Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Liberals wake up to the Obama threat to social security as we know it

    Liberals wake up to the Obama threat to social security as we know it

    I’ve been spitting into the wind on this issue since days before the 2008 election.

    Rather than strengthening social security as a pay-in retirement protection program, Obama consistently has sought to destroy social security as we know it by treating FICA payments as just another tax (the so-called “payroll tax”) to be played with as political circumstances dictate, and to create a disconnect between pay-ins and benefits, thereby making social security just a welfare program:

    Meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders supported by The NY Times have developed a strategy to demonize conservatives who refuse to go along with plans to extend again the “payroll tax” holiday, For Some in G.O.P., a Tax Cut Not Worth Embracing:

    It is hard to find a tax cut that Congressional Republicans dislike. Unless it is a tax cut pushed by President Obama.

    In a turning of the tax policy tables, Democrats are increasingly hammering on Republicans who oppose the president’s proposal to extend for a year a payroll tax cut passed last year with bipartisan support….

    “One way or another, there will be a vote on extending these tax cuts,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Senate Democrat, “and Republicans will have to stand up to the fact if they oppose it they are for tax cuts for the rich but not for the middle class.”

    I have wondered why liberals were not screaming at the tops of their lungs against these Democratic Party policies, and it now appears that many liberal Democrats have woken up, as reported by The Hill:

    With bipartisan support in December, Congress approved a one-year reduction in the employee share of the payroll tax, to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent. Obama proposed in his speech to Congress that the tax be lowered to 3.1 percent for both employers and employees through 2012.

    While the moves add to the deficit, the administration has said the trust fund would not be affected because the money would be shifted from the general fund and because the change is temporary.

    Liberal Democrats were not convinced, and they began campaigning against extending the tax break when it was first broached earlier this year.

    “We remain gravely concerned that yet another, unacceptable cut to Social Security’s revenue stream appears to be on the table,” a group of 62 House Democrats wrote in a July letter to the president. “As alternative measures would have the same net effect on deficits and the economy, there is simply no need to negotiate cuts to Social Security taxes.”

    It’s probably too late for liberal Democrats.  They are so invested in Obama that even when he plays political games with one of their highest priorities, they are almost helpless to do anything more than I’ve been doing, spitting into the wind.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    I’m surprised there are any D’s against this. Its basically another form of redistribution of wealth. Much of the 49% of those that file tax returns but have a zero income tax liability actually do pay the payroll tax.

    If O’s payroll tax cut goes into effect, the result will be Social Security having a bigger deficit this year than in otherwise would have (it was short about 50 Billion short this year). So, they’ll cash in some more of those IOU’s in the trust fund to make up the difference. Treasury won’t be able to cash them in, of course, without floating more new debt. That debt will eventually be paid for by income and corporate taxes – not payroll taxes.

    1) Every dollar of payroll tax cut this year will result in a dollar of new debt this year. No telling when this will ever get paid down, but we’ll be paying interest on it all along.

    2) Everyone earning income will see a tax cut as soon as this goes into effect.

    3) Low income workers will NOT be called on to pay it off. Most of the money to pay it off will come from the middle class and small businesses (most of the top tax bracket is actually small businesses filing as individuals).

    KM from Detroit | September 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    I got to watch some talking heads on CNN at lunch today trying to be all “Oh noes, Perry said SS is a Ponzi scheme and needs to be , the guy’s unhinged and a loony!”

    I don’t remember the guy’s name, but they had some official Democratic party strategist versus a spokesman for the Tea Party…and in the final point, the TP spokesman mentioned that, on top of our budget deficit, SS was also in the hole for a trillion-and-change dollars (a STAGGERING amount of money)…so where was that two-and-a-half trillion going to come from, to pay for it all?

    The talking-head had no real counter, other than to smugly insist that there were tweaks and ways to fix SS.

    I love the “Na-na-na-boo-boo” attitude these guys have when losing an argument.

      KM from Detroit in reply to KM from Detroit. | September 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      *needs to be [somethinged] * up there. Silly strange characters!

      Aarradin in reply to KM from Detroit. | September 13, 2011 at 4:31 pm

      Social Security unfunded liability is currently pegged at $18 Trillion. Last year it ran a deficit of about $50 Billion.

      Democrats pretend its solvent until 2037 because there’s $2.7 Trillion in the Social Security ‘trust fund’. This is, of course, a bogus talking point because every dollar of the trust fund that gets cashed in at Treasury results in a dollar or new debt floated to raise the cash to pay SS.

    Great article on Perry NOT being the first one to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It seems liberals at one time used the term to JUSTIFY how it was funded.

    I would call that a big oopsies!

    I have denounced the theft of Social Security funds for years when liberals called them social investments.

    But FICA payments are just another tax, and social security is just a welfare program. There has never been a real connection between pay-ins and benefits…

    Thank you. Correct. It’s time to stop the charade, the pretense that there is any kind of real relationship between paying into this “system” and the benefits someone actually receives back. There is only a rough correlation between having a certain amount of both work time and payments in, which measures are used to establish the bare entitlement and the arbitrary monthly check amount — but even that correlation doesn’t always hold (e.g. spousal benefits). It’s welfare, albeit (other than SS disability, a burgeoning problem), a welfare that isn’t based on a needs test, but instead on arbitrary age, family relationship, and past employment criteria. And moreover, it’s a regressive tax on the lowest wage earners of younger generations. It was established this way to further the make-believe that it was in some way like a pension. It’s an ideological and financial mess.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend