Rep. Lloyd Doggett: Obama/GOP tax deal puts Social Security "at grave risk"

[brentspeak]

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/obamas-tax-deal-and-future-social-security

Obama's Tax Deal and the Future of Social Security

By James Ridgeway
| Wed Dec. 22, 2010 9:36 AM PST

It’s worth pointing out once again that last week’s tax deal is hardly the victory for the American people it is made out to be. One of the biggest chunks -- http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3342">13 percent of the total monies — comes from Social Security and Medicare in the form of a one-year cut in payroll taxes. The government promises to pay back what it is taking from the Social Security trust fund by borrowing the money, then floating bonds to guarantee repayment.

This one year abeyance might not seem like much. But with the coming of a right-wing Republican House, under pressure from the further fringes in the tea party, it does not augur well for the future of the program. From its inception under FDR, the Republicans have dreamed of getting rid of Social Security, along with such other things as the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the Department of Education, and the UN.

“Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal in an unprecedented way and there is a grave risk now that the retirement benefits of America’s workers will have to compete with our other priorities for a share of the general budget,” said Rep. Loyd Doggett (D-Tex.) at a press conference held by the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare. ”It would result in Social Security being as dependent on annual Congressional action as public television or our national parks.”

“If the recent debate on the Bush tax cuts has taught us anything, it is that taxes are easy to cut but hard to restore," said Rep. Ted Deutch (R-Fla.) at the same press conference. “If this provision is made permanent, it will double Social Security’s long term funding gap and open a door that Democrats have long fought to keep closed – budgetary attacks on Social Security.’’

[ProSense]

1. “Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal" Well,

I don't believe that's accurate.

[brentspeak]

2. What the hell does your link have to do with my OP?

Did Obama make a mere six-month payroll tax holiday that's paid for by a surcharge on the rich? Wait -- he didn't? He actually made it a one-year deal being paid for out of the general fund -- not from a surcharge on the wealthy as Kuttner proposed? So what's the point of "your" obfuscation this time?

[ProSense]

4. You're asking what the payroll tax has to

do with the spin about Social Security?

Social Security is not in jeopardy, regardless of who says it.

[brentspeak]

6. Where in my post did I ask "what the payroll tax has to do with the 'spin' about Social Security'?

I don't know from what galaxy you pulled that fabricated question from. I did, however, ask you what your link had to do with my OP.

Care to answer the question, or maybe you want to continue with your obfuscation? We can run around this circle all night, if you want.

[hulka38]

10. The point of this is to muddy up the water

and sew doubt about a valid concern from several Democratic lawmakers that this provision undermines SS. It's done primarily for the consumption of others on this board.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

20. It won't.

[hulka38]

3. Your link does not counter this claim. n/t

[ProSense]

5. "If this provision is made permanent"

It's not permanent. If no one contributed to Social Security it would go bankrupt, but people do contribute to Social Security.

[hulka38]

7. Again, your link does not counter this claim -

“Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal."

[ProSense]

11. Actually, it does. Here's a summation

_Did Obama make a mere six-month payroll tax holiday that's paid for by a surcharge on the rich? Wait -- he didn't? He actually made it a one-year deal being paid for out of the general fund -- not from a surcharge on the wealthy as Kuttner proposed?

link

So this is inaccurate: “Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal."

[brentspeak]

16. Did anyone argue that, for this single upcoming fiscal year, SS's funding is threatened?

They didn't? And that the real issue, made crystal clear in the OP's link, is what will happen to Social Security future status if it's funding were to compete with everything else dependent on the general fund?

You want to keep playing dumb on this?

[hulka38]

18. Being paid for out of the general fund is precisely

what these Dem lawmakers mean when they say, “Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal". I mean, what is you major malfunction?

[ProSense]

21. Punctuating your argument with an insult doesn't make it valid.

The OP argument is precisely speculative, and has nothing to do with the impact of the temporary tax holiday.

[hulka38]

22. That's your opinion.

It's wrong, but it's your opinion. What is a fact is that nothing in that Kuttner link in your post #1 discredits the OP as you suggested.

[brentspeak]

8. Playing dumb?

"It's not permanent."

It's not permanent now. The issue everyone else is raising is what happens to the status of the payroll tax holiday in the future, and whether it will be made permanent.

You, of course, know all this, so there's absolutely no point in actually debating you as if you are debating in honest and good faith. However, it's important that some innocent person reading your post doesn't get misinformed, so I'm making Doggett's point clear to anyone else reading this post.

[ProSense]

9. "It's not permanent now. "

So Social Security is in jeopardy based on a what if?

What if it isn't permanent? What if the cap is raised?

The speculation is dumb.

[hulka38]

12. This will not be side tracked to a discussion about the word "permanent"

How does your link render inaccurate this statement, "Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal" ?

[ProSense]

13. Let me

repeat.

[brentspeak]

14. It's "dumb" to speculate on what the GOP itself has admitted it will try to do?

For the sake of the innocent readers out there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/tax-cut-deal-a-hidden-thr_n_793983.html

Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. "Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it'll be portrayed as a tax increase," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes."

Given that Congress, under Democratic control, can't gather itself to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, members of both parties are convinced that letting the payroll tax rate revert back to its current spot will be near impossible.

"Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They'll feel their paycheck being less and that argument" -- that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike -- "eventually is bound to be made," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

"There's always a tendency to continue those things... Once something comes in, it's very difficult to change it," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio.) He then volunteered, without prompting, that "It would be detrimental to the Social Security system, especially when it's in bad shape."

[ProSense]

15. The GOP

also signed a letter that they were going to block everything in the lame duck. They're not reliable. Also, the OP is about what the GOP will try to do?

[brentspeak]

17. "GOP vows to block legislation UNTIL TAX INCREASES ARE RESOLVED"

Back on http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/12/01/Senate-GOP-threatens-to-block-legislation/UPI-74961291223539/">December 1st.

Thanks to Obama's capitulation/collusion, tax increases long-since resolved.

You were trying to make a point about something? What was it?

[jannyk]

23. No, No it is not.

"Also, the OP is about what the GOP will try to do?" Nope!

The OP is very clearly about the difficulty in reinstating the 'temporary' payroll tax cut back to its former level at the end of the year. The total inability of this administration to rid us of Bush's 'temporary' tax cuts to the rich being the most applicable case-in-point.

The OP then very clearly makes the point, that if we fail to rescind the one year Payroll tax cut, as we failed to rescind Bush's tax cuts, then SS will be in peril.

Your claim, that it will be easy to undo the Payroll Tax Cut, especially after what we just went through, is naive and dangerous.

And, as the others have said, your blue link has no relevance to the OP.

[golfguru]

24. Social Security is ALREADY in big trouble

Every dime of social security surplus has been SPENT ALREADY.
All SS has is a drawer full of IOU'S from US Treasury. And US Treasury
is nearing $14 TRILLION in debt.

These are all stark & brutal facts.
So this temporary SS tax holiday of 2% reduction just means US Treasury
has promised to go deeper in debt.

To make matters worse, the ratio of workers to retirees is dropping every year.
Which simply means less and less workers are supporting more and more retirees.
It is just US demographics.

The situation is exactly same as all the money me and the wife have "lent" to
her brothers over the years. They both are in deep debt. But when I look at
all the IOU's in my drawer, I should be feeling safely solvent, right? :rofl:

[eridani]

25. Repuke bullshit that we have been hearing for 75 years

China sure thinks that T-bills are real

[golfguru]

36. The PIGS thought they were safe also

Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain all have nice social programs,
national health insurance, early retirement, unemployment benefits.

Except they had to go into hock to maintain those benefits. Now their
debt has reached a point where no one wants to buy their Treasury Bills.
IOW they are broke!

The rate at which our debt is growing, we will get there sooner than you think.

[eridani]

38. Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.. And Ireland

--had no debt. In fact it was a conservative and IMF poster child until their real estate bubble crashed. The sociopathich bankster fuckers recognize no difference between Ireland and Greece.

[golfguru]

39. Right, but the debt has everything to do with Social Security

Like I explained in other posts, Social Security account is in surplus
right now. Except all the surplus money has been loaned to US Treasury
and that money has been ALREADY SPENT in federal general budget.

So all SS has is bunch of IOU"s from US Treasury which is $14 Trillion
in debt and Trillions more in unfunded liabilities.

Ireland GOVERNMENT has a debt crisis, not just the home owners whose bubble
has burst. Here are a few links from reliable sources. SO it's not just my opinion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/business/global/18euro.html
http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704034804576024832141778872.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-euro-qa-20101225,0,662282.story

[eridani]

41. T-Bills happen to be more than IOUs

And the Irish government was in surplus untill the crash.

[Enthusiast]

32. Stark and brutal right wing talking points.

I'll give you stark and brutal left wing talking points. Bring all the troops home -from everywhere. Close all U.S. military bases worldwide. Strengthen our social security and medicare programs through increased taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes. Make funding these programs a top priority.

[golfguru]

34. I absolutely agree on bringing ALL TROOPS HOME

Close every one of the 800 bases we have around the world which we
can not afford anymore since we are borrowing money from China to
operate them. It is asinine and stupid and foolhardy.

My kids are 17 & 19 and at present rate, they will have no social security left
at retirement age.

I also agree about closing corporate loopholes. I will add stop bailouts
of "too big to fail" banks & Corporations.

Until those steps are taken Social Security is in BIG trouble. Do you see any
signs we will be bringing all troops home & close those 800 bases around the world?
I don't.

[ljm2002]

33. If the United States refuses to honor its Treasury bills...

...then we have larger problems than Social Security. And it may be that we do. In the meantime, why is it *only* the Treasury bills in the Social Security trust fund that are always referred to as "just IOUs"???

[golfguru]

35. To honor your debt, you need to be solvent

Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain also wish to honor their treasury bills
but can't any more. They are all broke from too much debt.

We are getting there and will be there sooner than you think.

[xchrom]

26. Recommend

[Enthusiast]

27. K&R

It is foolhardy in the extreme to think this cut isn't in danger of being made permanent. There are powerful individuals in this nation dedicated to forcing social security into private hands. And that is their objective. This is the very inspiration for the cut in funding. "Starve the beast."

[COLGATE4]

30. Absolutely right! K&R

[Still a Democrat]

28. Doggett had been demagoguing this issue to death

He and the other dead-enders seem to believe getting the GOP to cave on the Bush tax cuts would have been easy but it will be impossible to let the holiday expire?

[brentspeak]

31. Someone who posts under the name "Still A Democrat" terms Llloyd Doggett a "demagogue"?

He and some of the other most respected members of the Democratic party are "dead enders"??

Were you sent from the Onion as part of some elaborate prank?

[Still a Democrat]

37. Most Democrats support the compromise

Both in Congress and rank and file. If you want to question somebody, question the obstructionists.

[brentspeak]

40. Please change your avatar

FDR insisted that the payroll tax -- which he himself wisely initiated -- be ferociously guarded at all times and forever. Your politics are the polar opposite of one of the Democratic party's greatest leaders.

[Still a Democrat]

42. The holiday is being reimbursed by the general fund

So there's no loss of revenue.

[brentspeak]

43. Hard to tell if you're simply 'playing dumb'

Or not. Or just giggling while trying to deliberately steer the discussion into a circle.

“Social Security’s dedicated funding base is jeopardized by this deal in an unprecedented way and there is a grave risk now that the retirement benefits of America’s workers will have to compete with our other priorities for a share of the general budget,” said Rep. Loyd Doggett (D-Tex.) at a press conference held by the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare. ”It would result in Social Security being as dependent on annual Congressional action as public television or our national parks.”

Advertise on MotherJones.com

“If the recent debate on the Bush tax cuts has taught us anything, it is that taxes are easy to cut but hard to restore," said Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) at the same press conference. “If this provision is made permanent, it will double Social Security’s long term funding gap and open a door that Democrats have long fought to keep closed – budgetary attacks on Social Security.’’

[Still a Democrat]

44. The general fund owes SS $4 trillion

And attacks on it have been going on for years. The holiday comes to about 3% of that. The notion that SS will only be attacked because of the holiday is absurd.

[flpoljunkie]

29. Operative word here is 'IF.'