|
Edited on Sat Dec-11-10 02:34 AM by Divernan
Borrowing money from Social Security is not at all the same as reducing the deductions. Always interesting to see what glib themes you pass along to us at DU - the lastest being "blame one man" and "moving the goalpost".
We are blaming the man in charge, as in the buck stops in the oval office.
"We" are typically lifelong Democrats who donated (that means gave for free) our time and our money to the point of real sacrifice to get Obama elected in both the primary and final elections. In my work with many other volunteers (99% white), I did not encounter a single racist. We shared many recollections of our individual efforts to fight racism and promote integration in years gone by.
"We" are typically not merely lifelong Democrats, but politically active(as in local and state Democratic committeemen and women, local government elected/appointed officials, judges of elections, etc.) politically sophisticated, lifelong Democrats who well understand political machinations in Washington.
"We" are typically far from lazy and for the past two years have been increasingly, desperately phoning and emailing Congress & the White House, and posting on the net to urge all concerned to follow through on Obama's campaign platform.
The President of the United States has long been internationally known as the most powerful man in the world. Tragically, the current president's essence has been captured by one of the cartoons posted elsewhere on DU ("The Cartoonists respond, day 2, posted by n2doc) , showing Obama and 3 other men sitting around a table playing poker. Obama says "I fold." Boehner, sitting across from him says "He hasn't finished dealing the cards yet!"
Would you kindly respond in detail, and without the glib 2/3 word, non-substantive catch phrases, to what I & many commentators call the poison pill Obama put into this package? That is the 35% cut in social security withholding, cheerfully labeled by Obama as "the payroll tax holiday". This cut was never placed on the table by Dem. legislators, even the Blue Dogs. The Democrats have never, I repeat NEVER, agreed to, let alone, suggested reducing the payroll taxes which fund social security. As FDR said, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program." Well, Obama outfoxed FDR, didn't he?
The biggest problem with this "holiday" is that it seriously undermines Social Security. And who first suggested it?
None other than the sworn enemies of retirement benefits on Obama's Deficit Commission. And I remind you, it was Obama, and not members of the Congress, who formed this Deficit Commission, and then explicitly authorized it to address Social Security - which doesn't affect the deficit.
I refer you to a detailed & powerful analysis of this whole mess by Richard Eskow at Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/obamas-tax-holiday-a-po...
"Flash-forward to 2012: The "holiday" is set to end. Republicans aren't likely to acknowledge that this was a temporary program, any more than they did with the Bush cuts. Any attempt to let the 2% cut expire will be spun as an "Obama tax hike" on the middle class. In order to believe this "holiday" is really temporary, you have to believe that Obama and other Democrats will be willing to take that kind of heat, under enormous pressure in an election year. Any takers?
"Extending this 2% cut would gut Social Security's finances forever. But whatever happens, look at what Social Security's enemies will have accomplished:
(1)The "lockbox" principle between Social Security and the overall budget will have been erased forever. A relatively small infusion of cash into the trust fund will be the poison pill that erases the "trust fund" principle. Once the program has contributed to the deficit, it's no longer separately funded;
(2)The enemies of Social Security will have painted a bull's eye on its only source of funding. People will see it as a "new tax" -- in a year when the economy's not expected to have fully recovered;
(3)They'll be in a position to argue, once again, that "America can't afford" to provide financial security for middle-class seniors;
(4) What's more, would-be cutters like Maya McGuineas and Alan Simpson have made it clear that they'd love to get their hands on the $2.6 trillion in Social Security's Trust Fund to use it for other purposes (like covering the debt that was run up by tax cuts for the wealthy and a couple of wars). This will give them their chance.
"How do you think all of this is going to play out? My guess is that the 2% cut will be extended for even the richest Americans. After all, 94% of the working public would see their payroll tax go from 4.2% back up to 6.2%. Can't you see the campaign ads now? "Democrats want to increase your payroll taxes by fifty percent!"
(End of quote)
Who here on DU,can possibly defend this underhanded, stealth attack on Social Security? I worked drafting and analyzing legislation for 10 years. This is the most lethal poison pill I've ever encountered.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
