for manufacturing jobs – but most of those are gone already – some are coming back because, in part, the Chinese are demanding higher wages.

But the service industry jobs are what I’m referring to – they can’t take those overseas.  And with so many of our jobs now in that category (7 out of 10) and these being the lowest paying jobs out there, it’s a place to begin.

Your thoughts?

1 Comment

Filed under Economic Inequality, Economy

Entitlement reform” is a hoax

I have a feeling that a lot of people knew this already…but this is for those who might not know…

Salon – Robert Reich

No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits

It has become accepted economic wisdom, uttered with deadpan certainty by policy pundits and budget scolds on both sides of the aisle, that the only way to get control over America’s looming deficits is to “reform entitlements.”

But the accepted wisdom is wrong.

Start with the statistics Republicans trot out at the slightest provocation — federal budget data showing a huge spike in direct payments to individuals since the start of 2009, shooting up by almost $600 billion, a 32 percent increase.

And Census data showing 49 percent of Americans living in homes where at least one person is collecting a federal benefit – food stamps, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, or subsidized housing — up from 44 percent in 2008.

But these expenditures aren’t driving the federal budget deficit in future years. They’re temporary. The reason for the spike is Americans got clobbered in 2008 with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. They and their families have needed whatever helping hands they could get.

If anything, America’s safety nets have been too small and shot through with holes. That’s why the number and percentage of Americans in poverty has increased dramatically, including 22 percent of our children.

What about Social Security and Medicare (along with Medicare’s poor step-child, Medicaid)?

Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits. By law, it can only spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

That fund has been in surplus for the better part of two decades, as boomers contributed to it during their working lives. As boomers begin to retire, those current surpluses are disappearing.

But this only means the trust fund will be collecting from the rest of the federal government the IOUs on the surpluses it lent to the rest of the government.

This still leaves a problem for the trust fund about two decades from now.

Yet the way to deal with this isn’t to raise the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits, as many entitlement reformers are urging. That would put an unfair burden on most laboring people, whose bodies begin wearing out about the same age they did decades ago even though they live longer.

And it’s not to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for inflation, as even the White House seemed ready to propose in recent months. Benefits are already meager for most recipients. The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Besides, Social Security’s current inflation adjustment actually understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients — who spend far more than anyone else on health care, the costs of which have been rising faster than overall inflation.

That leaves two possibilities that “entitlement reformers” rarely if ever suggest, but are the only fair alternatives: raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes (in 2013 that ceiling is $113,700), and means-testing benefits so wealthy retirees receive less. Both should be considered.

What’s left to reform? Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to soar. But here again, look closely and you’ll see neither is really the problem.

The underlying problem is the soaring costs of health care — as evidenced by soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles that all of us are bearing — combined with the aging of the boomer generation.

The solution isn’t to reduce Medicare benefits. It’s for the nation to contain overall healthcare costs and get more for its healthcare dollars.

We’re already spending nearly 18 percent of our entire economy on health care, compared to an average of 9.6 percent in all other rich countries.

Yet we’re no healthier than their citizens are. In fact, our life expectancy at birth (78.2 years) is shorter than theirs (averaging 79.5 years), and our infant mortality (6.5 deaths per 1000 live births) is higher (theirs is 4.4).

Why? Doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have every incentive to spend on unnecessary tests, drugs, and procedures.

For example, almost 95 percent of cases of lower back pain are best relieved by physical therapy. But American doctors and hospitals routinely do expensive MRI’s, and then refer patients to orthopedic surgeons who often do even more costly surgery. There’s not much money in physical therapy.

Another example: American doctors typically hospitalize people whose diabetes, asthma, or heart conditions act up. Twenty percent of these people are hospitalized again within a month. In other rich nations nurses make home visits to ensure that people with such problems are taking their medications. Nurses don’t make home visits to Americans with acute conditions because hospitals aren’t paid for such visits.

An estimated 30 percent of all healthcare spending in the United States is pure waste, according to the Institute of Medicine.

We keep patient records on computers that can’t share data, requiring that they be continuously rewritten on pieces of paper and then reentered on different computers, resulting in costly errors.

And our balkanized healthcare system spends huge sums collecting money from different pieces of itself: Doctors collect from hospitals and insurers, hospitals collect from insurers, insurers collect from companies or from policy holders.

A major occupational category at most hospitals is “billing clerk.” A third of nursing hours are devoted to documenting what’s happened so insurers have proof.

Cutting or limiting Medicare and Medicaid costs, as entitlement reformers want to do, won’t reform any of this. It would just result in less care.

In fact, we’d do better to open Medicare to everyone. Medicare’s administrative costs are in the range of 3 percent.

That’s well below the 5 to 10 percent costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It’s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25 to 27 percent of premiums). And it’s way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40 percent). It’s even far below the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.

Healthcare costs would be further contained if Medicare and Medicaid could use their huge bargaining leverage over healthcare providers to shift away from a “fee-for-the-most-costly-service” system to a system focused on achieving healthy outcomes.

Medicare isn’t the problem. It may be the solution.

“Entitlement reform” sounds like a noble endeavor. But it has little or nothing to do with reducing future budget deficits.

Taming future deficits requires three steps having nothing to do with entitlements: Limiting the growth of overall healthcare costs, cutting our bloated military, and ending corporate welfare (tax breaks and subsidies targeted to particular firms and industries).

Obsessing about “entitlement reform” only serves to distract us from these more important endeavors.

Edit: Emphasis is mine

<><><>

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

Comments Off

Filed under Entitlement Reform

Lindsay Graham: I Will Destroy America’s Solvency Unless The Social Security Retirement Age Is Raised

How much clearer can the GOP get with their extortion threats to American citizens?  Graham is a Senator with enough clout to back up his threat.  This is shameful…

Think Progress

Although official Washington is currently fixated on the so-called “Fiscal Cliff,” the biggest threat to American prosperity is the debt ceiling, which must be raised in February to prevent economic catastrophe. If Republicans refuse to reach a deal on the so-called cliff, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that they will spark a new recession in 2013. But if Republicans block action on the debt ceiling, they will make that potential recession look quaint. Without raising the debt ceiling, the United States will be forced to embrace austerity so severe it will lead to “a bigger GDP drop than that experienced during the Great Recession of 2008.”

But in an interview on Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to oppose this must-pass bill unless Social Security benefits are taken away from millions of future retirees:

I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get serious about keeping the country from becoming Greece, saving Social Security and Medicare [sic]. So here’s what i would like: meaningful entitlement reform — not to turn Social Security into private accounts, not to take a voucher approach to Medicare — but, adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window. I cannot in good conscience raise the debt ceiling without addressing the long term debt problems of this country and I will not.

Watch it:

This is extortion, plain and simple. It is the budgetary equivalent of threatening to break America’s legs unless Congress agrees to break the backs of millions poised on the edge of retirement. Graham’s position is that seniors should have to wait longer for their retirement benefits — even if they work in physically demanding jobs that literally tear the body apart by the time a worker reaches age 65 — and that those benefits should be reduced in the future.

And if Congress won’t agree to this deal, then Graham is prepared to thrust the nation into an economic calamity unheard of since the Great Depression.

6 Comments

Filed under Sen. Lindsey Graham

GOP Senators Want To Take Debt Ceiling Hostage In Order To Raise Retirement Age

Those guys are such creeps.  Someone needs to tell them about the results of the last General Election.  They appear to be stuck on stupid

Think Progress

Two Republican senators want to use the threat of an economic meltdown to raise the retirement age and cut Medicare. Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced a plan today that would raise the federal debt limit by $1 trillion in exchange for $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as The Hill reported:

The Corker-Alexander dollar-for-dollar plan has several components.

It would structurally reform Medicare by creating competing private options giving seniors greater choice of healthcare plans. It would not, however, cap Medicare spending.

The plan would also give states more flexibility to manage Medicaid programs and prevent states from “gaming the federal share of the program with state tax charges.”

It would gradually raise the Social Security retirement age and use the “chained CPI” formula to calculate cost-of-living adjustments, curbing the growing cost of benefits.

In exchange, it would direct the debt limit be increased by the same amount as the savings generated from entitlement reform.

The U.S. will hit its debt limit on or around December 31st. The Treasury Department estimates that, using extraordinary measures, it could avoid default for another two months or so. Allowing the U.S. to default on its debt via not raising the debt ceiling could cause a complete financial meltdown. The 2011 debt ceiling debacle — during which House Republicans nearly pushed the country into a default due to their intransigence on taxes — cost the country about $19 billion in higher interest payments and at least one million jobs.

Corker and Alexander are threatening more economic chaos in order to achieve one of the most regressive potential policy changes. Though lawmakers point to America’s increasing life expectancy in order to justify raising the retirement age, life expectancy is only increasing for wealthier workers in non-physical jobs. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it, “there has been a sharp rise in inequality in life expectancy by income over the last three decades that mirrors the growth in inequality in income.”

4 Comments

Filed under GOP Extremism