I just email the Fiscal Commission re: Steven Hill policy paper.

[johnaries]

Most of you are familiar with the Hill Policy Paper for the New America Foundation, in which he suggests an expanded Social Security Plus. He also includes some excellent ideas for revenue sources to bot make SS solvent and pay for SS Plus.

Here is the text of the email:

I believe we can achieve a great deal of reduced spending first of all by cutting our bloated Defense spending and also by making current government programs more efficient. The current budgeting plan based on the previous year's spending only encourages waste. If we implemented employee incentive programs to cut spending and implemented a Six Sigma-type commission to improve efficiency, we may increase spending temporarily (while actually providing stimulus to the economy) but we will see huge savings in both the mid- and the long-term.

Further, the best way to reduce deficits is to increase revenues. We can implement new sources of government revenue, but the best way is to improve the economy. Since we have a consumer-based economy, the best way to do this is to increase the buying power of those who spend. Job-makers will only create jobs if there is an increased demand. Obviously, a "bubble-up" approach makes much more logical sense than a "trickle-down" philosophy. We have also seen this time and time again as the "trickle-down" approach has been tried several times and failed miserably - the best example being the recent Great Recession.

Therefore, re: Social Security I direct you to Steven Hill's policy paper for the New America Foundation. Although it will require some new revenue streams to implement, he has some excellent suggestions for those that impact only those who can afford it. And the result will be a more robust economy for everyone, including those at the top. They may be paying more in taxes, but they will be making more than enough to counter the increased pay-outs thanks to increased demand. Which also means that government revenues will increase making it easier to lower the deficit. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Please consider this paper carefully:

http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Hill%20-%20Social%20Security%20-%2013-Aug-10%20-%20spaced%20graphs.pdf

Thank you for your time and attention.

I also intend to forward the email to my Congress people, since they are the ones who will ultimately vote on any SS changes - good or bad. My Senators are Alexander and Corker, so I don't have much hope there. My Rep is Jim Cooper, who tends to be fiscally conservative, but sometimes he'll actually listen.

If you like Hill's approach, I'd like to suggest you to do something similar. the email addy for the Fiscal Commission is mailto:[e-mail]. But remember, the ones who will make the decision are Congress, so it is more important to email them.

[daleanime]

1. Huge K&R.

:bounce:

[DJ13]

2. I applaud your effort, but the commission was convened to slash SS

The real reason they are looking at destroying SS as we know it is to provide a means for the government to default on the bonds that represent the surplus.

I doubt they have any interest in improving SS or Medicare as they currently exist, as they dont want to face the trade offs necessary in raising taxes on the under taxed rich to make good on those bonds in the decades to come.

[johnaries]

3. That's a false meme, but regardless it's up to Congress in the end. nt

[DJ13]

4. We'll see

[johnaries]

5. As I said, it's still up to Congress which is why it's even more important

to email them. I just started with the Fiscal Commission.

[DJ13]

6. Im all in favor of pressuring them all

And I really hope a mass campaign gets attention to keep them from trying to steal the money workers have put into SS.

What I meant in my first post is that I bet they will be deliberately tone deaf as it seems (to me) that they have an agenda.

Please keep up the pressure!

:thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

8. Not a false meme, that is exactly why they were convened.

To find ways to avoid repaying the debt they owe to SS. So far, they are going after the most financially vulnerable members of society, the elderly, (old geezers ought to be willing to give up some of their retirement pittance says Obama's co-chair Alan Simpson), the disabled, dependent children and now VETERANS, who says Alan Simpson, DID help the country when they went to war, but are not helping it now by collecting their benefits.

Congress will do as Chris Van Hollen said they will do when asked if he would vote no on slashing SS benefits. He said they will not be voting on that alone, they will be voting on THE WHOLE PACKAGE. When asked if that package included SS cuts, he refused to answer.

We've been here before with HC so we know the deal this time.

There was no need for this commission. Congress should NOT be voting on recommendations from a bunch of rich people who are mostly opposed to SS. Congress should have been the ones creating that package. Have you asked yourself why this did not happen? Why is a Commission like this creating something for Congress to vote on?

I think President Obama gave us the answer in the campaign when slammed Hillary for stating she would 'create a commission to deal with the deficit'. He said that such commissions were just a 'stealth way to get around the legislative process' and that if he were president he would not allow such commissions but would make Congress debate these issues out in the open.

He was right, that is exactly what these commissions are for. So that Congress does NOT debate these issues openly. All they do is vote on the recommendations of a bunch of compromised rich people.

I respect your attempt to try to do something, but Congress is waiting for its orders from this commission, the same way they got their orders from Insurance Industry on Healthcare. It is a sad situation and unless the people rise up and demand that they listen, we will lose this SS because Congress will not fight for it.

[johnaries]

9. Without arguing the "purpose", if you want the "people to rise up"

shouldn't we all be writing the commission and our Congress?

BTW, the commission meetings themselves are online and you can see them at the website http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

You will see that they also discuss cutting the defense budget. And they aren't talking about "privitizing" SS and Medicare like the people who coined the term "catfood commission" originally claimed. And they are not talking about "slashing" SS as so many claim but talk about making minor adjustments ALONG with increasing revenues.

A major point that commission members have been pushing from the beginning is that only a combination of increasing revenues and minor cuts will suffice - not just "slashing" programs.

However, I believe the cuts can be made by making most programs more efficient, and I think Hill's proposal of extending SS makes sense even though it relies on increasing taxes to pay for it. The resulting boost to the economy will maore than make up for the additional taxes.

BUT we have to let both the commission and more importantly Congress know that we support the proposal and point out the benefits.

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, absolutely especially those who are members of Congress

on the Commission.

I am aware of the public meetings the Commission holds, but they are not the only meetings being held. In fact James Galbraith addressed the secrecy with which the Commission is conducting its business when he spoke before them recently:

First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. Nothing you say will affect financial markets. Congress long ago — in 1975 — reformed its procedures to hold far more sensitive and complicated meetings, notably legislative markups, in the broad light of day.

Secrecy breeds suspicion: first, that your discussions are at a level of discourse so low that you feel it would be embarrassing to disclose them. Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public. Please do so.

[johnaries]

13. You make some excellent points, but you missed the mark on some.

As you said, "The problem is NOT with SS, it is with the economy and the collapse of the economy was caused by the financial meltdown, caused by the very people who would cut SS but refuse to repay their debt."

No, the problem is NOT with SS. Yes, it IS with "repaying the debt". On paper, SS is in fine shape. However, because previous administrations refused to back that debt with "promises" - there is nothing to back up that paper. Which means that in the future we have to come up with the revenue to pay off those promises.

This is a much bigger issue than just "paying our debts to ourselves". Since the trust is backed by the Full Confidence of the US Government, it can undermine that confidence.

You said that the Commission is supposed to advise how to improve the economy. That is not exactly true. It's scope is much more limited - it is only supposed to address the long-term deficit. However, the economy does affect the government's ability to address the deficit. Therefore, the economy should be a consideration of the Commission.

Actually, most of the presenter's have argued that none of the Commission's recommendations should be implemented until the economy has stabilized. I couldn't agree more. But, I think that we should have some sort of "blueprint" available once we have recovered.

Personally, I doubt that the commission will be able to agree on more than the most rudimentary suggestions. Even then, I doubt that we can get Congress to vote to implement them - whether the suggestions are good or bad. BUT, I think that research and findings of the Commission will be key in developing new legislation.

[sabrina 1]

14. Well, I think our main disagreement is on whether or not the

Fed. Govt. can or will honor its debt to the SS Trust Fund. But so far, including this year, they have honored their commitment.

SS has three sources of income, one of them being the interest on the Treasury Bonds. So far that interest has been paid. And because SS is also funded constantly by the workers who pay into it, it will never go broke as long as there are workers.

Regarding the mission of the Commission, this is how it is defined on the Government site:

Sec. 4. Mission. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government

The highlights are mine. The last one is very troubling and I believe many people have addressed it already. It is ambiguous but I think everyone knows what they mean by 'entitlement' programs. They seem to believe that when retirees receive their benefits that is the Fed. Govt. giving them something for nothing. That is how people like Pete Peterson want SS to be viewed. But nothing could be further from the truth. That is the people's money, not the Govt's and no one is getting anything from the Govt. They paid for it.

So when you understand that, why are they discussing the 'gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government' in relation to SS? SS benefits are not an expenditure of the Fed. Govt. SS is a separate fund paid for and continually being replenished by the American workers.

The SS fund could invest in something other than Treasury Bonds and if we are to believe that the U.S. Government may default on its commitment to pay interest on the bonds and repay what it borrowed from the fund, then what we SHOULD be talking about is not investing in U.S. treasury bonds any longer as this would mean they can not be trusted.

And imagine what that means. It means the U.S. Government is a failed Government and other creditors, like China eg, would panic if the American People were to take their money elsewhere out of fear of the Govt defaulting.

And that is why I know that the U.S. Govt CAN make good on its debt to SS. But it cannot do it by cutting the benefits of its creditors. That is ludicrous. Are they going to make China pay for the money they are owed?

Then why are they attempting to do this to the American people? I think, if this argument that the Govt cannot pay SS continues to be used, the American people will have to direct the Trustees to start looking elsewhere to put their money, and definitely to increase their benefits.

This is why this Commission has zero business mentioning SS at all, unless it is to say 'let's see what we can cut from the Fed. Budget so that we can repay our creditors, of which the American People is one of the biggest.

But none of this necessary. Taxes will have to be raised on the wealthy, they've had a free ride for far too long. And we simply cannot afford wars when we are in so much debt.

But do you see how off-the-wall it is to even think about cutting SS benefits and why there is so much outrage over the very suggestion?

I completely agree with you that we should be calling them and I like very much the fact that you are doing something. I just want THEM, Congress and this Commission to know that we are not fooled by their attempt to involve the American People's money in a debt they did not run up. So they need to stop the deception. It isn't working.

Anyhow, as I said I don't think we disagree on much. But I want to hear Democrats slam the very idea of cutting benefits. And while the President was great today, and I am thrilled that finally he is doing what economists have said must be done long ago, I am very concerned that he did not say firmly 'there will be no cuts to SS'. He has mentioned privatization because he knows now, they will cause a revolution if they try that. But he must not think we did not notice that he has not said yet what he needed to say.

And keeping up the pressure is the way to get him and Congress to state strongly that there will not be any cuts to SS because first, that is virtually theft, and second it will do nothing for the economy or the debt.

Thanks for the discussion and I think we all want the same things ... :-)

[Sherman A1]

7. Excellent!

Thanks for posting. I will read the paper over a bit later and add my voice to yours by email my Congressional Rep and Senators.

I am not necessarily encouraged by the situation, but your effort does add one small flicker of hope and it cost me nothing but a bit of time to send an email to all of them.

:toast:

[johnaries]

11. Thank you! But even if you don't agree with the paper it's still

important to make your voice heard. There are many ideas presented here on DU, and I encourage all to submit their own ideas.

:toast:

[johnaries]

10. kick for those who want to take action.