Republicans Eye Social Security Phase-out, Seek to Gut Earned Income Program

Republicans' Warrant to Destroy Security Security, SSA Trustees Are Trump Loyalists

Commentary

Scariest fourteen words in politics are: I'm from the Republican Party and I'm here to save Social Security and Medicare.

Republicans have for decades expressed desire to phase out Medicare and Social Security, and call it, entitlement reform, (Krugman, New York Times) (Krugman, New York Times).

Now, Republicans are squealing, again as they have for many years, they want to save Social Security. They call it reform again.

Writes Paul Krugman in June:

Whatever you may have heard, Social Security isn’t in danger of going bankrupt.

What we’re facing, instead, is potential political crisis. Congress and the White House could easily take action to sustain America’s retirement system. But given the current state of our politics, there’s no guarantee that they will. ... 

So don’t believe Republicans’ gaslighting that it will be necessary to cut Social Security benefits. All that is necessary to preserve Social Security is political will to raise taxes on the wealthy and a sensible immigration policy.

Today, "Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) call for Republicans to act on Social Security reform if they keep control of Congress in 2027 is getting pushback from Senate Republicans who warn it’s a bad political message heading into November."

"Yet, a trustees’ report that the popular retirement program will become insolvent sooner than expected has lit a fire under lawmakers in both parties to call for reforms such as raising the cap on payroll taxes, 'means testing' beneficiaries, raising the retirement age, and creating personal accounts to invest in the stock markets," reports Alexander Bolton.

First, the Social Security trustees are all Trump loyalists, extremists who will follow any and all of Trump's dictates.  

Trump and Republican-led Congress are intentionally trying to bleed and starve the Social Security Trust Funds, and then tell you they have no choice but to gut the most popular earned-income, social program in history.

It's like choking and starving someone to use a sick metaphor, and then declaring this person is unsustainable, insolvent and cannot live, so sorry.

From the Social Security Administration:

The Board of Trustees is comprised of four members who serve by virtue of their positions with the federal government: Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee; Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services; and Keith E. Sonderling, Acting Secretary of Labor. The two public trustee positions are currently vacant.

Means testing means the government will investigate all of your assets and determine whether you get benefits from Social Security system that you paid into all of your life. 

Implementing means testing would usher in a radical, new attack on the Social Security system.

Republicans also advocate raising the retirement age before you can accept Social Security benefits.

Corporate media remains a hostile force against Social Security.

By law, Social Security has its own dedicated revenue streams (payroll taxes) and legally distinct trust funds from the U.S. Treasury. 

Any politician, such as Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R) who says we need to cut Social Security benefits, which has funded the rest of government spending for decades, is lying.

"The argument being used to cut Social Security is that because we have a significant deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt, [in 2011] we just can’t afford to maintain Social Security benefits. This argument is false. Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. Treasury, has not contributed one nickel to our deficit," warned Bernie Sanders back in 2011. "In fact, according to a very recent study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Social Security has a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus and can pay out every penny owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years until 2038." 

As Paul Krugman noted in 2015, "[N]o, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue." (New York Times)

But our money is looked upon as potential windfalls by predatory Wall Street, and the media corporations who do Wall Street's bidding, want our money, your money.

Republicans surveilling your money should frighten the hell out of you. 

I have no idea if Democrats are up to the challenge of stopping the Republicans.

Paul Ryan and GOP Want Social Security Destroyed As Well

From Karoli at Crooks and Liars:

Frames are beginning to take clear shape for the midterms, and yes, Social Security will be under attack. While Republicans won't necessarily push privatization, they'll try to make points with the usual fear tactics about how the "Social Security Crisis" will bankrupt the country. Paul Krugman has some things to say about that.

The math is wrong and so is their attitude

Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

What crisis?

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

What's really going on here?

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

There's much more to Krugman's article, all worthy of attention. Bottom line is easy: Social Security should not be on the table. At all.