Latest deficit commission report will do great harm to those on Social Security. 20% cut.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-02-10 12:58 PM
Original message

Latest deficit commission report will do great harm to those on Social Security. 20% cut.

R. J. Eskow of the Campaign for America's Future gives some of the reasons that the new proposals which are supposedly so great are no better, and in some instances worse, than the original ones leaked by Simpson and Bowles.

10 Reasons the Deficit Commission Proposal is Still Unconscionable and Unacceptable

The co-chairs of the Presidential Deficit Commission released the final draft of their report today, and it's now scheduled for a Friday vote by members of the Commission. We're being told that it's a fairer and more reasonable document than its predecessor. It's nothing of the kind. In many ways this document is worse than the draft that preceded it, and those much-lauded "compromises" evaporate in the cold light of reality. This new draft is lipstick on a piggy-bank robber, a package of cosmetic changes meant to disguise its true purpose: To raid the future financial security of most Americans in order to benefit a few.

Here is more about the Social Security proposal. It's shameful to do this while the rich will be getting richer.

4. The elderly will face harsh benefit cuts.

The average Social Security retirement benefit today is $1100, and even less for women ($920). Under this proposal a median earner, someone earning $43,000 in today's dollars, would face a 20% (19.1%) benefit cut. It looks, therefore, as if the average benefit would eventually drop to $889 overall, with women receiving an average of $744. These cuts are offset somewhat for lower-income workers but, as we'll see, those offsets aren't what they seem to be.

Working longer to get less. I guess that will serve the elderly right for being in Simpson's words..."the greediest generation."

5. Most of us will still work longer for less.

You won't just receive less in benefits. You'll work longer to get it, since they're raising the retirement age.

We're told that there will be exceptions for people who would face hardship if forced to work longer. That's a nice thought, given all the benefit-slashing going on. But that decision is kicked down the road and assigned to Social Security Administration staff. The cuts are fixed, but the exemptions are left vague and deferred to people who aren't trained in that kind of analysis.

Their definition of "hardship" is narrow, too, and it excludes hardships like discrimination. The net effect of this proposal is to ensure a longer work life for most people while making jobs harder to get. The only small mitigating factor they promise is delayed to a future date and left vague.

One other problem among the ten Eskow lists caught my eye.

3. It will result in millions of lost jobs.

As the Economic Policy Institute has demonstrated, this proposal will cost the nation 4 million lost jobs and damage our economic growth. This new draft demands even deeper discretionary spending cuts, enacted even sooner, so the loss of jobs is likely to be even greater.

That's why Mary Kay Henry, President of the SEIU, said ""This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work." It's why AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that "this whole discussion reeks of hypocrisy. The faux deficit hawks on the commission - and Senators who claim unemployment insurance must be paid for -- have no problem clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires. We need to focus now on the jobs deficit."

Last night the pathetic Alan Simpson said on NBC that we need to "sober up or sleep in the streets."

That pretty much sounds like that might be a reality in our country's future.