BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label deficite commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficite commission. Show all posts
TOO bad the Wall Street Journal isn't objective enough to call the wealthy Americans who want the government to continue their bush era tax cuts to task for not creating jobs here in the U.S. while they have been receiving these tax cuts during the current economic crisis. Instead they choose to promote the greed that brought about this crisis, and to use their paper to spread the lies and deception of the gop and tea-baggers right before the November elections.
The Wall Street Journal today ran an editorial bemoaning the increase in federal spending between FY 2008 and FY 2010.
What it doesn’t factor in, or provide context for, is the chain of events that led to these increases.
First, a large driver of federal spending was the onset of the economic collapse in late 2008 as automatic aid to people hit hard by the downturn, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, kicked in. With more people temporarily eligible for these mandatory programs and less revenue coming in, the deficit increased substantially in FY 2009, which began on October 1, 2008. In fact, on January 7, 2009 -- before President Obama was sworn in -- the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its Economic and Budget Outlook for Fiscal Years 2009-2019. In that document, CBO projected that government spending would rise from 20.9 percent of GDP in FY 2008 to 24.9 percent of GDP in FY 2009. In reality, government spending in FY 2009 turned out to be roughly what had been predicted a year earlier (24.7 percent). That is to say, this big increase of government spending occurred because of the economic meltdown the Administration inherited and the accompanying automatic increase in programs that assist those most hurt by it -- and this was already fully baked into the fiscal cake when the President took office.
Second, also in response to the recession, we needed to help close the huge gap between what the economy could produce and what it was producing in order to prevent a second Great Depression and even more devastating job losses. That’s why economists from across the spectrum supported a significant stimulus measure, and why the President signed into law the Recovery Act.
While the Recovery Act has become a subject of intense debate, it clearly has brought our economy back from the brink. Instead of four quarters of economic contraction, we now have had four quarters of economic growth. Instead of losing 750,000 jobs a month, we’ve now had nine months of private sector job growth. Recovery Act investments not only saved the jobs of thousands of teachers, firefighters, and police officers, but are also laying the foundation for economic growth in years to come as new roads, bridges, power plants, and rail are built. The Recovery Act added to government spending, but it was essential and beneficial to the nation’s economy.
While measures like these were needed to stave off recession and strengthen the economy, we also must restore fiscal sustainability over the medium- and long-term. However, doing so is made much more difficult because of past fiscal irresponsibility -- the previous Administration’s failure to pay for two large tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
What is required of us now is to make the tough choices to put our fiscal house in order.
The President has put forward a budget that contains more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. He has put in place a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending -- in nominal terms based on levels that do not include any Recovery Act funding -- and vowed to enforce it with his veto pen. He convened a bipartisan fiscal commission to devise a plan to get our budget in primary balance and our country on a long-term, sustainable course, and looks forward to hearing back from them in December. Looking to the long term where the growth of health care costs is the single biggest driver of increased spending, the President signed into law the Affordable Care Act, which will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in its first decade and more than $1 trillion in the second.
The other side’s response to our fiscal imbalance is to make it worse by supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of households -- cuts that will increase our deficits by nearly $700 billion and do nothing at all to stimulate economic growth.
What should worry those concerned about government spending and our fiscal situation are not slanted arguments about how we got here, but plans like these that will put us deeper into a hole.
Kenneth Baer is the Associate Director for Communications and Strategic Planning at OMB
IT is not fair that a majority of those on Social Security who need their benefits increased will not receive an increase for the second year in a row. THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR REP EARL POMEROY'S (D ND) BILL TO PROVIDE $250 TO SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS BY REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE A WARNING FOR ALL VOTING IN NOVEMBER. It is sad that we are wasting billions on wars in Iraq (as long as we have troops in Iraq we are at war there) and Afghanistan while leaving those dependent on Social Security behind, struggling to deal with increases in the cost of their housing, utilities, food and transportation, it doesn't speak well for the morality of our nation. Unfortunately, and though it may seem cruel to point out, many of these Social Security recipients are reaping what they have sown, blindly supporting politicians who are controlled by the military-industrial complex in the name of patriotism, ignoring decreases in other social safety net programs that didn't effect them, but now are subsidizing the national war machine. WE ALL need to be vigilant in the deficit commission's upcoming proposals and be prepared to battle any cuts in Social Security or raising the retirement age. See other post on this blog on Social Security for more information on this struggle.
For the second year in a row, the nearly 54 million retirees and other Americans who receive Social Security benefits will not get any cost-of-living increase in 2011 in their monthly checks, government officials announced Friday morning.
The absence of any growth in Social Security checks for consecutive years is unprecedented in the 3 1/2 decades that payments have been automatically adjusted according to the nation's inflation rate. The Social Security Administration made the announcement moments after the Labor Department released the latest figures for the consumer price index. They show that prices for the third quarter of this year rose by 1.5 percent compared with a year earlier, but fell by 0.6 percent compared with the same time in 2008.
In a symptom of the weak economy, last year marked the first time since the automatic formula has existed that consumer prices fell, so Social Security recipients were given no increase in their checks.
This year, the picture is more complicated - and likely to produce louder complaints over the lack of a cost-of-living increase.
Consumer prices have risen slightly from a year ago. But under the government rules, consumer prices must have risen past their level when the last Social Security increase was awarded - in this case, 2008 - for another boost in benefits to take effect, and the Labor Department figures show they did not increase that much.
Long before Friday's announcement, a partisan debate has hovered around the question of whether the Social Security rules are giving older Americans and others who depend on the program as much help as they need in a bad economy.
"Older Americans need relief, not cuts to Social Security to reduce a deficit it didn't cause," said Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP, the enormous lobby of Americans age 50 and older.
In early 2009, as part of its efforts to stimulate the economy, Congress approved a one-time $250 payment for each person on Social Security, even though the size of monthly checks had just gone up that January by nearly 6 percent.
In his 2011 budget, President Obama proposed another such payment, and many congressional Democrats, courting older voters for next month's midterm elections, have called for the same thing. So far, Congress has spurned the idea.
In July, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee's Social Security subcommittee, introduced legislation to provide a $250 payment to the program's recipients, at a cost of about $14 billion. His bill is co-sponsored by 127 Democrats and no Republicans, according to his aides. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she will schedule a vote on the measure when lawmakers return for a lame-duck session after the election. No similar measure has passed the Senate.
In addition to the nation's 38 million retirees age 65 and older, the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment will affect several other groups of people. They include family members of workers who died prematurely who receive Social Security survivors' benefits, as well as people who qualify for Social Security disability payments. The formula that determines whether Social Security payments go up also is applied to benefits paid to retired and disabled veterans and retired railroad workers.
The typical retiree receives a Social Security payment of nearly $1,200 per month.
SIMPSON HAS GOT TO GO....how dare he make such an outrageous charge! My Uncle Bud was an Army lifer, served in Vietnam with the Green Berets, was exposed to massive amounts of Agent Orange, and died a terrible death from a rare form of leukemia that was caused by Agent Orange. He all he is doing is protecting corporate welfare and the military industrial complex on the backs of the retired, working and middle class, vets and the poor, typical republican platform and proposals. See my post on 25 AUG 10 on Simpson complaining Social Security is a milk cow with 310 million tits, and search this blog for more information on the fight to protect Social Security from Simpson and the deficit commission. PRESIDENT OBAMA, GET RID OF ALAN SIMPSON! I have also included the WH blog posting on the new Vets Admin policy on Agent Orange.
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Deficit Commission co-chair Alan Simpson recently started a political firestorm by complaining that veterans benefits allocated for servicemembers exposed to Agent Orange run “contrary to efforts to control federal spending.” He even went as far as to say that “the irony” is that “the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess.”
Now, veterans advocacy group VoteVets, the nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, is calling on President Obama to fire Alan Simpson. Citing not only his comments about veterans benefits but also his earlier remarks comparing Social Security to a “milk cow with 310 million tits,” VoteVets asks that Obama remove Simpson from “his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community — and all Americans — confidence in the conclusions it reaches”:
The nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, VoteVets.org, is calling on President Obama to relieve former Senator Alan Simpson from his chairmanship of a deficit reduction commission for defamatory comments about veterans. [...]
His comments came on the heels of outrageous comments about seniors and others on Social Security, as well as women. The veterans pointed to those comments as well, but wrote that Simpson’s attacks on ill veterans compelled them to write. They said firing Simpson was a matter of honoring our veterans. [...] “We ask that you remove [Simpson] from his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community–and all Americans–confidence in the conclusions it reaches,” the letter concludes.
Additionally, last night on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Paul Sullivan, executive director of the veterans advocacy group Veterans for Common Sense appeared to call for Simpson to be fired as well, saying he was “absolutely not” the right person to be co-chairing the commission. When Olbermann asked Sullivan if the the ex-senator should be fired, Sullivan replied, “Let me put it to you politely. There’s lots of work for out of work politicians in Washington. I’ll leave it at that.” Watch it:
The White House Blog
Agent Orange and Veterans: A 40-Year Wait
Posted by Secretary Eric K. Shinseki on August 30, 2010 at 04:59 PM EDT
With the unwavering support of President Obama, VA is transforming to meet its 21st Century responsibilities. Advocacy, on behalf of every generation of Veterans, is central to this transformation.
Agent Orange was a blend of herbicides used by the U.S. military, during the Vietnam conflict, to deny concealment to enemy forces. More than 19 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed to remove foliage and undergrowth. The most common, Agent Orange, was sprayed in all four military zones of South Vietnam.
Heavily sprayed areas included the inland forests near the Demilitarized Zone; inland forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam; inland forests north and northwest of Saigon; mangrove forests on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam; and mangrove forests along major shipping channels southeast of Saigon.
The issue of Agent Orange’s toxic effects on Veterans, who served in Vietnam, has simmered for decades. Its insidious impact on those exposed to it has become increasingly apparent. That growing awareness has resulted in the Congress’, this Department’s, and the Institute of Medicine’s previous validations of some 12 diseases, which, to date, have been granted presumption of service connection for those exposed to Agent Orange.
Last October, based on the requirements of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Institute of Medicine’s report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008,” I determined that the evidence provided was sufficient to support presumptions of service connection for three additional diseases: Parkinson’s Disease, Hairy Cell and other Chronic B-Cell Leukemia, and Ischemic Heart Disease. After a public rulemaking process, we are now issuing a final regulation creating these new presumptions.
This action means that Veterans who were exposed to herbicides in service and who suffer from one of the “presumed” illnesses do not have to prove an association between their medical problems and their military service. This action helps Veterans to overcome the evidentiary requirements that might otherwise make it difficult for them to establish such an association in order to qualify for healthcare and other benefits needed as a result of their diseases. The “Presumption” simplifies and accelerates the application process and ensures that Veterans will receive the benefits they deserve.
As many as 150,000 Veterans may submit Agent Orange claims in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, VA will review approximately 90,000 previously denied claims from Vietnam Veterans for service connection for these three new diseases. All those who are awarded service-connection, and who are not currently enrolled in the VA health care system, will become eligible for enrollment.
Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, including its inland waterways, between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides. If you know a Veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides in service and who suffers from one of the diseases that may be presumptively service connected, the Veteran or the Veteran's family can visit our website to find out how to file a claim for presumptive conditions related to herbicide exposure, as well as what information is needed by VA to determine disability compensation or survivors’ benefits. Additionally, VA’s Office of Public Health can answer questions about Agent Orange and VA’s services for Veterans exposed to it.
This rule is long overdue. It delivers justice to those who have suffered from Agent Orange’s toxic effects for 40 years. I have been invited to testify before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on 23 September to explain these decisions, and I am happy to do that. It was the right decision, and the President and I are proud to finally provide this group of Veterans the care and benefits they have long deserved.
VA is committed to addressing the health care needs of Veterans from all eras. Forty years from today, a future Secretary of VA should not be adjudicating presumptive disabilities associated with our current conflicts. Change is difficult for any good organization, but we are transforming this Department to advocate for Veterans. We will not let our Veterans languish without hope for service-connected disabilities resulting from their service.
Alan Simpson's attitude toward those of us who pay into the system is disgusting, he has made objectionable comments before but his comment referring to Social Security being a milk cow with 310 million tits is the last straw and he needs to be removed from the deficit commission now. Call the WH, I did, and the operator told me they are getting lots of calls for Simpson's removal and said I should e mail the WH also...did that, hope you will to. Remember, democracy is not a spectator sport! Check out the story from HuffPost on this latest Simpson outrage and what the video of Simpson in action attacking a Social Security advocate.
It's time for Alan Simpson to resign.
When President Obama appointed former Sen. Simpson co-chair of the deficit commission, he said Sen. Simpson would lead the commission in building "a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility."1
But instead, Sen. Simpson has made clear, again and again, that he has contempt for people who rely on Social Security, and will use his position to rant at anyone who doesn't agree with his plans to cut benefits.
First, he referred to people who rely on Social Security as "greedy geezers,"2 then he called Americans who need Social Security "lesser people."3 On Monday he sent an off-the-wall email to the Executive Director of a group representing older women about "people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree." He went on to say, "It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where [Social Security is] like a milk cow with 310 million tits."4
Simpson just apologized for the last comment, saying it was a case of him putting his foot in his mouth.5 But this isn't about a poor choice of words or a one-time gaffe. Simpson has repeatedly, over the course of years, shown contempt for those who rely on Social Security while berating those who disagree with him. As Paul Krugman wrote yesterday, "he has to go."6
Can you call the White House and tell them that Sen. Simpson needs to be removed from the deficit commission?
The White House—(202) 456-1111
http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1443&tg=652&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=1
Alan Simpson is in charge of a commission that everyone expects will recommend cuts to Social Security to deal with the deficit—even though Social Security doesn't contribute one cent to the deficit.7 But someone with such extreme disdain for the people who rely on America's most successful social program has no place leading a commission that could well decide its fate.
To make matters worse, Simpson has repeatedly gotten his facts wrong on Social Security (check out Paul Krugman's fact-check of Simpson after his last outburst8).
Here's the full excerpt from his ranting email to the Executive Director of the Older Women's League:
If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know. And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!9
President Obama appointed Simpson. But with Simpson's continued abuse of those who disagree with him—and his lack of understanding for the program he is charged with reforming, it's clear that Obama must ask him to resign.
The White House—(202) 456-1111
http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1443&tg=652&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=2
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Anna, Nita, Duncan, and the rest of the team
P.S. If you haven't already, check out our Top 5 Myths about Social Security:
1. "President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," The White House, February 18, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90094&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=4
2. "Intemperate, Ignorant, Uncivil, Unqualified: Why Alan Simpson Must Go," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90095&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=5
3. "Caught on Video," MoveOn.org Political Action, August 25, 2010
http://pol.moveon.org/deficitcommission/simpson.html?id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=6
4. "Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90096&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=7
5. Ibid.
6. "Fire Alan Simpson," The New York Times, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90102&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=8
7. "Social Security Works for America," Social Security Works
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89288&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=9
8. "Zombies Have Already Killed The Deficit Commission," The New York Times, June 21, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89114&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=10
9. "Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90096&id=22899-17549061-kwiHTWx&t=11
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits' [UPDATE]
UPDATE: Wednesday 8:30 p.m. - Simpson isn't going anywhere, the New York Times reports. "Alan Simpson has apologized and while we regret and do not condone his comments, we accept his apology and he will continue to serve," White House spokesperson Jennifer Psaki told the Times.
UPDATE: Wednesday 3:59 p.m. - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) called on President Obama to fire Alan Simpson from the deficit commission for referring to Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" in an email this week to OWL executive director Ashley Carson.
The letter, provided to HuffPost, concludes:
The statement by Senator Simpson that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits" is really quite beyond comprehension. Today, Social Security provides the majority of income for two-thirds of the nation's elderly and for one-third it provides nearly all their income. Without it, millions of Americans would be living in abject poverty as was the case before the creation of Social Security. It is false and demeaning to say that these people, the vast majority of whom have worked their entire lives and contributed into the Social Security system, are somehow "milking" the system.
Despite the many years of distinguished public service former Senator Simpson has dedicated to this country, his recent e-mail indicates that it is no longer appropriate for him to serve on the bi-partisan deficit reduction commission. Therefore, in order for your commission's recommendations to have credibility with Congress, we respectfully urge you to remove Senator Simpson from the commission.
* * * * *
UPDATE: Wednesday 3:08 p.m. - Alan Simpson apologized Wednesday for describing Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" in an email to OWL executive director Ashley Carson.
Simpson's apology comes as pressure is mounting on the former Wyoming Senate Republican to resign his co-chairmanship of President Obama's deficit commission, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
The National Organization for Women called on him to step down Wednesday. "Alan Simpson is not fit to lead the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," said NOW President Terry O'Neill in a statement to HuffPost. "The ugliness of his disrespect for women is matched only by his dogged determination to dismantle Social Security by cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. The National Organization for Women urges President Obama to take a stand on this issue and replace Simpson immediately."
Story continues below
And in a public statement, AARP called Simpson's comment "offensive" and said that it "undermine[s] the serious work of the commission and give[s] us little confidence the commission can fairly look at important programs such as Social Security."
Simpson wrote Carson while on vacation:
My wife Ann and I are in Yellowstone National Park for the opening of the new visitor center, so I only just now have had the opportunity to read your response to my recent e-mail. I apologize for what I wrote. I can see that my remarks have caused you anguish, and that was not my intention. I certainly did not intend to diminish your hard work for the Older Women's League. I know you care deeply about strengthening Social Security, and so do I, just as deeply. I remember your testimony at our public hearing in June about the importance of retirement security for women. Over the last 40 years, I have had my size 15 feet in my mouth a time or two. To quote my old friend and colleague, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, when I make a mistake, "It's a doozy!"
Next time I'm in Washington, perhaps we could meet in person, and I could learn further of your sincere concerns.
Carson told HuffPost she was appreciative of the apology but that his comments demonstrate that he is unfit to lead the commission. A spokeswoman for NOW also said that their call for his resignation stands, despite the apology.
"I am very appreciative of Mr. Simpson's quick apology and for his acknowledgment of wrongdoing," said Carson. "That said, OWL's position that Mr. Simpson should resign from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has not changed. This is much more than a 'foot in your mouth' situation. Mr. Simpson has demonstrated a consistent, decades-long, pattern of making statements that are offensive to seniors, to women and that are just plain unacceptable in 2010. There are consequences for actions -- especially when those actions result in uniting people who fight for a common purpose. We, the advocates, do honest work day in and day out to help disadvantaged individuals create better lives for themselves and their loved ones. His actions demonstrate that he does not possess the judgment necessary to make objective recommendations about some of America's most valued programs."
* * * * *
UPDATE: Wednesday 10:27 a.m. - Alan Simpson should resign as co-chair of President Obama's deficit commission for sending an email to a leading women's rights advocate calling Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" a leading advocate of Social Security said Wednesday, arguing that Simpson's "disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect" makes him unfit for a leadership position on the panel, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
Social Security Works co-director Eric Kingson, in a statement released the day after the email became public, said that Simpson's "disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect" makes him unfit for a leadership position on the commission, which is considering cuts to Social Security.
Social Security Works is on steering committee of the 125 member Strengthen Social Security Coalition.
"Alan Simpson's comments are offensive and sexist and clearly demonstrate that he is unfit to continue to lead the President's Fiscal Commission," he said. "His comments not only show his true view of women and older Americans but also his disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect - Social Security. Social Security Works is demanding that he resign immediately."
The commission was established with an executive order from President Obama after Republicans who had championed such a commission voted against creating one on the Senate floor in an effort to deprive the president of a political victory. Obama has the authority to place and remove commissioners. If Simpson refuses to resign, said Kingson, Obama should can him.
"If he will not [resign], the President must fire him," he said. "Alan Simpson has no business deciding the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans' retirement future. He should have no power over Social Security, which provides vital economic support to millions of children and people with disabilities, as well as seniors and their families."
* * * * *
Tuesday 7:32 p.m. - Alan Simpson believes that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits," according to an email he sent to the executive director of National Older Women's League Tuesday morning. Simpson co-chairs the deficit commission, which is considering various proposals to cut Social Security benefits.
Simpson's email, which OWL chief Ashley Carson released publicly, (PDF) was sent in response to an April blog post Carson wrote for the Huffington Post. Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.
His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."
Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."
"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," he writes. "And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow
with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"
It's unclear from Simpson's email if he means Social Security is the milk cow or if he's referring to America in general. A Simpson assistant responded to a HuffPost email saying that Simpson was traveling and unable to comment immediately. OWL is now circulating a petition calling on the former Republican Senator from Wyoming to resign.
Simpson's tirade continues a pattern of erratic behavior that threatens to undermine the commission's work. In June, he unleashed a stream of error-riddled invective on a Social Security advocate wielding a camera outside a closed-door commission meeting, leading Paul Krugman to conclude (happily) that Simpson was killing the commission.
SOCIAL SECURITY is still under attack and we have to be vigilant to prevent the government from destroying one of the best social safety nets we have. Share with family and friends and make sure President Obama and your members of Congress know you will not tolerate a reduction in benefits or raising the retirement age.
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.
Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?
Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team
On the 75th anniversary of Social Security, President Obama promises to protect it from Republican leaders in Congress who have made privatization a key part of their agenda. He makes clear that, especially in light of the financial crisis, gambling Social Security on Wall Street makes no sense.
BE SURE TO READ THE POST ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN (AND COWARDLY DEMOCRATIC) PLANS TO RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE AND SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
Opponents of Social Security are ramping up the fight to cut benefits. Congress can stop it, but they'll only act if they hear from concerned voters back home. Can you sign the petition to tell Congress to protect—not cut—Social Security?
You can't make this stuff up. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is at record levels and home foreclosures are soaring. Congress can't get it together to act on these issues. But there's growing momentum in Washington to—wait for it—slash Social Security?
Believe it. Republicans are campaigning on benefit cuts. Conservative Democrats like Steny Hoyer are echoing their talking points.1
Everyone's counting on the Deficit Commission to do the dirty work. The commission is stacked with conservatives who've embraced cutting Social Security, and both houses of congress promised to fast-track a vote on its recommendations.2 3 That means that even though no jobs bill can pass congress right now, Social Security cuts might.
To stop the cuts, we need to send a crystal-clear message to members of Congress: Americans reject benefit cuts, and we expect them to do the same. Can you sign our promise to oppose cuts to Social Security? We'll use your signature to pressure them to sign a pledge protecting Social Security while they're home in Virginia for recess. But we need a strong response to make our point. Click below to add your name:
The petition says: "I oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age."
We're going to be running a hard-hitting campaign on this issue from now straight through the election. After you sign, we'll give you more opportunities to weigh in with your member of Congress, invite you to local events in your community, and keep you posted on our progress and key media reports on our campaign. Together with our allies, we'll make sure Congress knows that cutting Social Security is unacceptable.
The people who want to cut it are spreading lots of myths meant to make you think there is a looming crisis. Well, it's not true—there is no Social Security crisis. The program's trust fund will have a 4.3 trillion dollar surplus by 2023, and can pay all of its obligations for decades to come.4 Also, legally it can't contribute to the deficit—it only ever gives out benefits it can pay for.
Strengthening Social Security is easy—making the rich pay their fair share by lifting the cap on contributions by the wealthy would allow Social Security to pay all of its obligations indefinitely.5
Fear-mongering over Social Security is led by Pete Peterson, a hedge fund manager spending $1 billion of his own money in a campaign to slash benefits.6 Conservatives in congress have been too happy to join him—Minority Leader John Boehner said he would cut benefits to pay for two unfunded wars,7 and the GOP's long term budget plan would fully privatize the program.8
Social Security belongs to us, the people who pay into it every day of our working lives, and it shouldn't be cut to pay off a deficit it didn't create. If we show congress that voters won't stand for cuts to our benefits, we can make sure cuts stay off the table and instead focus on real solutions. Can you sign our promise to oppose cuts and then ask your representatives to sign on as well?
Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the entitlement program.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it was time "for the American people to have an adult conversation about the problems that we face" with respect to Social Security's solvency.
"We also know these programs are unsustainable in their current form," said the Ohio Republican. Asked specifically if he supports raising the retirement age to, say, 70, Boehner replied: "There are a lot of options on how you solve these, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse."
This wasn't the first time Boehner had broached the idea of raising Social Security's retirement age. The Minority Leader offered the same suggestion in an interview in late June. Back then, Democrats jumped on the remark, arguing that it was (one) not based in a realistic assessment of Social Security's solvency and (two) insensitive to those people who worked all their lives with an eye towards having a financially-stable retirement. It would be far from surprising if the same arguments are made in the days ahead.
Indeed, a platform of raising of the retirement age presents tricky politics for Republicans. Later during the "Meet the Press" program, Boehner's deputy, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), was asked if he supported the idea. The Indiana Republican stammered around for a bit, echoing the same talking point concerning the need for "an adult conversation about domestic spending and entitlements."
Pinned down by host David Gregory, he ultimately replied: "I am for reforming our public entitlements for Americans who are far away from retirement. We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made, make sure that people who are counting on Medicare, Social Security have the benefits that they have. But for younger Americans, absolutely yes, we ought to bring real reform for the sake of future generations of Americans to get spending under control."
