Rangel: Raising Soc Sec retirement age or reducing benefits can't be ruled out

[antigop]

http://www.nydailynews.com/11-29-2006/news/story/475440p-399933c.html
We must alter Soc Sec, Rangel says
>>
Raising retirement age or reducing benefits can't be ruled out if the Social Security system is to be saved from going bust, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday.

"All of these things are on the table to find some way to make certain that Social Security is solvent," said Rangel, who is poised to take control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
>>

[aceman2373]

1. I thought SS was fine?

[Warpy]

3. It would be if assholes like Rangel

would stop ROBBING it.

40% of your OASDI goes to the general fund with income taxes to be stolen to pad the books so we proles won't know just what a disaster those tax cuts for the rich have been.

[OzarkDem]

16. Lock Box

Everyone thought it was so funny during the 2000 race, thanks to GOP media spin. Its what we actually need.

[Odin2005]

47. Unfortunatly there is no lockbox Congress can't pick.

all it takes is a majority vote by a future Congress to get rid of any hypothetical "lockbox" created by this Cogress.

[SharonAnn]

26. It's the GOP that's been doing the heavy-duty robbing of Social Security

[tritsofme]

31. Everybody has been robbing it since the 60s.

Al Gore is the only person of any consequence from either party that has taken a real stand against raiding the SS trust fund.

[Samantha]

43. The last two years of Clinton-Gore

Congress agreed, because of the surplus, to not use Social Security funds as it habitually had done. That all changed under Bush*.

I think we should call in all the IOU's the government owes the fund before we have an assessment as to the nature of the required "fix."

[papau]

33. SS is fine - but the Ret Age will move from Reagan's 67 to 68, as the tax cap ends or is at least

moved much higher. If we can't end the tax cap and apply the "payroll tax" tax rate to all income including investment income - which is the solution that will allow us to frame it as a "tax cut" as we apply some of the extra revenue to lowering the rate used for the "payroll tax", then the minimum change should be to move to the ERISA Pension Law's maximum salary of $220,000 with the cap set to follow that law's increases in the future. Add in the age change to 68 for full benefit (meaning you get a slightly smaller benefit at 62)in 2030 and we can sell a balanced approach involving tax changes and "benefit cuts" -the age change is actually logical even though it van be seen as a benefit cut - people live longer and future productivity capacity will require a larger pool of workers.

Rangel is being diplomatic and wise to put all the options on the table - it doesn't mean he is endorsing one or the other.

[chelsea0011]

2. I have always had no problem raising the age as a gradual

solution to some upcoming problems but I think the 62-65 retirement age should stay in effect but with smaller benefits. But this country really needs to come to some solutions to the cost of long-term care for the elderly. We live longer and medical costs are out-of-reach for the elderly. Was it 60 Minutes last week that stated the largest growing population is the elderly right now?

[Warpy]

4. Have you ever worked a physically demanding job?

Your body breaks down LONG before retirement age, as it is.

[ItNerd4life]

18. My dad, father-in-law, and uncles did, into their 70's

To claim physically demanding jobs cause you to break down before 65 just doesn't ring true IMO. Carpenters, welders, plumbers, all worked into their early 70's. Not because they needed the money, because they liked what they were doing.

They all also grew up during WWII and had a strong work ethic, and drink ethic, and family ethic, and smoking...but I digress. :P

[Warpy]

20. I was a nurse for 25 years

My back is the part that broke down. There is no way I can do that job now. I can't even remain on my feet long enough to teach.

I didn't even get out of my 50s before it happened.

I'm glad your family remains strong into their later years. Mine doesn't, and others are in the same boat.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Are you serious? Maybe that's true for the very very few who are exceptionally strong and resilient

physically. THOSE become the old carpenters/plumbers etc. you see here and there.

You are essentially saying the human body is invulnerable. That's hogwash. RW hogwash, to be specific.

[Avalux]

24. My grandfather was a house painter all his life.

Painted houses into his 70s and was is great shape physically til he died at 86. His mind went first, unfortunately.

[chelsea0011]

29. We are talking retirement, not disability. SS will always be available

for some who can't work in the form of disability. But many people stay quite healthy and able to work well beyond the 62-65 age.

[Warpy]

32. Just try to get disability in your 50s

As hard as it is at other ages, it's much more difficult just before retirement age.

Remember, that agency has been under the control of right wing hacks for the last 6 years, too.

[papau]

36. Long term care as a Medicare benifit makes sense n/t

n/t

[Raiden]

5. What is Rangel trying to do to us?!

Social Security MUST be put in a lock box...It's not the governments money to spend, it belongs to the working people who earned it. Al Gore said this during the 2000 campaign, but just like with global warming, people mocked his foresight.

The problem with Social Security is that the government is spending all the money! First Rangel tries to compromise the youth vote, now he's compromising the elderly vote...WTF is he doing?!

[papau]

37. to put all the options on the table doesn't mean your endorsing one or the other n/t

n/t

[grasswire]

6. just means test it, Charlie

Means test social security and Medicare. Certain other programs are means tested already.

If a person has no need for the retirement income SS would provide, then just pay back their contributions in a lump sum at age 65.

If a 62-year-old person can easily afford private insurance, don't make taxpayers pay for the bulk of their medical care. Make Medicare the secondary, supplemental payer, not the first payer.

See? It's really very easy.

[antigop]

7. How many 62-year-old people can even GET private insurance

Do you have any idea?

Private insurance is horribly expensive -- and it will exclude pre-existing conditions.

[grasswire]

14. the object of means testing is to ...

....not provide taxpayer dollars for those who can easily afford a program. Means testing is already in place for many programs -- student loans, housing assistance, food stamps, small business loans, yada yada yada.

Just as an illustration of the nonsensical aspect of taxpayers paying direct medical expenses of wealth people, imagine how it would be if it were housing assistance, and not medical costs -- if taxpayer dollars were used to pay housing costs of every person over 62. Wouldn't that be stupid? Yes.

And paying medical costs of everyone over 65 out of the U.S. Treasury is stupid.

Many people can afford health insurance, easily. Here's an arbitrary example of what the standard might be. Let's say it's a million dollars in assets excluding the residence. Do you think that people with a million dollars in liquifiable assets should be getting paid health care at the expense of health care for others?

Let's use the example of my former in-laws. One a career government official, the other a nurse. They owned two homes in California, both worth nearly a million bucks. They had investments galore and has amassed a couple million in assets, plus a sweet retirement income. Their private health insurance was top of the line.

Should taxpayer dollars have paid for their medical care? I don't think so. Continuing their private insurance would have been a small expense for them.

Essentially, Medicare for wealthy seniors is just a way of transferring the higher health costs of the aging from private insurers to the public treasury. It's just a transfer or wealth to insurers.

[antigop]

17. I'll ask the question again

Do you have ANY idea how much private insurance costs? Do you really?

Why do you think Medicare was put in place to begin with? -- because there wasn't a private sector solution -- insurance companies don't want to insure old people.


>>
Do you think that people with a million dollars in liquifiable assets should be getting paid health care at the expense of health care for others?
>>

Everyone should have access to the SAME health care -- it doesn't matter.

Now do you really think that people with a million dollars in assets will care about the people who get the benefit of a government program, when they don't?

You means test it -- you kill it off. It's that simple. Ted Kennedy knows this and has mentioned it.

It will become a welfare program -- the people that don't need it won't want to pay for those who do need it. It's that simple.

You want to fix the healthcare problem? Single-payer universal health.

[papau]

38. Nonsense - perhaps no private pensions for the CEO since his pay is high? -He EARNED IT! -&

we earned the SS

Saying those past "contributions do not guarantee a benefit" makes those past contributions a very shitty/badly designed if you are a progress extra tax we paid so as to lower the tax on the rich

Screw that approach.

Medicare for the wealthy is a non issue as to the extra cost of their care is so small relative to the total program. If we take it away they really aren't affected as they pay cash anyway to various hospitals around the world. They will always have the best health care. But take it away from them in the Medicare program and they will yell welfare and the program will be cut because we always cut welfare.

[antigop]

8. If you means test, you kill it off

The people who don't qualify will have no reason to keep it. They'll consider it a form of welfare they they are subsidizing.

[sandnsea]

19. It's not welfare

It's insurance. You do not means test insurance. Just like you wouldn't means test a single payer health plan. You want old people to suffer like people on welfare and Medicaid do??? Gads, means testing would be going backwards. I know I've told you this before, I don't understand why you don't get it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. That doesn't work terribly well, unfortunately.

The problem with it is that it discourages saving, which has all sorts of undesirable knock-on effects.

Also, I think it's fundamentally inequitable that if two people work the same job, earning the same wages, for the same time and retire at the same time, that one should receive a lower retirement benefit than the other just because they've saved more.

Some degree of that inequity is acceptable, I think, but it should be acknowledged that it's there.

[papau]

39. End Medicare and People "save" by dying. The poor and middle class have

"higher priority" items like food and shelter to worry about before saving for health care.

Indeed somehow the rich manage to take every extra dollar via higher prices by their companies these days.

And you are correct that a means test is in effect a punishment of the person that had the same wages and jobs during their life but just saved more.

[papau]

34. Means testing is the GOP goal - that makes it welfare - and now we always cut welfare, don't we?

Something is wrong when the GOP plan to destroy social security is advocated on DU.

[area51]

9. Geez, Rangel.

Just stop throwing our tax dollars at the military, make the rich & corporations pay their fair share of taxes, enact immediate taxes on offshoring/inshoring, & there'll be no problem. :eyes:

[savemefromdumbya]

10. It would be better if he kept it zipped

If he stopped highlighting issues at the moment?

but yes retirement age has to rise. Money has to come from somewhere or we pass it onto our children and grandchildren.

[quiet.american]

11. Reduce benefits? Who can live on $700.00 a month as it is?

Yet Congress has no problem giving itself a $33,000 raise. There is no reason, no justification in the world that could convince Congress not to give itself a raise with our tax dollars -- yet, it's fine to throw everyone else under the bus. :mad:

[papau]

40. Reduce benefits is code for the retirement full benefit age increase in 30 years n/t

n/t

[quiet.american]

44. Ah -- if Rangel is going to speak publicly on this, I think he needs to drop the code.

So that the public at large doesn't run him out of town on a rail because we don't get it. :)

[rinsd]

12. WTF? Is Rangel trying to be some kind of poison pill?

Calling for the draft and talking about messing with SS in a negative way?

Is he trying to alienate key voting blocs?

[Cha]

54. I don't know what he's

trying to do but it sounds like he's trying to do what you suggest.

There are tons of people who work and don't have any extra money to save for retirement and are counting and looking forward to SS and not having it CUT or their age limit raised again.

[Mass]

13. Raise the caps so that rich people pay as much as poor people.

That should be enough to solve all questions for quite a while. Ask people to pay according to their revenues.

However, I guess it is his way to say that he is a responsible person and that everything can be discussed.

[partylessinOhio]

15. Rangel better knock it off. Raise the benefit and lower the age!

We already work cradle to grave in this country. We should not be slaves to jobs that rob of us of our lives and our health.

Bodies do break down. Not everyone who is disabled is faking it. When a person can no longer work, they also cannot contribute to their retirement or their savings. There is no financial benefit to becoming disabled.

Only healthy persons have the option to continue earning beyond retirement age. Working until you die should not be mandatory.

[JPZenger]

22. Absurd, Just Raise the Income level that pays the tax

The social security tax is currently very regressive. It really hurts low income people, especially the self-employed. A self-employed person currently needs to pay almost 15% of their income for social security and medicare tax - in addition to regular income taxes.

Someone could make millions in unearned income (such as stock dividends) and not pay any social security tax. No Social Security tax is paid on income over a certain level (I believe about $90,000).

If we simply increase the maximum income that pays the social security tax, and put the money into a true lockbox, then Social Security will be fine.

For people born after 1961, they already can't collect full social security benefits until they turn 67. Many people don't realize that. Try working until you are 67 in a construction job.


"What part of the lockbox didn't you understand?" - Al Gore on Saturday Night Live

[lovuian]

25. Draft and now SS whats with him does he need to go

Republican!!!

[Zhade]

27. First the draft, now this?

WTF?

(And YES, I "get' Rangel's "point" about the draft, which wouldn't be loophole-free and thus renders his argument null and void - but gambling with lives to wake up Americans when a majority already opposes the war is just dumb.)

[Thrill]

28. This guy is better off shutting up

Every time he opens his mouth, he says something stupid

[madfloridian]

30. Do a search on rangel, dlc.....

lots will turn up. About where his interests lie. Do a search at Black Commentator as well.

Look up some stuff.

[madfloridian]

35. Sirota has a good diary up at Kos today about Rangel.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/29/11331/964

"Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) represents one of the poorest congressional districts in New York City. He also chairs the House Ways and Means Committee - the panel that oversees taxes and entitlements. This combination would lead the casual observer to think that Rangel, trying to represent his district, would be aggressively using his chairmanship to redirect President Bush's tax cuts to lower-income people, strengthen and even expand Social Security and renegotiate trade deals to protect American jobs. But, no. That's not what appears to be happening. In the weeks after the congressional election, Rangel has expressed interest in doing the exact opposite: preserving President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy; considering Social Security benefit cuts and retirement age hikes; and supporting lobbyist-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections in them. He has, in other words, moved to side firmly with the Money Party against the People Party."

Interesting diary.

[fujiyama]

42. After reading just a little of it

I think he's an ass hole and doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

Maybe he's just fucking senile. I think it's time for him to go.

[fujiyama]

41. I honestly wish

he'd just retire.

Raise the retirement age? If he represents a poor district wouldn't he want to LOWER it considering black people and those in poverty have lower life expectancies (due to the obvious reason, which is lack of access to good medical care).

Why can't he do something useful, like advocate a pullout from Iraq and free universal access to decent quality health care?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

45. Rangel is a loose cannon that needs to be secured before he hurts us in 2008

[beaconess]

48. Oh, please - it's called strategy

Rangel, who knows a little something about political maneuvering and gamesmanship, certainly knows that the best way to make sure you control the outcome of a process is to control the debate. And he surely also knows that it would be stupid to just say, "no, we're not going to look at that." There are too many people on the other side - and some even on our side - who think this is a good idea that should at least be considered.

So, instead of dismissing it out of hand - and giving the other side a chance to ram it through at some point, Rangel is saying "yes, we'll look at it." But he also now controls the Committee, which means he will control the debate and therefore, control the outcome.

I don't believe for a minute that Social Security is going to be means-tested or messed with in any of the other ways that would hurt it. But what better way to ensure that that doesn't happen than to say, "hey, we looked at it, we gave it full consideration, but after we did all that, we see that it won't work, so we won't do it."

Rangel is much smarter than many here give him credit for. He's an old fox who knows just what he's doing - he hasn't been sent back to Congress decade after decade because he's an idiot who doesn't know his way around an issue.

[Zhade]

49. Echoing the lie that SS is in trouble is strategy?

NT!

[beaconess]

50. It's not a lie - Social Security IS in trouble

The trouble is not as dire as the RWN are claiming. But if we don't do something to secure it now, it will be doomed.

I'd rather Charlie Rangel work on this on the front end than let it sit and allow the right wingers to get ahold of it when they get back in power (which will happen eventually, no matter what, since the pendulum is always swinging).

As I said, Rangel knows a little sumptin about this stuff - he knows what he's doing, notwithstanding all of the armchair quarterbacks bitching and moaning at home.

[Zhade]

51. No, it's not. Read "FUBAR: America's Right-Wing Nightmare"...

...by Sam Seder and his partner, then get back to me.

It's not in trouble. That's simply untrue.

EDIT: Here's Krugman on the issue, he details how it's NOT in trouble very well:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010305F.shtml

Enjoy!

[beaconess]

52. I don't need to read Sam Seder's book to understand the Social Security system

or to know that Charlie Rangel never claimed that Social Security is in crisis.

The more hysterical language in the piece cited by OP were not attributed to Rangel, but were editorial comments by the writer. He simply said we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent. If we do nothing, it will remain solvent for another 30-40 years. But then the system will be in trouble. Rangel simply said that we have to take steps now to make sure that the system remains solvent (40 years might seem like a long time, but it goes by pretty quickly) and that means we need to look at a number of different alternatives. I'd rather Rangel and the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee control the debate and the discussion, consider all the alternatives and develop the best plan that won't erode the program.

And, by the way, before people start bashing Rangel, they should remember that he was instrumental in the implosion of Bush's privatization plan - he stood his ground as Ranking Member and played a critical role in keeping it from going anywhere.

[Zhade]

53. I don't care about Rangel. I have no dog in that fight.

Read the Krugman piece, and you will see that SS is not in trouble. Period.

It's not debatable - it's not in trouble. That's untrue. Even suggesting it is is inaccurate.

Please read the piece, it's quite enlightening.

[endarkenment]

46. Ok I Admit It: I Loathe This Clown. nt.

[Zorra]

55. Stop the fucking war and put the money saved into Social Security

for starters.