Democrats should have figured out what the multiplier effect of increased SSN benefits would be and put it in the stimulus bill.

I'd be more than fine with means testing that. How come no one thought of it?

Well, I don't disagree with Ellen. The Bush years and policies were good for the super rich, okay for the wealthy, okay for the very poor and terrible for anyone in between.

Of course, I don't view that as a case for increasing SS benefits; its a case for rolling back things he did do, not doing things he didn't.

And declining house values may be a fact of life but they were a windfall while they lasted; values are collapsing back to where they should have been anyway, not to zero.

And the idea that Social Security is the most successful federal program ever is a joke. The Interstate Highway System beat it (and probably anything else, ever) by miles.

Here are a few: if absolutely nothing is done, the latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office show that the program will be able to continue paying promised benefits in full until 2049.

That is assuming that the government takes the money to make up for SS deficits from the "Social Security Trust Fund." The problem is, that the "trust fund" represents no net assets of the government, because for every penny of assets in the fund, the general fund has a penny of obligations.

So the "continued paying of benefits" is premised on the general fund having the money to pay out future SS deficits.

We liberals often think of the SSTF as a sacrosanct promise the government made decades ago and upon which the average American has relied -- the "full faith and credit" argument.

And there's justice in this position, because the SSTF funded the income tax reductions of Clinton and Bush II which principally benefited high income earners. Liberals have, as well, argued that the SSTF was established to fund the retirement needs of the Baby Boom generation.

But the history of SSA commissions and legislation suggests that the growth of the SSTF was unforeseen and unexpected. If Congress didn't intend to establish the SSTF in the form it has come to have in the minds of liberals, then, Congress can alter it.

In the late 1970s the social security program regularly threatened to become insolvent because payroll receipts did not rise as rapidly as Congressionally mandated COLAs to benefit rates. Congress kept changing the FICA rates, but inflation was so severe that the new rates quickly fell short of producing the revenue that the program required.

The Greenspan Commission of the early 1980s was tasked with solving the problem of these biennial emergencies - to solve the political problem of members of Congress having to revisit the minefield every few years. It was not tasked with solving the Baby Boomer problem which might appear 40 years later.

Based on the recent history of very high inflation the Commission recommended and Congress adopted a large increase in FICA rates. The increase was understood to be more than required in the early post-Commission years and the excess was to be returned to the general fund, the SSTF receiving special issue debt in return. But the SSTF's life was expected to be limited -- 10 years or so until inflation ate up its holdings.

But it didn't happen that way. Inflation fell steadily and the SSTF was no longer fulfilling its initial role, but Congress not wanting to give up a cash cow never changed the Greenspan scheduled rates.

If there's a point to my history it's that we shouldn't rely on the "promises" of a Congress which didn't know it was making them and which we've created in our own minds based upon subsequent history.

Memo to Ponnuru and all conservatives:

You lost. The American people over the last 2 election cycles have clearly rejected your ideology. So any notion that the politicians the people chose to lead us should try to implement any of the conservative ideology would go directly against the wishes of the American people. Taxes should be increased on the wealthy (upper 10%) to fund any potential shortfall in SS. The wealthy, who were the beneficiaries of the deregulation boom which has caused this economic mess, should be the ones who now have to sacrifice along with everyone else (if not more) to help us get out of it. All tax breaks for anyone making over $250,000 per year shouldn't be taken off the table, they shouldn't even get near the table to begin with.

Conservative ideology = the root cause of our problems.

The rich ate it, then spit it outparça kontör

bağkur borç sorgulama

With all the sites out there with information on them with a ton of junk it's nice to find a blog whose admin takes the time to create good material. TY for the good post.

sgk