Social Security Administration Cuts or Social Security Administration Cuts?: The New GOP Budget Options
Republican leaders in the House apparently remember the political fallout from their last government shutdown in 1995 & 1996 and don?t want to risk that backlash again. The National Journal reports House leaders will introduce a two-week stopgap funding bill tomorrow that mirrors the 2011 budget they passed last weekend (which, by the way, has no chance of passage in the Senate):
?This approach reflects Boehner?s deep-seated belief that the 1995 Gingrich-led Congress risked everything in its shutdown confrontation with President Bill Clinton, and in the aftermath Republicans not only lacked the stomach to fight for more spending cuts, they veered in the opposite direction and targeted federal spending to vulnerable districts to protect the GOP majority.?
The Hill newspaper provides a bit of a history lesson in this glimpse back at what the 1996 shutdown meant for the Social Security administration:
?During the 1996 standoff, the Social Security Administration (SSA) initially kept 4,780 employees on, because they were in positions necessary to ensure that various benefits, including Social Security, continued to be paid. The remaining 61,415 employees were furloughed, according to the CRS report. However, the SSA realized shortly afterward that it lacked the manpower to answer phone calls from customers needing new cards or requesting that their files be changed to reflect a news address for benefit checks. Another 49,715 employees were brought back to help run the agency.?
If history is any predictor, then a government shutdown is clearly not good news for the 50 million Americans who depend on their Social Security checks to arrive as expected and need experienced SSA staff available to handle problems. But what?s also bad news for Social Security beneficiaries is the GOP?s new alternative to a shutdown ? SSA cuts which would also furlough workers, cut administrative funding and increase the backlog of claims. In short, the Republican solution being offered to America?s retirees, the disabled and survivors is furloughs, cuts and backlogs through a government shutdown or furloughs, cuts and backlogs through a draconian stop-gap bill which provides political cover but no relief for the average American.The latest 2-week proposal is the same budget bill House Republicans passed to fund the remainder of this year. Same 9.3% cut to the SSA budget ? same devastating affects ? just a shorter time frame. Here?s Nancy Altman?s, of Social Security Works, description of the House-passed bill:
…the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to strip away $1.7 billion from the already underfunded agency, money that is needed simply to keep offices open. If the Republicans’ budget plan goes through, the entire agency, including all 1,300 field offices might have to close for a month. A letter in anticipation of this has already been sent out to all employees. The phones would not be answered, and claims processing would halt. Even worse, given the well documented need to replace SSA’s aging computer system, the Republicans’ proposed cuts threaten the whole program, if the current system and its backup were to fail before the building of the new system, already behind schedule, were completed.?
Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Sander Levin(D-M) sums it up best:
?This Republican proposal is as irresponsible as it is shortsighted. To jeopardize a lifeline for half a million new Social Security beneficiaries in order to score short-term political points is simply bad policy?It?s a perfect example of how little House Republicans seem to care if their rigid ideological crusade hurts real people.?
Lastly, you can see a full breakdown of SSA impacts under the GOP funding bill and the SSA letter urging a preparation for furloughs.
Social Security and Capitol Hill
Now that the White House and GOP budgets are out it?s time for both sides to start explaining them. The White House team has been on Capitol Hill testifying before Congress. This is our favorite bit of testimony so far, between Sen. Bernie Sanders and OMB Director, Jack Lew, on the role Social Security plays (or doesn?t as the case may be) in our national debt. Go Bernie?House Ways and Means Committee Democrats came out swinging against the GOP budget provisions for Social Security. Their news release said:
?The 2011 budget plan presented this week by the House Republican Majority strips $1.7 billion away from the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the remainder of the year, a cut so drastic that SSA would need to impose the equivalent of a month of furloughs. The entire agency would have to shut down all operations for 20 working days. The phones would not be answered, field offices would be closed, and claims processing would halt. Over half a million new retirees, disabled workers and survivors would be forced into a backlog before they could receive the benefits they earned.?
And then, just in case you missed the full White House News conference yesterday, here are a few of President Obama’s Social Security comments. We clearly have work ahead of us:
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you talked about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The truth is Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the other two entitlements are.I’m confident we can get Social Security done in the same way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O?Neill were able to get it done, by parties coming together, making some modest adjustments. I think we can avoid slashing benefits, and I think we can make it stable and stronger for not only this generation but for the next generation.Medicare and Medicaid are huge problems because health care costs are rising even as the population is getting older. And so what I’ve said is that I’m prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to start dealing with that in a serious way. We made a down payment on that with health care reform last year. That’s part of what health care reform was about. The projected deficits are going to be about $250 billion lower over the next 10 years than they otherwise would have been because of health care reform, and they?ll be a trillion dollars lower than they otherwise would have been if we hadn?t done health care reform for the following decade.But we’re still going to have to do more. So what I’ve said is that if you look at the history of how these deals get done, typically it?s not because there?s an Obama plan out there; it?s because Democrats and Republicans are both committed to tackling this issue in a serious way.THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to be in discussions over the next several months. I mean this is going to be a negotiation process. And the key thing that I think the American people want to see is that all sides are serious about it and all sides are willing to give a little bit, and that there?s a genuine spirit of compromise as opposed to people being interested in scoring political points.Now, we did that in December during the lame duck on the tax cut issue. Both sides had to give. And there were folks in my party who were not happy, and there were folks in the Republican Party who were not happy. And my suspicion is, is that we?re going to be able to do the same thing if we have that same attitude with respect to entitlements.But the thing I want to emphasize is nobody is more mindful than me that entitlements are going to be a key part of this issue — as is tax reform. I want to simplify rates. And I want to, at the same time, make sure that we have the same amount of money coming in as going out.Those are big, tough negotiations, and I suspect that there?s going to be a lot of ups and downs in the months to come before we finally get to that solution. But just as a lot of people were skeptical about us being able to deal with the tax cuts that we did in December but we ended up getting it done, I?m confident that we can get this done as well.THE PRESIDENT:Well, the fiscal commission put out a framework. I agree with much of the framework; I disagree with some of the framework. It is true that it got 11 votes, and that was a positive sign. What’s also true is, for example, is, is that the chairman of the House Republican budgeteers didn?t sign on. He?s got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done, so he?s got concerns. So I?m going to have to have a conversation with him, what would he like to see happen.I?m going to have to have a conversation with those Democrats who didn?t vote for it. There are some issues in there that as a matter of principle I don’t agree with, where I think they didn?t go far enough or they went too far. So this is going to be a process in which each side, both in — in both chambers of Congress go back and forth and start trying to whittle their differences down until we arrive at something that has an actual change of passage.And that’s my goal. I mean, my goal here is to actually solve the problem. It?s not to get a good headline on the first day. My goal is, is that a year from now or two years from now, people look back and say, you know what, we actually started making progress on this issue.THE PRESIDENT: This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn?t tip over. And I think that can happen.THE PRESIDENT:And all of us agree that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control. And all of us agree that part of it has to be entitlements.But, look, I was glad to see yesterday Republican leaders say, how come you didn?t talk about entitlements? I think that?s progress, because what we had been hearing made it sound as if we just slashed deeper on education or other provisions in domestic spending that somehow that alone was going to solve the problem. So I welcomed — I think it was significant progress that there is an interest on all sides on those issues.
Actually, most Americans don?t agree “entitlements” should be a part of this deficit conversation.
Tired of the Lies about Social Security? So are we…
National Committee?s Truth Squad Arms Americans with the Facts about Vital Seniors’ Programs and Our National Debt
America?s seniors have a huge stake in the national economic debate. Unfortunately, fiscal hawks have launched a well-publicized misinformation campaign to persuade Washington that Social Security is to blame for our fiscal mess when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Social Security has not contributed one dime to our federal debt; however, it is being targeted to pay the price.To counter the misinformation, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has mobilized a Truth Squad to give seniors the facts about Social Security and Medicare and the roles these vital programs play in our budget debate.The Truth Squad campaign includes:
- The ?Whopper of the Week? highlighting the latest false claim plus our myth-busting response
- Myth-busting fact sheet which details the Myths being spread and the Facts to rebut them
- Social Security and Medicare Tool Kits to help activists engage
- Online E-card to send to your members of Congress
- Our Legislative Action Center with sample letters that can be emailed directly to Congressional representatives and your local newspaper
- ?Washington Watch?, providing the latest news on efforts to target Social Security & Medicare for cuts
- Send a postcard to the White House in our ?Cutting Social Security Makes No ?Cents? Campaign?
See more at: https://www.ncpssm.org/Truth_Squad/
Budget Battle Begins – What about Social Security?
?I applaud President Obama for proposing a budget that does not target Social Security beneficiaries to foot the bill for years of deficit spending. This gives those of us who advocate for Social Security, additional time to inform more in Congress that Social Security is not the cause of this budget crisis nor is it the solution. Seniors, who have gone two years without a COLA increase, are also thankful for the $250 one-time economic recovery payment included in this budget.Proposing $1.1 trillion in budget cuts requires some tough choices, however, preserving the guaranteed benefits that American workers have paid for and depend on is the right budget strategy. Older Americans especially continue to suffer in this economy and they are thankful the President did not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. They know Social Security has not contributed a dime to our deficit crisis and, contrary to claims by fiscal hawks, should not be used to balance our federal books.??Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO The National Committee and its millions of members and supporters nationwide have delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions, emails, and phone calls to Congress and the White House reminding our elected leaders that Social Security has not contributed to our national debt.However, well-financed Washington special interests have used our rising debt as a political opportunity to push cuts in Social Security under the guise of deficit reduction. Cutting Social Security benefits should not be used as a litmus test for ?fiscal responsibility?, ?serious debate? or being an ?adult?. We will continue to send that message to Washington as the budget debate continues. The National Committee?s ?Truth Squad? is the heart of our campaign to provide analysis, myth busting and grassroots tools for activists nationwide.
Why “Back to the Future” Budgeting Doesn’t Work
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calls the McCaskill-Corker spending bill a ?look Ma no hands? approach to budgeting. We also see it as a dangerous trip ?Back to the Future?. That?s because , rather than making specific budget choices based on 2011 realities, their bill sends us back to the spending levels of the ?80s, only to then impose across-the board cuts when our ?Back to the Future? DeLorean breaks down. The Associated Press describes their budget plan this way:
?The legislation doesn’t actually propose cuts but instead sets spending caps and enforces them with the threat of automatic, across-the-board reductions. The target of 20.6 percent of gross domestic product is the average of federal spending over 1970-2008. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projects spending under current policies reaching 24 percent of GDP in 2021, which would require more than $800 billion in budget cuts in that year alone. That is significantly deeper than the recent proposal by President Barack Obama’s deficit commission, which recommended raising Social Security and Medicare retirement ages, and cutting military pensions, farm subsidies and a variety of other popular programs.?At a time when many families have been forced to tighten their pocketbooks, Congress must also learn to do the same,” McCaskill said. “This bill isn’t just about cutting back this year or next year; it’s about instilling permanent discipline to keep spending at a responsible level.?
There are so many problems with this Congressional budget axe approach and the families? analogy. Consider this; let?s say you need to cut your household spending by 15% to ?tighten your pocketbook?. Does that mean you can just tell your bank, “I?ll be sending you 15% less this year for my mortgage?? Of course not, because you have a financial obligation to pay back the money you borrowed from the bank just as the federal government has an obligation to pay Social Security beneficiaries what was borrowed from the Trust Fund. When families have to clamp down on spending, they make certain to keep paying their debts while looking for other ways to trim expenses. That?s real fiscal discipline. American families don?t have the luxury of backing out of their financial obligations.In its analysis of the McCaskill-Corker plan, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities more eloquently says:
The proposal from Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to limit total federal spending to 20.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the average from 1970 to 2008, would force draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs while making it harder for the nation to recover from recession.That?s because the proposal, which would take effect in 2013 and phase in over 10 years, does not account for fundamental changes in society and government: the aging of the population, substantial increases in health care costs, and new federal responsibilities in areas such as homeland security, veterans? health care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. These factors make the spending levels of an earlier era inapplicable for today?s discussions about how to reduce looming budget deficits and put the budget on a sustainable path in the coming years
Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation have pushed these kinds of time-warp budget solutions for years because it?s the easiest way to garner the largest cuts in Social Security and Medicare. No other Democrats have signed on to this plan and Majority Leader Harry Reid says:
“I will do everything that I can in throwing my legislative body in front of any efforts to weaken Social Security,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I’ve said before, people should leave Social Security alone.”
Social Security Administration Cuts or Social Security Administration Cuts?: The New GOP Budget Options
Republican leaders in the House apparently remember the political fallout from their last government shutdown in 1995 & 1996 and don?t want to risk that backlash again. The National Journal reports House leaders will introduce a two-week stopgap funding bill tomorrow that mirrors the 2011 budget they passed last weekend (which, by the way, has no chance of passage in the Senate):
?This approach reflects Boehner?s deep-seated belief that the 1995 Gingrich-led Congress risked everything in its shutdown confrontation with President Bill Clinton, and in the aftermath Republicans not only lacked the stomach to fight for more spending cuts, they veered in the opposite direction and targeted federal spending to vulnerable districts to protect the GOP majority.?
The Hill newspaper provides a bit of a history lesson in this glimpse back at what the 1996 shutdown meant for the Social Security administration:
?During the 1996 standoff, the Social Security Administration (SSA) initially kept 4,780 employees on, because they were in positions necessary to ensure that various benefits, including Social Security, continued to be paid. The remaining 61,415 employees were furloughed, according to the CRS report. However, the SSA realized shortly afterward that it lacked the manpower to answer phone calls from customers needing new cards or requesting that their files be changed to reflect a news address for benefit checks. Another 49,715 employees were brought back to help run the agency.?
If history is any predictor, then a government shutdown is clearly not good news for the 50 million Americans who depend on their Social Security checks to arrive as expected and need experienced SSA staff available to handle problems. But what?s also bad news for Social Security beneficiaries is the GOP?s new alternative to a shutdown ? SSA cuts which would also furlough workers, cut administrative funding and increase the backlog of claims. In short, the Republican solution being offered to America?s retirees, the disabled and survivors is furloughs, cuts and backlogs through a government shutdown or furloughs, cuts and backlogs through a draconian stop-gap bill which provides political cover but no relief for the average American.The latest 2-week proposal is the same budget bill House Republicans passed to fund the remainder of this year. Same 9.3% cut to the SSA budget ? same devastating affects ? just a shorter time frame. Here?s Nancy Altman?s, of Social Security Works, description of the House-passed bill:
…the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to strip away $1.7 billion from the already underfunded agency, money that is needed simply to keep offices open. If the Republicans’ budget plan goes through, the entire agency, including all 1,300 field offices might have to close for a month. A letter in anticipation of this has already been sent out to all employees. The phones would not be answered, and claims processing would halt. Even worse, given the well documented need to replace SSA’s aging computer system, the Republicans’ proposed cuts threaten the whole program, if the current system and its backup were to fail before the building of the new system, already behind schedule, were completed.?
Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Sander Levin(D-M) sums it up best:
?This Republican proposal is as irresponsible as it is shortsighted. To jeopardize a lifeline for half a million new Social Security beneficiaries in order to score short-term political points is simply bad policy?It?s a perfect example of how little House Republicans seem to care if their rigid ideological crusade hurts real people.?
Lastly, you can see a full breakdown of SSA impacts under the GOP funding bill and the SSA letter urging a preparation for furloughs.
Social Security and Capitol Hill
Now that the White House and GOP budgets are out it?s time for both sides to start explaining them. The White House team has been on Capitol Hill testifying before Congress. This is our favorite bit of testimony so far, between Sen. Bernie Sanders and OMB Director, Jack Lew, on the role Social Security plays (or doesn?t as the case may be) in our national debt. Go Bernie?House Ways and Means Committee Democrats came out swinging against the GOP budget provisions for Social Security. Their news release said:
?The 2011 budget plan presented this week by the House Republican Majority strips $1.7 billion away from the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the remainder of the year, a cut so drastic that SSA would need to impose the equivalent of a month of furloughs. The entire agency would have to shut down all operations for 20 working days. The phones would not be answered, field offices would be closed, and claims processing would halt. Over half a million new retirees, disabled workers and survivors would be forced into a backlog before they could receive the benefits they earned.?
And then, just in case you missed the full White House News conference yesterday, here are a few of President Obama’s Social Security comments. We clearly have work ahead of us:
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you talked about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The truth is Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the other two entitlements are.I’m confident we can get Social Security done in the same way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O?Neill were able to get it done, by parties coming together, making some modest adjustments. I think we can avoid slashing benefits, and I think we can make it stable and stronger for not only this generation but for the next generation.Medicare and Medicaid are huge problems because health care costs are rising even as the population is getting older. And so what I’ve said is that I’m prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to start dealing with that in a serious way. We made a down payment on that with health care reform last year. That’s part of what health care reform was about. The projected deficits are going to be about $250 billion lower over the next 10 years than they otherwise would have been because of health care reform, and they?ll be a trillion dollars lower than they otherwise would have been if we hadn?t done health care reform for the following decade.But we’re still going to have to do more. So what I’ve said is that if you look at the history of how these deals get done, typically it?s not because there?s an Obama plan out there; it?s because Democrats and Republicans are both committed to tackling this issue in a serious way.THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to be in discussions over the next several months. I mean this is going to be a negotiation process. And the key thing that I think the American people want to see is that all sides are serious about it and all sides are willing to give a little bit, and that there?s a genuine spirit of compromise as opposed to people being interested in scoring political points.Now, we did that in December during the lame duck on the tax cut issue. Both sides had to give. And there were folks in my party who were not happy, and there were folks in the Republican Party who were not happy. And my suspicion is, is that we?re going to be able to do the same thing if we have that same attitude with respect to entitlements.But the thing I want to emphasize is nobody is more mindful than me that entitlements are going to be a key part of this issue — as is tax reform. I want to simplify rates. And I want to, at the same time, make sure that we have the same amount of money coming in as going out.Those are big, tough negotiations, and I suspect that there?s going to be a lot of ups and downs in the months to come before we finally get to that solution. But just as a lot of people were skeptical about us being able to deal with the tax cuts that we did in December but we ended up getting it done, I?m confident that we can get this done as well.THE PRESIDENT:Well, the fiscal commission put out a framework. I agree with much of the framework; I disagree with some of the framework. It is true that it got 11 votes, and that was a positive sign. What’s also true is, for example, is, is that the chairman of the House Republican budgeteers didn?t sign on. He?s got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done, so he?s got concerns. So I?m going to have to have a conversation with him, what would he like to see happen.I?m going to have to have a conversation with those Democrats who didn?t vote for it. There are some issues in there that as a matter of principle I don’t agree with, where I think they didn?t go far enough or they went too far. So this is going to be a process in which each side, both in — in both chambers of Congress go back and forth and start trying to whittle their differences down until we arrive at something that has an actual change of passage.And that’s my goal. I mean, my goal here is to actually solve the problem. It?s not to get a good headline on the first day. My goal is, is that a year from now or two years from now, people look back and say, you know what, we actually started making progress on this issue.THE PRESIDENT: This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn?t tip over. And I think that can happen.THE PRESIDENT:And all of us agree that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control. And all of us agree that part of it has to be entitlements.But, look, I was glad to see yesterday Republican leaders say, how come you didn?t talk about entitlements? I think that?s progress, because what we had been hearing made it sound as if we just slashed deeper on education or other provisions in domestic spending that somehow that alone was going to solve the problem. So I welcomed — I think it was significant progress that there is an interest on all sides on those issues.
Actually, most Americans don?t agree “entitlements” should be a part of this deficit conversation.
Tired of the Lies about Social Security? So are we…
National Committee?s Truth Squad Arms Americans with the Facts about Vital Seniors’ Programs and Our National Debt
America?s seniors have a huge stake in the national economic debate. Unfortunately, fiscal hawks have launched a well-publicized misinformation campaign to persuade Washington that Social Security is to blame for our fiscal mess when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Social Security has not contributed one dime to our federal debt; however, it is being targeted to pay the price.To counter the misinformation, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has mobilized a Truth Squad to give seniors the facts about Social Security and Medicare and the roles these vital programs play in our budget debate.The Truth Squad campaign includes:
- The ?Whopper of the Week? highlighting the latest false claim plus our myth-busting response
- Myth-busting fact sheet which details the Myths being spread and the Facts to rebut them
- Social Security and Medicare Tool Kits to help activists engage
- Online E-card to send to your members of Congress
- Our Legislative Action Center with sample letters that can be emailed directly to Congressional representatives and your local newspaper
- ?Washington Watch?, providing the latest news on efforts to target Social Security & Medicare for cuts
- Send a postcard to the White House in our ?Cutting Social Security Makes No ?Cents? Campaign?
See more at: https://www.ncpssm.org/Truth_Squad/
Budget Battle Begins – What about Social Security?
?I applaud President Obama for proposing a budget that does not target Social Security beneficiaries to foot the bill for years of deficit spending. This gives those of us who advocate for Social Security, additional time to inform more in Congress that Social Security is not the cause of this budget crisis nor is it the solution. Seniors, who have gone two years without a COLA increase, are also thankful for the $250 one-time economic recovery payment included in this budget.Proposing $1.1 trillion in budget cuts requires some tough choices, however, preserving the guaranteed benefits that American workers have paid for and depend on is the right budget strategy. Older Americans especially continue to suffer in this economy and they are thankful the President did not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. They know Social Security has not contributed a dime to our deficit crisis and, contrary to claims by fiscal hawks, should not be used to balance our federal books.??Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO The National Committee and its millions of members and supporters nationwide have delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions, emails, and phone calls to Congress and the White House reminding our elected leaders that Social Security has not contributed to our national debt.However, well-financed Washington special interests have used our rising debt as a political opportunity to push cuts in Social Security under the guise of deficit reduction. Cutting Social Security benefits should not be used as a litmus test for ?fiscal responsibility?, ?serious debate? or being an ?adult?. We will continue to send that message to Washington as the budget debate continues. The National Committee?s ?Truth Squad? is the heart of our campaign to provide analysis, myth busting and grassroots tools for activists nationwide.
Why “Back to the Future” Budgeting Doesn’t Work
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calls the McCaskill-Corker spending bill a ?look Ma no hands? approach to budgeting. We also see it as a dangerous trip ?Back to the Future?. That?s because , rather than making specific budget choices based on 2011 realities, their bill sends us back to the spending levels of the ?80s, only to then impose across-the board cuts when our ?Back to the Future? DeLorean breaks down. The Associated Press describes their budget plan this way:
?The legislation doesn’t actually propose cuts but instead sets spending caps and enforces them with the threat of automatic, across-the-board reductions. The target of 20.6 percent of gross domestic product is the average of federal spending over 1970-2008. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projects spending under current policies reaching 24 percent of GDP in 2021, which would require more than $800 billion in budget cuts in that year alone. That is significantly deeper than the recent proposal by President Barack Obama’s deficit commission, which recommended raising Social Security and Medicare retirement ages, and cutting military pensions, farm subsidies and a variety of other popular programs.?At a time when many families have been forced to tighten their pocketbooks, Congress must also learn to do the same,” McCaskill said. “This bill isn’t just about cutting back this year or next year; it’s about instilling permanent discipline to keep spending at a responsible level.?
There are so many problems with this Congressional budget axe approach and the families? analogy. Consider this; let?s say you need to cut your household spending by 15% to ?tighten your pocketbook?. Does that mean you can just tell your bank, “I?ll be sending you 15% less this year for my mortgage?? Of course not, because you have a financial obligation to pay back the money you borrowed from the bank just as the federal government has an obligation to pay Social Security beneficiaries what was borrowed from the Trust Fund. When families have to clamp down on spending, they make certain to keep paying their debts while looking for other ways to trim expenses. That?s real fiscal discipline. American families don?t have the luxury of backing out of their financial obligations.In its analysis of the McCaskill-Corker plan, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities more eloquently says:
The proposal from Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to limit total federal spending to 20.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the average from 1970 to 2008, would force draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs while making it harder for the nation to recover from recession.That?s because the proposal, which would take effect in 2013 and phase in over 10 years, does not account for fundamental changes in society and government: the aging of the population, substantial increases in health care costs, and new federal responsibilities in areas such as homeland security, veterans? health care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. These factors make the spending levels of an earlier era inapplicable for today?s discussions about how to reduce looming budget deficits and put the budget on a sustainable path in the coming years
Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation have pushed these kinds of time-warp budget solutions for years because it?s the easiest way to garner the largest cuts in Social Security and Medicare. No other Democrats have signed on to this plan and Majority Leader Harry Reid says:
“I will do everything that I can in throwing my legislative body in front of any efforts to weaken Social Security,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I’ve said before, people should leave Social Security alone.”