Just as I’ve always predicted, Obama is going to go after Social Security:
Two weeks ago, that first assumption proved true: Democrats proposed a few hundred billion in new tax revenues (a small fraction of the trillions of dollars in spending cuts Republicans are demanding) so GOP principals threw up their hands and abandoned the discussions. But the second assumption isn’t built on bedrock. And in recent weeks, congressional aides, strategists, and advocates have been floating, or warning of, a stealth change to the Social Security benefit structure that has quietly been placed on the negotiating table.
The proposal wouldn’t just impact Social Security benefits. It would also shave off yearly increases in federal pension payouts, and result in somewhat higher tax revenues. But the ratio would be skewed toward benefit cuts by a factor of about 2-to-1 and would represent a financial hit to even the poorest retirees unless they were exempted.
The idea is to change the way Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) are calculated across the federal government. Currently, the COLAs for tax brackets, pensions, and Social Security are tied to different measures of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Because spending habits change when living costs increase, some experts think these measures are too generous, and want to change all of the COLAs to a different, smaller measure of inflation: the so-called “chained-CPI.”
On the tax side, this would likely draw more revenue: Tax brackets would rise more slowly than incomes, so people would get kicked into higher brackets more quickly and, voila, more income subject to taxation.
But on the benefits side, this means money out of people’s pockets, even current retirees and pensioners. Responding to a letter of concern from House Democrats’ top Social Security guy the program’s chief actuary explained that moving to “chained-CPI” would constitute an immediate 0.3 percent benefit cut. That may sound small, but the effects would compound, and “[a]dditional annual COLAs thereafter would accumulate to larger total reductions in expected scheduled benefit levels of about 3.7 percent, 6.5 percent, and 9.2 percent for retirees at ages 75, 85, and 95, respectively.”
I would have no objection to cutting SS benefits if they could be cut for those making over a certain amount. Now all benefits are receivable no matter how much you make and that came under Clinton. But this means that they really want to decimate seniors as they form the bulk bulge of the population. If they can literally kill off more of them, then they can save on payouts. It is really about planned murder by the state. This is state sponsored terrorism that increases as we speak.
Some experts think the old fashioned COLAs are too generous, huh? These must be the same guys who recommended that they could cut food stamps because food prices went down for a few months.
And I can double damn guarantee that the tax brackets will not be allowed to do anything that causes rich people to pay more taxes.
Our electric company and our water company just got increases of 4% and 7%, and they are griping that this was not near enough for them. The Social Security COLAs have been 0% the last two years anyhow. They will jigger the figures until they get what they want, “chained” or “unchained”.
Time to make a few calls to DC Dems, our representatives?
I did call my local so-called Moderate NE Republican rep, Freylinghuysen, scion of the Frelinghuysen long politically-installed and very wealthy family. I asked if the Repubs were putting together any low interest loans or assitance programs for seniors to pay their rent or mortgages, Medicare and RX plan premiums.
The woman who answered the telephone sounded shocked, so I said that Michelle Bachmann and other House Repubs had said it wouldn’t hurt anything to have the US default, and that might well mean no SocSec check in August. Since this was a Repub idea, what were they going to do about people possibly losing their homes, credit ratings, etc.?
She said she would pass my concerns on to the representative.
He will do do diddlysquat; he’s a back bencher who wouldn’t even stand up for the funding for seniors’ programs his father had put in place. He never knows how he’ll vote until he gets his marching orders from the leadership. Waste of a House seat.
Abbysbooks — It is really about planned murder by the state. This is state sponsored terrorism that increases as we speak.
We need to come up with a brief, pithy way of saying the above — and getting it out there. Handbills? Bumper stickers?
I for one am budgeted to the penny — actually, beyond the last penny. Damn, what to do….
Abbysbooks — It is really about planned murder by the state. This is state sponsored terrorism that increases as we speak.
We need to come up with a brief, pithy way of saying the above — and getting it out there. Handbills? Bumper stickers?
I for one am budgeted to the penny — actually, beyond the last penny. Damn, what to do….
Hard to be rich and Republican and not relate how many of us are supported by Medicare and social security. .
does anyone know…if seniors miss a payment on their supplemental insurance do they got immediately dropped forever like i would on my plan?