Top Dems want Social Security off the table in spending battle

[Auburn85 436]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145339-top-dems-want-social-security-off-the-table-in-spending-battle

Two leading Democrats called Sunday for Social Security reforms to be off the table as Congress jousts over billions of dollars in spending cuts this year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) both used the Sunday talk-show circuit to reiterate their support for the popular seniors benefit, arguing that it has no effect on the immediate deficit problems facing the country.

"Social Security … does not contribute one penny to the deficit, and won't until 2037," Schumer said on CNN's "State of the Union." "By including it in these specific negotiations it makes it harder to deal with what is the immediate and dangerous problem, which is our immediate deficit over this year and the next several years.

"Because Social Security doesn't contribute to the debt," he added, "it makes sense to separate the two."

Van Hollen echoed that message on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"Social Security is not a driver of these deficits and debt," Van Hollen said, "and we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries.

"It is solvent — 100 percent — until the year 2037," he said.

The latest report from the Social Security trustees backs those claims. Although Social Security payouts are expected to exceed the program's tax receipts this year, the program is projected to be fully solvent until 2037, the trustees reported in 2010. After 2037, the trust fund will be sufficient to pay 75 percent of benefits until 2085, the trustees said.

Congress will need to come together in search of ways to close the 25 percent gap, the Democrats concede, but those efforts shouldn't be included in the immediate debate over 2011 funding.

Democratic leaders — notably Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — have already vowed that Social Security cuts won't be considered as lawmakers grapple with ways to fund the government through the remainder of the year. But many Republicans have criticized the Democrats — particularly President Obama — for focusing on discretionary spending without tackling Social Security.

Last year, the White House deficit commission proposed a series of Social Security reforms, including a gradual increase of the retirement age and smaller annual increases for current beneficiaries. Both changes have been assailed by liberals on and off Capitol Hill.

More recently, a bipartisan group of six senators has launched talks about how to get the nation's spending under control. The group — which includes lawmakers as ideologically diverse as Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) — is necessarily focusing intently on entitlement programs, including Social Security.

Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed that any Social Security reforms would focus on ensuring the long-term solvency of the program.

“Whatever we do for Social Security is not about reducing the deficit, it is about strengthening Social Security — the solvency of Social Security," she said. "Those are two separate, different questions."

[AFTiger 282]

So much for addressing the budget deficits.

[autigeremt 7,123]

Liberals want a depleted United States! They don't like the country we have......

[Aufan59 168]

Democrats call in the punt team.

Both sides seem to be punting on first down.

[Aufan59 168]

Question: Are we not servicing the money that is owed to the SS trust fund?

[AFTiger 282]

Question: Are we not servicing the money that is owed to the SS trust fund?

The so called Social Security Trust Fund is being paid from general revenues. The money was take from the trust fund and secured with bonds to be paid by the United States. Those bonds have to be repaid now and that comes from the general fund.

[Aufan59 168]

Question: Are we not servicing the money that is owed to the SS trust fund?

The so called Social Security Trust Fund is being paid from general revenues. The money was take from the trust fund and secured with bonds to be paid by the United States. Those bonds have to be repaid now and that comes from the general fund.

Paid back, with interest, thus affecting the debt?

[AFTiger 282]

Question: Are we not servicing the money that is owed to the SS trust fund?

The so called Social Security Trust Fund is being paid from general revenues. The money was take from the trust fund and secured with bonds to be paid by the United States. Those bonds have to be repaid now and that comes from the general fund.

Paid back, with interest, thus affecting the debt?

Doesn't make any difference. Think of it this way. You paid the government FICA tax with every paycheck or self-employment tax. The government put your money in its right pocket and called it the trust fund. Then the government moved the money to the left pocket, gave the right pocket i.o.u.s and spent the money. Now SSA recipeints who paid in for years are receiving their due benefits and are being paid out of the left pocket because the right pocket is almost empty and cannot be replenished from the other pocket because that money was spent.

Now the government has to curtail or reduce benefits to prolong the death of the fund. Bush wanted to give you a portion of you FICA tax for you to invest so that you could control and keep some of you money. It also would not revert to the government upon your death and could passed to you family. The Democrats demagogued the proposal and so now we are approaching the end.

Social Security is the ultimate ponzi scheme.