THAT'S HOW WE KNOW THEY ARE WILLING CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
Let's look one more time at where Social Security started and how we reverse these attacks on our SS and Disability Trusts. The Republicans of course want to just end it with 'reform'----send it to the states no doubt as block grants as is being done with our public health programs. Clinton neo-liberals cannot openly say they want to end what is the backbone of Democratic platform policy so they are using their ties to Wall Street financial and global markets to simply blow it up all they while pretending THEY DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!. As the article from last blog stated-----the FED policies and the imploding bond market will hit our SS Trust the hardest giving them reasons to dismantle as is happening with Federal Housing and Federal Student Loans.
NO ONE IS SURPRISED----IT IS A PLAN.
It's important to remember that all of this is reversible no matter how many times they say laws have been passed and Trusts drained of revenue. Remember, this is collusion and fraud and simply reinstating Rule of Law and Equal Protection make all these laws go away and Trust funds reappear. This is why it is so important for Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons to keep hold of Federal, state, and local government so these reversals cannot happen. Ergo---in Maryland a complete silencing of any progressive candidate at all levels of government with election fraud and rigging if necessary. Think what life will be like without any social safety nets and global corporations setting up shop working as they do overseas......back in the 1800s when this existed with national corporations people had an ability to earn a living with a small business and farm their own crops. Today, small businesses are gobbled as they are created as 'start ups' and any business that does take off is readily pushed out of business. Farming your own land? Big AG owns much of the viable fertile farmland-----and this last economic crash with subprime mortgages was all about the rich garnering control of more and more real estate! So, losing these New Deal and War on Poverty programs as policy like Trans Pacific Trade Pact and global corporate control of government hits----will not be a pretty picture!
Maryland is a conservative and Republican state for all its pretending to be progressive----but I want my Republican friends who might want War on Poverty and New Deal to go to think what you get from those programs-----Republicans like Social Security and Medicare----they like having a Disability program that helps when it is needed. They like strong public schools that community's can control and have a say. All of this is New Deal and War on Poverty. I'll speak more on the other individual safety net programs----but finish today with SS and SSDI! The manipulation of Maryland election for Governor making sure Larry Hogan and Anthony Brown were the only two choices for voters ----gave us neo-con/neo-liberal embracing this dismantling. When your labor union leaders and justice organization leaders come out again and again for these neo-liberals----they know they are supporting the dismantling of these programs.
GET NEW LEADERSHIP AT THE TOP OF OUR UNION AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS!
Below you see a brief history of FDR and the New Deal. You also see an article called the New New Deal making this sound progressive and wanting to help keep SS alive.
Social Security Act
Aug 10, 2010[Note: updated on 2.16.2011]
What is the Social Security Act?
The Social Security Act was drafted under FDR's first term, passed Congress as part of the New Deal, and was signed by FDR on August 14, 1935. The Act responded to the pitfalls of old age, poverty, unemployment, and dependent widows and fatherless children by providing benefits to retirees and the unemployed, as well as a lump-sum at death.
What's the significance?
The Act was controversial at the time, with opponents arguing that it would kill jobs. It also excluded many women and minorities from receiving benefits. However, the Act has been modified over time to adapt to a changing society, and is now one of the best-loved programs in America, improving the lives of millions of Americans. In 2009, nearly 51 million Americans will receive $650 billion in Social Security benefits.
The Act has become controversial once again, however, as lawmakers focus on the deficit. Obama has told his Fiscal Commission that everything is on the table for potential cuts, and many worry that Social Security benefits may get the knife. Critics are calling for a reduction in benefits and an increase in the retirement age. Yet Social Security's fiscal outlook remains strong.
Who's talking about it?
Both Republican and Democratic leaders have put raising the retirement age on the table...Fiscal Commission chairman Erskine Bowles said that three quarters of deficit reduction will come from slashing the social safety net...Robert Kuttner, Nancy Altman and others weighed in on ND20's series "Social Security's Fiscal Fitness", which proved the program is both vital and sound...Jeff Madrick points out how unbalanced the Simpson-Bowles report is...Roosevelt historian David Woolner reminds us of Social Security's bipartisan roots and recalls how it was a bold step that took the country forward...In a Working Paper, Tom Ferguson and Rob Johnson prove that Social Security is not the "moby dick" of deficit reduction targets...Randy Wray disputes the fallacies some liberals still promote about the program...Richard Kirsch sees the same process of Americans coming to love this program happening to healh care reform...Bryce Covert notes that young people are already expecting slashed benefits and bleak retirements...Tarsi Dunlop unveils data on how many Americans support and rely on its benefits...Michael Hiltzik points out critics' bogus math while proving that Social Security is in far better shape than they'll admit...Dean Baker says the target of deficit reduction should be Wall Street transactions, where the real money is -- not Social Security...Matt Miller explains that Bowles' spending goals are far too small for our aging country...David Dayen points out that the entire premise of the Fiscal Commission is wrong, which will lead to the wrong conclusions...Heidi Hartmann and Marshall Auerback & Randy Wray debate whether a payroll tax cut endangers the program...Chuck Spinney explains how waging endless wars and slashing the social safety net go hand in hand.
Erskine Bowles and the Bowles Simpson Congressional group are the Brooking Institute Clinton neo-liberal arm of the Democratic Party that does indeed control the Senate. They have the same goal as Republicans ----death by a hundred cuts. They want to raise the age to 70 at the same time ending Medicare and Medicaid that will see most people's lifespan drop immediately by a decade or more. Who pays the most into Social Security and Medicare----the working and middle-class. Where are America's middle-class? They are now the newly poor. Saying you want to raise the age to 70 earmarks SS for a very small group of people who are for the most part not paying into these Trusts as most are. Remember, people will not only die earlier from lack of access to ordinary health care-----their physical health will be compromised no matter the 'preventative' focus. Quality of life will not be there for most people after 70 if they are alive.
Baltimore is a good gauge for this as Johns Hopkins installed a few decades ago this tiered system of health access and we have underserved communities with lifespans 30 years shorter than the affluent----they do not make it to receive those SS benefits in many cases. For those who are classist---you had better understand that your child or grandchild will very likely not remain middle-class or have an opportunity to climb the ladder if these education and health care reforms are not reversed. Republican voters and southern states are the greatest consumers of these public programs----those Republican pols are trying as hard as they can to make it seem a Democratic President is doing this----but it is all Republican policy!
As the article above alluded -----two funding suggestions have Wall Street bringing the money stolen from the Trust through taxation which is what FDR did with higher taxes and corporate contributions. The other is lifting the payroll tax cap so people are paying into the Trust according to their entire income as the working and middle-class do. These two things would repair and make Social Security solvent for the long term----
ALONG WITH ENDING THE FED'S ATTACK ON THE PROGRAM WITH MANIPULATED INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES!
As we read my last post, SS depends on bonds and gains from bond interest and as we know the coming bond market crash is designed to be a massive attack on our ability to use Federal, state, and local bonds or have a market. So, the Wall Street pols intend to make it impossible for our SS Trust to self-finance.....creating the condition for them to say all these 'reforms' must happen----and then it will be privatized with the myRA structure.
THAT'S THE PLAN......IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WHAT HAPPENS.
Right now, Bernie Sanders is the only one approaching saving Social Security in a way that will protect people pushed into SS Disability and protect SS Trust for the future.
DO YOU HEAR YOUR POLS SHOUTING THIS---IF NOT, THEY ARE WORKING FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Erskine Bowles: Social Security’s Enemy No. 1?
By: Dean Baker
Monday November 1, 2010 1:57 pm
Nearly everyone following the Social Security debate is familiar with former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of President Obama’s deficit commission. Simpson, the son of a senator, thrust himself into the national spotlight with an infamous, late-night email. In addition to displaying an ignorance of bovine anatomy, this email displayed open contempt for Social Security and the tens of millions of retirees and disabled people who depend on it.
While Simpson has seized the spotlight, it may prove to be the case that Erskine Bowles, his co-chairman, poses the greater threat to Social Security. The reason is simple: Bowles is the living embodiment of the rewards available to politicians who would support substantial cutbacks or privatization of the program.
On either policy or political grounds, Social Security should be very safe right now. In policy terms, it would be difficult to envision a more successful government program. Social Security does exactly what it was intended to do. It provides a modest retirement income to the vast majority of the country’s workers and their families, keeping them out of poverty in their old age. Almost two-thirds of retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their income.
The collapse of the housing bubble has destroyed much of the home equity of near retirees. The plunge in the stock market that followed in its wake severely deflated the retirement accounts of middle-class workers. As a result, near retirees are likely to be even more dependent on Social Security than those already retired.
Social Security also provides workers with insurance against disability in their working years. Nearly 20 percent of beneficiaries are receiving disability payments. Many workers are not even aware of the disability insurance aspect of the program, but if they find themselves unable to work due to disability, they will be glad to learn that they had insurance through Social Security.
And, contrary to the Washington fear mongers, Social Security is in solid financial shape by any reasonable definition. The Congressional Budget Office projects that it can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 29 years with no changes whatsoever. Even after it first is projected to face a shortfall in 2039, the program could still pay nearly 80 percent of benefits into the next century without any changes at all.
Modest changes, such as raising the cap on taxable income (currently $106,000) would eliminate much of the projected long-term shortfall. Changes of the size implemented by the Greenspan commission in 1983 would make the program fully solvent long into the 22nd century. Remarkably, virtually no policy wonk seriously disputes these numbers in spite of the near universal hysteria among the chattering class over Social Security.
On policy grounds, Social Security is a smashing success. It scores even better politically. Poll after poll finds that everyone from Tea Partiers to actual socialists strongly supports the program. Yet, many members of Congress stand prepared to vote for substantial cuts to Social Security or even a partial privatization of the program.
Why would members of Congress be prepared to take a vote that is both bad on policy grounds and also could hurt their own political survival? Erskine Bowles is a large part of the answer. Bowles is an unsuccessful politician, having twice lost in runs for the Senate in North Carolina.
Yet, he is very successful financially. He pockets $335,000 a year as a director of Morgan Stanley, one of the huge Wall Street banks that was rescued by taxpayer dollars in the fall of 2008. He likely pockets a similar sum from sitting as a director of GM, another company rescued by the government.
This means that Bowles pockets close to $700,000 annually (@600 monthly Social Security checks) from attending eight to twelve meetings a year. This must look like a pretty attractive deal to current members of Congress. In other words, the message Bowles is sending members of Congress is that if you betray your constituents and vote to undermine Social Security, you will be amply rewarded even if the voters give you the boot.
For this reason, Bowles should be a very scary figure to supporters of Social Security. By example, he is telling our elected representatives of Congress that they need not worry about either good policy or their voters’ wishes. Unfortunately, many members of Congress may find Bowles career to be an attractive route to follow.
If you were to see the COLAs from 1950 to 1975 you would see a series of 5-8% increases with one year giving 18% COLA increase. Below you see how those COLAs dropped like a rock in Reagan years to 2-3%------and this entire time with Obama-----0-2%. Inflation has not gone down-----just the way they calculate it and the losses to Social Security each year are huge. Imagine how much money was lost through Obama's terms from the monthly payment. This was like announcing a hundreds of billions of dollars cut to Social Security without making that announcement. AND IT IS DELIBERATE. So, when we listened to Republicans and Democrats fighting over cuts to Social Security and Chain CPI-----the FED was cutting Social Security deeper than any of these policies. IT WAS HAPPENING AS THEY PRETENDED TO ARGUE OVER CUTTING IT! Congressional Clinton neo-liberals know these FED cuts by manipulation of inflation are huge!
Since 1975, Social Security general benefit increases have been cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs. The 1975-82 COLAs were effective with Social Security benefits payable for June in each of those years; thereafter COLAs have been effective with benefits payable for December.
Prior to 1975, Social Security benefit increases were set by legislation.
Social Security Cost-Of-Living Adjustments
The COLA for December 1999 was originally determined as 2.4 percent based on CPIs published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Pursuant to Public Law 106-554, however, this COLA is effectively now 2.5 percent. The first COLA, for June 1975, was based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the second quarter of 1974 to the first quarter of 1975. The 1976-83 COLAs were based on increases in the CPI-W from the first quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective. After 1983, COLAs have been based on increases in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective.
COLAs for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program are generally the same as those for the Social Security program. However, COLAs for SSI have generally been effective for the month following the effective month of Social Security benefit increases. See SSI historical payment standards for more detail.
MoneyWatchOctober 18, 2010, 6:26 AM
No Social Security COLA: How Unfair is That?
Last Updated Oct 18, 2010 6:26 AM EDT
Of course it is. Inflation wasn't zero in 2010. So how can there be no cost-of-living increase?
The same day that Social Security made its COLA announcement the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the CPI was, in fact, 1.4% higher in September 2010 than 12 months earlier. Prices were sharply higher for certain utilities and medical care, two areas of expense that matter a lot to seniors, and they are well aware of it, as one noted in one emotional response to Don Marron's blog:
I think it is communism not to give us elderly a cost of living raise. You tell us the cost [of living} hasn't gone up? Do you really think we are a bunch of idiots? The explanation lies in Social Security's COLA rules, which require that the cost of living be measured by average monthly consumer price index during the third quarter and compared with the comparable figure from the third quarter of the last year that there was a COLA. And in fact, the CPI-W was 215.495 in the third quarter of 2008, the last year in which a COLA was calculated, and only 214.136 in the quarter just ended.
So despite the fact that some prices have gone up, the law clearly says no COLA. It turns out, a short-lived spike in fuel prices in the summer of 2008 caused third quarter CPI that year to come in 5.8% higher than the previous summer. So seniors got a 5.8% raise in 2009, even as consumer prices that year actually went down overall. To put it another way, Social Security beneficiaries had no COLAs in 2010 and will have none in 2011 because they got too big a COLA in 2009.
Okay, so the unCOLA follows the rules. But most seniors didn't have a zero-inflation experience in 2010. Isn't it just fair that we bend the rules for them?
Social Security Benefits to Rise Less Than 2% for Third Year ... www.dailyfinance.com/.../22/social-security-benefits-cola... CachedOct 22, 2014 · ... affects payments to more than 70 million Social Security ... The Beginning of COLA Congress enacted automatic increases for Social Security ...