Numbers

I've been wrong about Social Security.

I'd heard we can make the thing healthy and pay off forever if we just remove the taxable earnings cap (I think it's at $175K now).

That's the part I was wrong about. Turns out, removing the cap makes it good for about 75 years, but one of the big things is that we have a demographics problem which could easily -  eventually - turn us upside down and make it impossible for us to continue the program.

Here's a new content maker for me: Kathryn Anne Edwards holds a PhD in economics.

One of the best points she makes is that we have to decide that we want it to work - that it's a worthwhile thing, and we want it to go on. Then we can address the difficulties - difficulties that I think "conservatives" are deliberately putting in the way in order to starve the system out of existence.

Dr Edwards, if you would please:

Choices

Every policy position,

every court judgement,

every item in every budget

is a statement

of the decision-maker's morality.

To be clear, I think the Republicans (at least the Plutocrats, and of course their MAGA jerk supporters) are going to jump on this with both feet.

They don't want to save Social Security - they want to kill it, and spike it, and bury so deep that people 30 or 40 years from now won't remember when those monthly deposits kept their grandma from having to live in her car.

And I'm absolutely sure they're going to try to sell it as a great opportunity for people to "invest in your future - control your own destiny - make sound fiscal judgement the basis of securing the best possible life for yourself in your golden years."

They want to hand it over to the sharks on Wall Street. Imagine the gang of smarmy fucks who're practically knee-deep in their own saliva, willing to crawl over a mountain of dead rotting corpses covered in shards of glass just to get a shot at "managing" 5 trillion dollars of your money.

YOUR MONEY

Every dollar is a Power Coupon.

If I have a million coupons, I have some decent power.

A billion is a thousand times more than a million.

A trillion is a thousand times more than a billion.

Fuck 'em.

I'll share my toothbrush with a leper

before I give those assholes

that kinda power.

Cut taxes or save Social Security? The $5 trillion question

William G. Gale and Samuel I. Thorpe

We live in a world of trade-offs, and a looming debate in Washington will decide how trillions of dollars in government cash is spent.

Republican lawmakers and President Donald Trump are eager to make permanent the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 that expire at the end of this year. This would prove quite expensive—according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it would raise deficits by more than $5 trillion through 2035. As Republicans finalize their tax proposals, it is worth asking what else could be done with those trillions.

The answer is “a lot.” With $5 trillion, we could bolster national defense, expand the child tax credit and reduce child poverty, fix our infrastructure, pay down the deficit … the list goes on.

There is no better example of how much revenue is at stake, however, than the following fact: For the amount of money it would take to extend the temporary provisions of the TCJA (not just over the next 10 years but permanently) policymakers could instead use the funds to keep Social Security solvent for generations.

Why are there temporary provisions? In 2017, Senate Republicans lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, so they passed the TCJA through the “reconciliation” process, which prohibits policies that raise the deficit after 10 years. To meet this requirement, Republicans opted to let almost all the individual income tax and estate tax provisions expire at the end of 2025. Extending those provisions and repealing some business tax increases that TCJA mandated would reduce revenues by about 1.2% of GDP per year by the end of the decade—and in subsequent years if the tax cuts are made permanent. Remember that number: 1.2% of GDP.

With a clear look at the cost of TCJA extension, the trade-offs become more obvious. Social Security is one of the nation’s most popular and successful programs, but it is in financial trouble.

Revenues that would otherwise go to making the provisions of TCJA permanent could be used instead to make Social Security solvent for at least the next 75 years.

The program relies on payroll taxes, income taxes on social security benefits, and the principal and interest on previous surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. Since 2010, however, payroll and income tax revenues have been smaller than benefit payments to retirees.

The trust fund has dwindled and is projected to be totally depleted by 2035 under Social Security’s intermediate assumptions, at which point the other revenue sources will only cover about 83% of benefit payments. Over time, those sources would cover even less of scheduled payments. Addressing this shortfall will require either spending cuts, payroll tax increases, or increased federal borrowing that equals—that’s right—a little less than 1.2% of GDP.

Revenues that would otherwise go to making the provisions of TCJA permanent could be used instead to make Social Security solvent for at least the next 75 years. In fact, it might keep it in the black for even longer, as revenues that would have gone to TCJA through 2034 could replenish the Social Security trust fund and extend solvency further into the future.

Choosing to keep Social Security on solid ground versus making the TCJA provisions permanent would have several advantages. First, it would avoid cuts to Social Security benefits, which 42% of retirees depend on for at least half of their income. It would also be progressive relative to extending the TCJA, which would cut taxes by more than $70,000 per household for those in the top 1% of the income distribution, compared to just $130 on average for households in the bottom 20%.

And unlike extending the TCJA provisions, it would not hurt economic growth: A recent CBO analysis finds that extending TCJA would have a slightly negative effect on growth within four years.

Public policy is about making choices, and lawmakers stand at a crossroads. If they choose to extend tax cuts that favor the rich while calling for cuts in “entitlements” (aka Social Security) that favor low- and moderate-income families, they will help those who don’t need it while penalizing those who do.

At best, that option is short-sighted and inequitable. Bluntly, it is a bad choice. Instead, maintaining Social Security benefits is the more appropriate option. Avoiding a massive and regressive tax cut would make it possible.

GOP Malarkey

Lemme just say up front that I'm just a tiny bit sick-n-tired of hearing "entitlement" used as a slam against collecting on my Social Security and Medicare.

I paid for that shit. It's mine. That means I am, in fact, entitled to it.

I want that word back.

Their Latest Scam

The blurb about "not taxing Social Security" is just another scam.

Because it's always a fucking scam.

One Issue

A lot of ink is being spilled - finally - about abortion becoming a driving force among "liberal or left-leaning" voters.

Of course, all that "liberal and left-leaning" stuff is a mischaracterization when 75-80% of all Americans are Pro-Choice, but I can let that Press Poodle crap slide for a minute, and concentrate on the revelation that enormous numbers of voters are telling the polling pimps that abortion has turned them into One-Issue Voters.

I'll acknowledge that I'm among those one-issue voters on abortion. And that's been a pretty consistent thing for me since Bill Weld stood up at the GOP convention in 1992 and said it's OK to be a Pro-Choice Republican, and practically got booed out of the building.

Over the last few decades, my One-Issue-ness has been widening, to the point where I'm not going to vote for anybody who (eg) uses "entitlements" as either a derogatory term meant to imply I'm some kinda moocher because I rely on Social Security and Medicare here in my life's twilight.

(Guess what, skeezix - I worked my ass off for 50 fuckin' years for those benefits. Keep your grubby hands off my shit, or learn to live with a coupla bloody stumps)

So anyway, I'm a One-Issue Voter with quite a few one-issue items on my one-issue list:

• Abortion
• Social Security
• Medicare
• Public Schools
• Fair Taxation
• Livable Wage
• Climate Change
• Universal Pre-K
• Universal Healthcare Coverage
• Guns

And I'm sure dog-ass Republicans will go on delivering more items for me to put on my list as they dig deeper into that Daddy State black hole.

Selling Us Out

There's no good reason the problems with Social Security and Medicare can't be fixed.

On Social Security & Medicare

To preface this, I think it's pretty safe to assume a few things.

1. I don't know what to do about all this - I'm not an economist, and I'm not a tax accountant, and I'm not trying to pretend I know how to fix it
2. Somebody does know how to fix it - in a fair, even-handed way
3. Anything we do to fix it will involve the tax code 

And everything we try to do will be picked apart and shat upon by all manner of armchair experts and keyboard commandos. This is likely going to get even messier than it's been for the last 90 years.

WASHINGTON — President Biden scored an early political point this month in his fight with congressional Republicans over taxes, spending and raising the federal debt limit: He forced Republican leaders to profess, repeatedly, that they will not seek cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

In the process, Mr. Biden has effectively steered a debate about fiscal responsibility away from two cherished safety-net programs for seniors, just as those plans are poised for a decade of rapid spending growth.

New forecasts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, set to be released on Wednesday, are expected to show Medicare and Social Security spending growth rapidly outpacing the growth in federal tax revenues over the next 10 years. That is the product of a wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age and beginning to tap the programs, which provide guaranteed income and health insurance from the time benefits are claimed until death.

Those retirees are an electoral force. In refusing to touch so-called entitlement programs, Mr. Biden was appealing to seniors, along with generations of future retirees, when he used his State of the Union address and subsequent speeches this month to amplify attacks on Republican plans to reduce future spending on Social Security and Medicare or potentially sunset the programs entirely.

“They’re more than government programs,” Mr. Biden told a Florida audience last week. “They’re a promise — a promise we made: Work hard and contribute, and when the time has come for you to retire, you’ll be there — we’ll be there for you to help you out. It’s been a sacred trust, the rock-solid guarantee generations of Americans have counted on, and it works.”

In his 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden proposed shoring up Social Security’s finances and increasing benefits for some retirees by raising taxes on high earners. Social Security is primarily funded through payroll taxes on workers’ incomes of up to $160,200. Mr. Biden has suggested eliminating the cap for incomes above $400,000 a year, subjecting them to payroll taxes.

Influential Republicans have proposed a variety of changes to make both programs more fiscally sustainable, including spending cuts and gradually raising the retirement age from 67 to keep up with longer life expectancy.

Republican leaders in Congress have stressed in recent days that, despite the calls from some conservatives to link safety net spending and the debt limit, they will not seek those changes as part of an agreement to raise the nation’s borrowing cap.

House Republicans have threatened not to increase the current $31.4 trillion limit, which the United States technically hit on Jan. 19, unless Mr. Biden agrees to unspecified demands to reduce government spending and debt. If the cap is not raised and the government is unable to pay all its bills at once, some retirees might not get their Social Security checks as scheduled. But leaders say their demands to raise the cap will ultimately leave Social Security and Medicare intact.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, told reporters on Tuesday that “there is no agenda on the part of Senate Republicans to revisit Medicare or Social Security, period,” adding, “I’ve noticed that the speaker of the House has said the same thing.”

note: This does not mean McConnell is "on our side". It could just as easily mean, "We won't do anything to fix the problem, knowing the thing will eventually implode (because our tax-cut strategy is working according to plan), and then we can make our move to kill it altogether."

If both sides hold their positions, the fiscal debate will narrow to Mr. Biden’s proposals to raise taxes on corporations and high earners — which Republicans have roundly rejected — and Republican proposals to cut the growth of a much smaller slice of federal programs.

Mr. Biden plans to address the deficit in remarks on Wednesday in which he will criticize Republican proposals that he says would add $3 trillion to the debt. That includes repealing tax increases Mr. Biden signed into law in 2022, which would increase federal revenues, as well as making permanent several Republican tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2025.

That debate will exclude the primary spending-side drivers of future federal debt and deficits. Both Social Security’s and Medicare’s trust funds are currently spending more than they take in from payroll taxes and other revenue sources, a growing gap that is included in how the government accounts for the total size of its budget deficit.

In its last wave of forecasts, in May, the budget office predicted Social Security spending would grow by two-thirds over the coming decade. That’s more than double the expected growth rate for spending on the military and on domestic programs like education and environmental protection. High inflation could further accelerate that growth; Social Security enacted an 8.7 percent cost-of-living increase this year, its largest in decades.

By 2033, the May forecasts suggest, the federal government will be spending nearly as much on Social Security alone as it does on all discretionary spending — military and otherwise — combined.

Medicare is a smaller program but poised to grow even faster, at three times the rate of military and other discretionary spending over the next decade, according to the May forecasts. The new projections are likely to show its growth will be restrained somewhat by a law Mr. Biden signed last summer that is expected to reduce the program’s spending on prescription drugs for seniors.

Lawmakers could stabilize the programs by raising taxes, reducing spending or simply continuing to borrow money to keep paying full benefits. A group of liberal lawmakers led by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, has a proposal to expand Social Security benefits and extend its solvency for 75 years through a variety of new taxes on investment and business income, along with earnings for Americans making $250,000 or more.

The conservative Republican Study Committee in the House has a plan that would raise the retirement age for both programs and reduce Social Security benefits for some higher-earning retirees.

Fiscal hawks in Washington, including think tank officials and some Senate Republicans, have said lawmakers must move now to find bipartisan agreement on plans to better balance the programs’ spending with tax revenues in the years to come. More than a decade ago, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, issued similar warnings.

“To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” Mr. Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

Some were dismayed that Mr. Biden — and Republican lawmakers — did not follow a similar path at his own State of the Union this month. “The sober warnings from the experts is quite a contrast to the gleeful cheers from bipartisan policymakers at the State of the Union for doing nothing,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates federal debt reduction.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Biden, who was Mr. Obama’s vice president, ripped Republicans for plans to cut safety net programs. Republicans in the audience booed him vigorously. After some back-and-forth with his critics, Mr. Biden declared victory.

“So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security, Medicare is off the books now, right? All right. We’ve got unanimity,” he said.

BTW, let's not pretend the problems haven't already started.

Asking For Help At 80 - America's New Face Of Hunger

PBS NewsHour

And also too:

The Forgotten History of the Radical ‘Elders of the Tribe’

The Gray Panthers staged rowdy protests against ageism and found common cause with young activists on everything from health care to racial justice. What can they teach us today?

By the mid-1970s, she was a national celebrity. She had speaking engagements all over the country; she traveled 100,000 miles annually, giving at least 200 talks a year. She was all over the TV: “The Phil Donahue Show,” the “Today” show and “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson, multiple times. Media monikers for her included “ball of fire,” “dynamo” and the now-problematic “feisty.” In 1978, the World Almanac named her one of the 25 most influential women in the United States. Shortly before she died in 1995, ABC News profiled her as its “Person of the Week.”

She was Maggie Kuhn, the woman who, 50 years ago, founded the Gray Panthers, a movement to encourage activism — sometimes radical activism — among the country’s older people. Today, both Kuhn and her movement have been all but forgotten. But their mission is worth remembering, commemorating and perhaps even resurrecting, especially in the present moment.

Then, as now, was a time of intense activism. Inspired by demonstrations on behalf of racial and gender equality, and against the Vietnam War, Kuhn insisted it was time that the issues facing older people be included in any social reform agenda. Her passion was to shatter every stereotype she could about older people and, as a lifelong feminist, especially older women.

- more -