Durbin Proposes Social Security Commission (WTF?)

[ProSense]

Durbin Proposes Social Security Commission

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Wednesday morning proposed a Social Security commission, patterned on President Obama's 2010 deficit commission, to come up with a set of fixes to the program's fiscal problems that Congress could approve, the Associated Press reported.

Durbin wants the commission to make recommendations to make Social Security solvent for 75 years. The panel would be expected to consider increases in the payroll tax, a higher retirement age and a lower annual cost-of-living adjustment for beneficiaries.

"You would basically say to a commission, within a very limited time frame, to come up with a proposal for 75-year solvency of Social Security and then — and this is important — it would be referred to both chambers on an expedited procedure," Durbin told reporters at a Washington breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal…

Durbin's proposed 18-member commission would contain an equal number of Republicans and Democrats but require 14 votes to send a plan to Congress.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/durbin-proposes-social-security-commission

Dear Senator Durbin, please leave Social Security the fuck alone. You should be signing on to existing solutions, not proposing ways to screw seniors.

Sanders, Reid, DeFazio Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022475178

[frazzled]

1. It's a good sign: commissions are where things go to die

In my estimation, this is a move to take the issue off the Senate's agenda and send it to the limbo of "commissionland," whose findings the legislative body has no obligation to take.

[randome]

6. And with 14 members in agreement just to get something to Congress?

Don't see that happening. That's too high a threshold.

[Jim Lane]

23. Yes, that was my first reaction.

The majority on the commission proposes benefit cuts. The liberals, though in the minority, counter with raising or eliminating the cap. Some timid moderates would go along with benefit cuts but don't want to be accused of backing an "unbalanced" solution so they want the proposal to include nudging up the cap at least a little bit. Many of the commissioners would accept that in order to get the benefit cuts, but there are some doctrinaire conservatives who absolutely will not vote for anything that a Tea Party candidate in their next primary might call a tax increase.

In sum, for any particular proposal that's put forth, there can be found five commissioners who'll vote against it for one reason or another. The commission makes no report and accomplishes nothing -- except that it provides cover for legislators who don't want to be seen as indifferent to our (nonexistent) "deficit crisis" but who don't want to vote for benefit cuts. They can say they're waiting for the commission's report. The push for cuts gets stalled for several months.

It's not a model of sensible governance, but in comparison with some of the likely alternatives, I'll take it.

[KamaAina]

2. ...

[Enrique]

3. does your comment count as vomit slurping?

or is that only when Obama is involved?

[ProSense]

5. Do you have a fucking point?

Or did you just decide to be fucking rude and make a completely idiotic comment?

[Enrique]

7. i'm suggesting hypocrisy

when people criticize Obama on Social Security, there are all kinds of reasons for people to very fucking forcefully find that unacceptable, so fucking unacceptable they throw around all kinds of fucking language.

But for some fucking reason, it's ok to criticize less popular figures such as Dick Fucking Durbin, with the same forceful fucking language that was used to punish the Obama critics.

The vomit slurping term was a reference to a thread titled "Why are so many DUers falling for bullshit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021813696

[ProSense]

9. Oh bullshit

when people criticize Obama on Social Security, there are all kinds of reasons for people to very fucking forcefully find that unacceptable, so fucking unacceptable they throw around all kinds of fucking language.

But for some fucking reason, it's ok to criticize less popular figures such as Dick Fucking Durbin, with the same forceful fucking language that was used to punish the Obama critics.

I'm criticizing the call for another commission, expecially one that now puts raising the retirement age on the table. If all you can do is jump into a thread to offer bullshit psychobabble, then maybe you should consider ignoring the thread.

"The vomit slurping term was a reference to a thread titled 'Why are so many DUers falling for bullshit'"

Please understand that I don't give a shit about fucking infighting in the fucking echo chamber some people clearly exist in.

[Enrique]

13. you were one of the 228 people that recced that thread

so you clearly do give a shit about fucking infighting.

[ProSense]

16. I do have

"you were one of the 228 people that recced that thread so you clearly do give a shit about fucking infighting."

...a thing about Democrats who vote for Democrats and then pretend they're better than Democrats who vote for Democrats.

It's their fault...all of them.

Clearly, some people are burned up by the thought that I support the President. OMG, WTF...she supports the President I just voted for. I'm better than that.

No, you're not. You're just in denial, and shit stirring. I don't give a fuck if my opinion turns you off to the point that you have to engage in psychobabble in response to every thread. Continue wasting your time. I'll continue "cheering," posting "blue links," "advertisements" and whatever the fuck I feel like posting, and making whatever the fuck comment I choose to.

Cool?

[woo me with science]

11. +1 When you're promoting Cheer,

you can criticize Tide or Gain all you want.

There's really only one rule: Cheer cleans EVERYTHING!

[ProSense]

12. Actually,

"There's really only one rule: Cheer cleans EVERYTHING"

...the rule is: Think for yourself. If it upsets you that my opinions, aren't exactly the same as yours...oh well.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Durbin on Social Security in 2011...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-dick-durbin-social-security-cuts-ruled/story?id=13400977

[Nye Bevan]

8. Over the long term, unless reforms are made, benefit payouts will start to exceed tax receipts.

So reforms do have to be made at some point. I am aware that some reforms are more popular than others among DUers but doing nothing is not a long-term option.

[n2doc]

10. Sure. Let's look at the problem in 10 years then

So much of the projected 'shortfall' is predicated on projected economic growth rates. Right now such estimates are based on very low growth rates. Perhaps we should take a few years and see where this new economic recovery cycle takes us?

If they 'solve' the SS 'problem', I guarantee you that when times get better the 'surplus' created by these reforms will be spent away on crap. Why do I think this? Because it is exactly what happened last time.

[Nye Bevan]

15. That is a dangerous strategy.

My hope would be that we will elect a Democratic House in 2014 which will be able to enact sensible and effective reforms to strengthen SS for the long term.

By putting our heads in the sand until it comes to the crunch, we are risking that Republicans will be in control at that point and will do something ruthless like cutting all SS payments by 30% across the board.

[n2doc]

19. Republicans will never do that

Don't you understand? They want democrats to cut SS because they know it is political suicide. They could have done so when they controlled everything in 2004, W even said he wanted to cut SS, and he failed utterly. The Republicans will never have the guts to cut SS because they know they would get washed away in the next election, gerrymandering and voter suppression be damned. They need Democrats to not only propose it but do all the heavy lifting. Then they can turn around and run against the democrats, like they did in 2010 on 'saving' medicare.

I also find the worry about Soc security's long term health touching. There seems to be no similar such concern about defense spending or oil company subsidies. I guess those are more important.

[ProSense]

21. Exactly, but

"Then they can turn around and run against the democrats, like they did in 2010 on 'saving' medicare."

...in 2010 Republican spin convinced people that closing the donut hole and other savings was a cut.

Mitt Romney was still using that same spin in 2012, long after the lie was exposed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021149847

Clearly, it takes a lot to kill Republican spin.

[rhett o rick]

20. You are speaking in code. In fact it's conservative code. "Reforms do have to be made as some point.

Since you dont say raising the cap will be necessary at some point, I am assuming you mean benefit cuts will be necessary at some point.

What exactly do you mean by "reform"??????

[amandabeech]

32. Or Social Security could start cashing in those U.S. Government Bonds

that they have in a filing cabinet in West Virginia.

The surplus monies that SS has been collecting since 1983 have been, by law, invested in those bonds because the fact that SS would need extra money when the baby boomers started to retire was realized some time ago.

So perhaps the better question for the feds would be to try to figure out how they will make good on those bonds when SS starts presenting them for payment.

[Nye Bevan]

33. This "trust fund" is essentially an accounting artifice. That money was all spent long ago.

Figuring out how we are going to pay promised SS benefits is basically the same as figuring out how we are going to pay to redeem the bonds in the "trust fund" that are earmarked to pay those SS benefits.

[amandabeech]

40. There has been no decision by a court that those bonds need not be treated

differently from any other evidence of indebtedness. In other words, no court has gone along with your characterization of the "trust fund" as being an accounting artifice.

My point is if the bonds are indeed normal bonds, repayment will be required. The option is default, and I'm not sure if financial markets would like the idea of the US government defaulting on its debt obligations to its own citizens.

That puts the SS payments in a slightly different light.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Don't we already have one of those? n/t

[randome]

17. Not sure. I think they've been at a meeting for the past seven years or so.

I'm sure they'll turn up eventually.

[global1]

18. No Need For A Commission - Just Raise Or Lift The Cap.......

Check out this link to an old post of mine - and then send a cap raising picture to your Senators and Congressmen. It's really a very easy solution. Raise The Cap ----- Lift The Cap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1818709


?5f283927f7404204a81e453b153d50eb7d86d89b

[Nye Bevan]

34. So you presented two alternatives. "Raise the cap" or "lift the cap".

Should the cap be "raised" or should it be "lifted"? If it should be "raised", then by how much? And if it is "raised", what would be the new formula for determining SS benefits as a function of SS taxes paid? Would the benefits cap be raised correspondingly with the contributions cap?

There are lots of questions that follow from your suggestions, and we obviously need some kind of body such as a commission to answer these questions. So I am a little confused as to why you assert that there is "no need for a commission".

[global1]

39. I'm Sorry As I Am Using 'Raise' & 'Lift' To Mean The Same....

My understanding is that there is an income cap on payment into SS. My understanding is that once that cap is met that no money is contributed beyond. As a result most people contribute through all their income but the rich don't contribute beyond that point. Should that cap be raised or lifted they should be made to pay on the entirety of all their income. This it what I am referring to. If I am incorrect in my understanding please tell me what I'm missing. Again sorry.

[KoKo]

37. Agree... That they don't propose this must meanthat cuts &

privatization are the goals. The Petersen Foundations solution with Wall Street Hedge Funds drooling over the profits down the road.

[indepat]

22. Please don't select effin' Bowles-types as any of the nine Democrats

[former9thward]

24. We have had countless commissions.

No more are needed.

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. The CPI already UNDER-estimates inflation, especially for those over 65.

If he were honest, he would be fighting to correct the already rigged CPI, and he would be fighting to use CPI-E for the elderly, which would increase annual COLA's.

Social Security is the most fiscally responsible program in the history of the US.

It is the only program that has be a net LENDER the Treasury, and the single largest CREDITOR of the Treasury.

Durbin wants to cut SS using a fraudulent chained CPI, in order to avoid having to re-instate income tax rates for the 1% to sustainable rates, which would allow the general fund to be financed with income tax revenues as it should.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Durbin voted to recommend an eventual 22% cut in lifetime SS benefits

for the average recipient, when he was a member of Obama's Catfood Commission.

He's got the fever... cut-it fever...

[Auntie Bush]

27. DAMN Durbin! Nuff said!

[MadHound]

28. This is what happens when the leader of your party puts something on the chopping block,

Other members think it's a green light to go ahead and do what that leader wants done.

Obama put SS on the chopping block, why should anybody be surprised when other members of the Democratic party take him up on it.

You're a little too late to be crying for somebody to save SS, you were defending Obama when he was waving it out there, that's when you should have been telling him, "please leave Social Security the fuck alone."

[duffyduff]

31. +1,000,000 n/t

[forestpath]

29. Fuck him and fuck anyone who wants to cut SS benefits!

[duffyduff]

30. Don't trust him n/t

[magellan]

35. Dick Durbin, the man who knew the country was being lied into Iraq

...but said nothing because he felt bound by secrecy to keep the TREASON under his hat? THAT Dick effin' Durbin?

Fuck him and his commission proposal.

[KoKo]

36. kick...

[HereSince1628]

38. Incrementalism in devastation of social safety nets, classic Third Way pragmatism.n/t