Social Security's Future at Risk With New Tax Deal
Wednesday 22 December 2010
by: Jonathan Battaglia and Robert Weiner | The Palm Beach Post | Op-Ed
Under the radar screen, the new tax deal is threatening the livelihood of America's present and future seniors - to line the pockets of millionaires.
If made permanent, a new Social Security "payroll tax holiday," reducing the "match" employers pay from 6 percent to 4 percent of salary, will drop the solvency of the program 14 years, from 2037 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At the same time, Congress agreed to increase high-end loopholes in the estate tax, exempting 39,000 estates worth as much as $5 million.
This bill puts in motion two devastating policies: lowering taxes for the rich and destabilizing the financing of Social Security. Without sufficient worker and employer matching money, which has kept Social Security solvent for 75 years and helped millions of Americans live out their senior years in comfort, the program could be doomed. Congress and the White House say they want to "protect Social Security's solvency," but this action does just the opposite.
The most dangerous aspect of the payroll tax holiday is that it could become permanent. The new philosophy in Congress seems to be "once a cut, always a cut." When the payroll tax holiday expires in a year, Republicans will insist on keeping it, just as they did with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Democrats are falling for the same trap they did nine years ago when they helped pass the Bush tax cuts. Bush communications director Dan Bartlett explained how they used "temporary" cuts to get votes: "We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it."
Breaking the promise of Social Security will leave seniors with extra working years and reduced benefits. The White House and Congress can dig themselves out the same way Congress and President Obama just did with Medicare by extending reimbursements for physicians. Failure to do so would have stopped seniors from getting their health care.
Congress should have adopted an amendment to the tax bill proposed by some farsighted lawmakers that would have replaced changes in payroll taxes with a one-year credit to provide tax relief to businesses, while not threatening the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. Instead, Congress broke down the firewall of separate Social Security funding and gave it to general revenue to help business -- and the heck with seniors.
We are left with the biggest affront to the solvency of Social Security since George W. Bush threatened to privatize it. The difference is that this attack received bipartisan support. If this is what bipartisanship looks like, Americans should run in the other direction.
The White House and Congress read that payroll tax holidays have recently "worked" in other countries to spur the economy. It's an amazing statement, with the world's economies in bad shape. Here, moreover, we have a contract to pay our seniors back with their money, not take it without permission. It's a separate, paid-for insurance plan, not a social welfare giveaway to business. Social Security funding must be off-limits to Congress, especially when it wants to give the money to millionaires.
The great Florida Congressman Claude Pepper, known as "Mr. Social Security," was outraged in 1978 at Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps' suggestion to increase the retirement age to 68 for full Social Security benefits. Rep. Pepper demanded and got a meeting with Ms. Kreps and House Social Security Chairman James Burke, D-Mass. Rep. Pepper kept saying that he and Rep. Burke would "fight it to our death." Ms. Kreps asked, "Even (delaying the start) to the year 2000?" Both members vehemently exclaimed, "Yes!" Ms. Kreps finally responded, "Well, I haven't made the proposal anyway." That's the courage we need from somewhere now.
Congress should clean up the mess it just created for seniors, and for all the young and middle- aged who hope to grow old.
Robert Weiner is a former chief of staff of the U.S. House Select Committee on Aging. Jonathan Battaglia is a policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Our BushCObamanible Franklin
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 14:46 — Vic Anderson (not verified)Our BushCObamanible Franklin DeMan0 Rusevelt's set on COMPANY behalf to serve US All up a big Idle CLA$$ shingle of his SCREW DEAL! Tax DEPRESSION!! Barry CRUSADES and DEMcrappy New Years!!!
In Obama we have an Anti-FDR
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 15:24 — Bite (not verified)In Obama we have an Anti-FDR legislator. Pressed to answer the question, do you like the FDR Social Welfare State Legacy, this neoliberal President would no doubt say: I hate it and will destroy it so smoothly you won't know what happened (to it). Obama is a monstrous Republican, a Rat, just like the anti-welafare-state "Republican" Diane Feinstein of CA, of the highest sort.
I wish all these right wing democrats would croak.
One way to assure the
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 03:43 — thom delahunt (not verified)One way to assure the survival of Social Security would be to take our hard earned money out of the hands of private banking and put it under the stewardship of public banking; such as the Social Security Administration. For the sake of the national interest. Time and time again the private has stolen us blind as a result of the collapse of their house of cards; a house of cards built by placing our money at unwarranted risk. The SSA already has the infrastructure; it would merely need to do some structural programming changes and an addition of some manpower: manpower that would be paid for with fees that would be otherwise charged by private banks for their own profits.
This means another few years
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 09:20 — sharonsj (not verified)This means another few years of no cost of living raise for the old and disabled--but I bet Congress will make sure it doesn't go hungry.
the American people are nuts
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:00 — Anonymous (not verified)the American people are nuts to accept this kind of odious governance, jobs being exported to our enemies so the rich get richer and then they aren't taxed for it ,wildly screwed up
Iwas suspicious that
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 11:09 — Anonymous (not verified)Iwas suspicious that OBAMA
in not a democrats , is a blue dog republican, in name only is a democrat, just to win. he use us,
THAT IS HE DIDN'T FIGHT THE REPUBLICANS ,WITH THE BUSH TAX CUT FOR THE RICH ,HE FIGHT US THE DEMOCRATS , TELLING US TAKE OR LEAVED.AGAINST .AND HE RUSHED TO SIGHT IT . WHAT WE MUST DO NOW ,IS TO GET A GOOD MAN REAL DEMOCRAT, TO RUN AGAINST OBAMA ,BECAUSE IN 2012 , DON'T MATHER WHO WINS WILL BE A REPUBLICAN , OBAMA IS A TRAITOR , A REPUBLICAN WITH DEMOCRATS SHEEP SKIN,SO WE MUST DO IT TO SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY,AND SOCIAL SECURITY .AND MEDICARE FOR NOW AND THE FUTURE GENERATIONS,
HE REALLY FOOLED US,HE WASTE TWO YEARS BY DOING NOTHING.ALL WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY,TO DALEY TIME.
OBAMA IS NO A DEMOCRAT, IS A
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 11:17 — Anonymous (not verified)OBAMA IS NO A DEMOCRAT, IS A BLUE DOG REPUBLICAN,
HE TURN AGAINST LIBERAL DEMOCRATS BY TELL THEM ,TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
@16:17 There's no such thing
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:32 — Bite (not verified)@16:17
There's no such thing as a blue-dog Republican.
Get your terms straight, please, and call a spade a spade.
Obama is straight Republican, as in straight, unadulterated Scotch. Get it?
deceit is how he gained
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 15:27 — Anonymous (not verified)deceit is how he gained office , impeach him
Deceit is how they ALL
Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:53 — tyler_durden (not verified)Deceit is how they ALL gained office, going back decades at the absolute minimum.
"Bipartisanship" in a two party system is not democracy, it's totalitarianism.
And at the end of the day the party truly doing the damage is the democrat party. The republicans may lie about their motives, but not their actions. The democrats on the other hand fight nothing, and more frequently rush to represent the same interests the GOP does.
An asshole will always be an asshole, so there's no reason to worry about the republicans. The only thing that will save the working class is to set the current democratic party ablaze and rebuild the political left on top of the ashes.
Eliminate incumbents, all of them, because even a rabid, brain damaged monkey cannot do worse than what's going on right now.
Boy, when you
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 16:12 — Frances in California (not verified)Boy, when you crypto-republican-trolls catch heat for starving Granny, you get all "There's no difference between the Parties". It's so obvious you want to divide the American people - not between the Republicans and the Tea-Party Fanatics, but from the entitlements for which we worked all our lives. Aren't you at risk of head injury when you fall off that high horse?