Can we All Agree any Social Security Changes Must be Done in the Open?

[jtown1123]

I've posted a lot about Social Security in the recent months. My posts have covered my concerns over proposals in the Fiscal Commission's recommendations that keep popping up, secret bipartisan meetings with Senators discussing those proposals http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/news/economy/senators_push_for_debt_reduction/index.htm, and a willingness of a lot of progressive Democrats like Dick Durbin, jumping ship and claiming they will support raising the retirement age and other "reforms."

Today, I read an article saying that Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden may work together "behind the scenes" on some sort of Social Security and spending cuts deal: http://politics.mycn2.com/2011/01/06/from-pure-politics-john-david-dyche-lnterview/

I am against raising the retirement age, means testing and changing the COLA. If these proposals are being made by law makers, we need to have hearings and experts testify before Congress to discuss the harmful implications of these proposals. So far, I have seen no plans to discuss this out in the open and in the regular legislative process. This concerns me.

I hope within the coming months, if Social Security is on legislative agenda for "reform" we get to weigh in on these proposals. I really don't think any major changes to a program $2.6 trillion in surplus should be "sprung" on us. What do you all think?

[Catherina]

1. Of course it should but it won't. Transparency would then defeat dishonesty

and they won't be having any of that. Rec'd

[fasttense]

2. If they do it out in the open, they will be held responsible

for the additional elderly freezing to death, dying from heat exhaustion, or starving like most elderly people did in the 1930s.

[jtown1123]

3. With campaign season just around the corner, I am shocked a democratic

administration would even be discussing cutting the most popular of all programs. Seeing how poorly Dems did with seniors this last election, it would be prudent for the Obama Administration to come and say very clearly, "Social Security belongs to the people and will not be used to cut our deficit, off the table, period." Haven't heard that yet and I get more worried every day.

[old mark]

4. K&R-I certainly agree with you, but I am afraid much of the "reform" is

already done-except for the announcements.

I have posted this link several times, but I will do so again:

http://www.ncpssm.org/

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is a very good organization and I recommend anyone who is interested please check the link;

Thank you.

mark

[jtown1123]

5. I don't think anything has been decided yet. NCPSSM is a great org. Thanks for sharing

I've been trying to sound alarm bells as much as possible that there are very serious threats out there and we all have to cause a huge stink. Maybe these are just trial balloons to see how people would react to SS changes but I'm not so sure.

[old mark]

7. I hope I am wrong...US politics lately remind me of the old Soviet Union news broadcasts...

"The government has decided that..." with no input from the people.

mark

[el_bryanto]

6. A counter view

I do have some sympathy for your position; and probably agree with you but the counter argument is this.

Liberals and Democrats cannot be seen to compromise basic democratic principles.

Conservatives and Republicans cannot be seen to compromise on fiscal responsibility (and with liberals at all, frankly).

Any solution to the problem requires compromise, but neither side can afford to be seen to compromise.

So they go of by themselves, work up a compromise where they aren't seen, and then come out and present it.

That's the argument; but a few problems with it.

They are going to have to vote on it; the vote will be public. So they will be then seen to compromise these principles; even if they argue that they are simply voting on what the secret commission recommends.

I also am not sure that the problems of Social Security are as grave as many conservatives pretend.

Bryant

[jtown1123]

8. Thanks for that insight. No, Social Security is not in crisis. These crocodile tears are just

excuses to cut the program. Social Security is is good fiscal shape. It will need to be adjusted within the next 27 years, but we have much BIGGER fish to fry right now. Mainly, severe unemployment and income inequality in the U.S.

We need the Democrats to be a strong opposition to the conservative viewpoint on Social Security. Otherwise, we trade away one of our most successful social programs.

The American people will overwhelmingly support the Democrats if they say any SS cuts are a no go. We'd probably win back a huge number of House seats.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. Absolutely

[mmonk]

10. The tax system needs to return to a progressive one.

We don't need any more free trade agreements here and we need to make things. We need to stabilize wages and eventually get them moving up again. We need a health care system where there is downward pressure on costs and not one where politicians can be bought to adjust their profits upward. That is why you need us real progressives and liberals and no false dichotomy of a left that isn't.

[alc]

11. absolutely. and the first step should be to open up about the trust fund

Give us details about the "special bonds" it contains. We know they can't be sold on the open market, but only back to the feds. Other than that we don't know much.

* When can they be traded in for something else (now? not for 1000 years)
* What can they be traded in for (cash? real bonds that can be sold in markets? more "special bonds"?)
* What interest are they getting (I've read 5% but I'd expect it to change with the fed rate, not be always 5%. Is that 5% per year, or over the lifetime - which may be 1000 years for all we know)
* Are these bonds already included in our official debt or just exist in some bookkeeping magic that would be illegal for a corporation? If not already in the debt, agreeing to pay them back with "real" funds would add pretty significantly (20%) to a debt that is already causing concern to lenders, and the IMF, and our government.

I am almost certain I can get a legitimate $3 trillion dollar bond in a month if I want. Sell all of my possessions, then find a municipality (maybe foreign) who will take that money and give me a bond redeemable in one trillion years. They only need to save $3 per year until then to pay me back when it matures. My municipality won't be as trustworthy as the US government and it is a stretch to compare this to the SS trust fund bonds. But can you definitively say that the "special bonds" in the SS trust fund will be more usable over the next 100 years than my theoretical bond? If I did this, I could honestly and correctly say my bond is "good". What does it mean when congressmen and reporters say the SS trust fund bonds are "good"? What should we assume from the fact that they did not issue normal bonds and they do not provide specifics about the special bonds?

[jtown1123]

16. I do know the surplus has been masking our actual deficit for decades.

Now that it's time to pay the piper, they are panicking because they have to find the money somewhere but don't want to tax their billionaire buddies. Class warfare at its finest.

[somone]

12. Nah, 'discussions' are best left to 'sensible' leaders in private 'negotiations'

so there can be a 'compromise' in the bipartisan/post-partisan 'deficit-reducing' business model :sarcasm:

[keopeli]

13. No capitulating. No changes to SS period.

We are not the negotiators. We are the cheerleaders. The message from the US citizens should remain NO CHANGES. In this case, there's no need to demand open meetings because it gives in to our main goal which is NO CHANGES.

Just a few years ago Bush* was harangued for even bringing up the topic. There should be no such discussions, especially with a moderate democrat as president who, like Clinton, would be willing to trade everything for nothing in return.

No changes to SS. You want to mess with our US income? Mess with the tax breaks for rich people and why we pay more than they do.

[vssmith]

14. No changes are needed to SS

Since its inception in 1937 Americans have contributed $2.5 trillion more than they have received in benefits.

The info can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
Please note: data in this table are in millions

[jtown1123]

15. I'm right there with you. SS is not in crisis...at all.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Definitely knr n/t