Gunning For Grandma

[unapatriciated]

Is there a new, bipartisan consensus forming on Capitol Hill about whether (and how) to scale back Social Security benefits? A surprising number of signs point to "yes" -- and that has many progressives looking ahead a few months to what they believe could become a serious fight.
Several of the most powerful members of the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics.
The strongest backer of this plan is House Minority Leader John Boehner, who recently told a Pennsylvania newspaper, "I think raising the retirement age going out 20 years so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."
There's no big surprise there. The Republican minority in the House doesn't have a lot of power, but if Boehner had his druthers, he might well take things quite a bit further. He's the one, after all, who won't take Social Security privatization off the table if Republicans retake the House.

It's the Democrats who have progressives feeling queasy.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. "We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," Hoyer said.
He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: "With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years." One month a year may not sound like much, but if you're 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/republicans-and-democrats-lining-behind-major-changes-social-security

edited to add: I'm feeling a bit queasy.

[stray cat]

1. only if grandma is less than 45?

[unapatriciated]

2. depends on how you look at it.

It is the first step in privatization of SS. Something the R's have wanted for a long time.

[DJ13]

3. This would be a generational theft of massive proportions

Its all about reducing SS expenditures (even though it will still generate surpluses for decades) so the money saved can go to the budget rather than increasing tax rates on the wealthy back to a rational level.

They would rather F over our elderly than increase the taxes the wealthy pay.

Its disgusting.

[NoNothing]

5. SS has already stopped running a surplus

That has happened already.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/SummaryforWeb_SSOptions.pdf

[DJ13]

8. It would return to a surplus when the economy rebounds

Theres more than enough funds available to last through this economic crisis with over 2.3T in its coffers.

If the crisis lasts too long, then raise or remove the cap.

In either case theres no reason for the government to damage our most important safety net just to keep the wealthy from paying higher taxes.

[NoNothing]

9. Assuming the economy comes back strong

And the "funds" in the trust fund still have to be raised by the government. Meaning, starting this year, the government will have to raise taxes, cut spending, or borrow money to pay for the deficit in social security.

Raising or removing the cap is certainly a possibility but I think a lot of people really underestimate how difficult a sell that is, politically - it amounts to quite a large tax increase.

[unapatriciated]

11. Maybe it's time to collect on those iou's

http://www.gazette.com/articles/security-95673-borrow-social.html

About $2.5 trillion is owed to Social Security.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Sure would be nice if our politicians put the blame where it should be...

wars, tax cuts etc instead of SS.

SS is good for the next 20+ years.

[Paper Roses]

4. I'm in the age of "Gramma". Was laid off Dec 08. Could not find a job.

Unemployment has run out. I live on my meager SS check--that same SS that I paid for my whole working life. If they take that away or lower it, I will be in duck soup.

How do the members of Congress think they can mess with SS when it was a mandatory payment we made all through our working lives for just the purpose for which checks are sent.

Each time I read about this, my blood boils. If the government wants to end SS, they must pick a date in the future, when anyone now working has used up their benefit by dying, They should start planning an option NOW for the younger workforce. Mandatory savings? Whatever. I don't know what the answer is but I am GD tired of hearing about this from a bunch of legislators who would not know a bread isle from a bread line.

I've about had it with this government.

Being old has it's advantages. I won't have to put up this this much longer.

Heaven help the post baby boomers. They better get organized fast before the payments they make to SS become just another tax with no retirement check down the road.

BTW, Steny Hoyer, I'm 68 and could not find a job for over a year. What is your clever suggestion that will help us old-timers find a job that even a younger, more skilled person cannot find. You guys are really out of touch with the real situation out here.

[Skidmore]

6. I lost my job nearly 4 years ago and have only found one part-time

temporary fill-in job in that time. I lost it at the time I was diagnosed with cancer. I'm not 60 yet, but I'm well over 50 and I don't qualify for SS yet, nor can I tap my retirement money yet. I'm not eligible for Medicaire. My husband continues to work, and he is past retirement age, to hold onto the health insurance we have.

Instead of cutting benefits, they should be raising the cap on who contributes.

[elehhhhna]

10. you've spoken to an SSI disablility attorney I assume.

[Angry Dragon]

7. Not too many people will be saying

"Oh to be young again"

Might be better to be older