Social Security and Medicare are in great shape.
Remember the history of these programs. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Congress appointed a Blue Ribbon commission to review the predicted funding shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare and propose a solution. The commission was chaired by Alan Greenspan, who had not yet been appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The commission's solution, which Congress and the president endorsed and adopted, was to raise payroll taxes to produce a surplus that would keep the programs solvent until Fiscal Year 2042.
Over the next 30 years, the surplus averaged around $200 billion a year, which adds up to $6 trillion, or to about $10 trillion when you adjust for inflation. But instead of putting the money away (which Al Gore advocated as his "lock box" in the 2000 election), the government used it to cover the portion of its annual budget deficit created by tax cuts for the rich. Without this, the national debt would be $6 trillion to $10 trillion higher than it is (currently about $20 trillion). In the 1990s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY made a fuss over this, saying if the government isn't going to put the money away for the benefit of the people who were being taxed to provide it, they ought to drop the pretense and cut the payroll tax so it reflected reality. At least that way, people like you and me would have some extra money to invest and make up for not having Social Security and Medicare when we need it.
For the last 10 years, Republicans have increasingly fretted over what they refer to as a fiscal crisis. They blame the cost of "entitlements," which are primarily these two programs for elderly retirees. The eligibility age for Social Security has been raised, and there have been other changes in Medicare making it more expensive for retirees, but Republicans also added the Medicare Rx drug benefit raising the program costs. So that brings us to our current situation. But if there is a fiscal crisis, it isn't because of SS and Medicare. It's because of the fiscal and tax policies of the Republicans. SS/Medicare recipients (present and future) have pre-paid for their benefits by paying more than the programs needed. If the Republicans mismanaged that money and gave it to the wealthiest Americans as tax cuts, why should recipients' benefits suffer to make up for it?
As you can see, if you are a Republican, there is good reason for you to believe that the payroll tax surpluses have been invested in the economy, and the evidence shows that the wealthy class have been the primary beneficiaries. The top 1% got 60% of the gain in GDP over the last 40 years. The top 0.1% got 2/3rds of that gain, in other words they got 40% of the total GDP gain. And no less a political god for conservatives than Ronald Reagan promised that SS/Medicare benefits would be covered through FY2042, another 24 years.
So don't buy this crap from Republicans. They just want to avoid having to raise taxes on the rich.
Remember the history of these programs. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Congress appointed a Blue Ribbon commission to review the predicted funding shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare and propose a solution. The commission was chaired by Alan Greenspan, who had not yet been appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The commission's solution, which Congress and the president endorsed and adopted, was to raise payroll taxes to produce a surplus that would keep the programs solvent until Fiscal Year 2042.
Over the next 30 years, the surplus averaged around $200 billion a year, which adds up to $6 trillion, or to about $10 trillion when you adjust for inflation. But instead of putting the money away (which Al Gore advocated as his "lock box" in the 2000 election), the government used it to cover the portion of its annual budget deficit created by tax cuts for the rich. Without this, the national debt would be $6 trillion to $10 trillion higher than it is (currently about $20 trillion). In the 1990s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY made a fuss over this, saying if the government isn't going to put the money away for the benefit of the people who were being taxed to provide it, they ought to drop the pretense and cut the payroll tax so it reflected reality. At least that way, people like you and me would have some extra money to invest and make up for not having Social Security and Medicare when we need it.
For the last 10 years, Republicans have increasingly fretted over what they refer to as a fiscal crisis. They blame the cost of "entitlements," which are primarily these two programs for elderly retirees. The eligibility age for Social Security has been raised, and there have been other changes in Medicare making it more expensive for retirees, but Republicans also added the Medicare Rx drug benefit raising the program costs. So that brings us to our current situation. But if there is a fiscal crisis, it isn't because of SS and Medicare. It's because of the fiscal and tax policies of the Republicans. SS/Medicare recipients (present and future) have pre-paid for their benefits by paying more than the programs needed. If the Republicans mismanaged that money and gave it to the wealthiest Americans as tax cuts, why should recipients' benefits suffer to make up for it?
As you can see, if you are a Republican, there is good reason for you to believe that the payroll tax surpluses have been invested in the economy, and the evidence shows that the wealthy class have been the primary beneficiaries. The top 1% got 60% of the gain in GDP over the last 40 years. The top 0.1% got 2/3rds of that gain, in other words they got 40% of the total GDP gain. And no less a political god for conservatives than Ronald Reagan promised that SS/Medicare benefits would be covered through FY2042, another 24 years.
So don't buy this crap from Republicans. They just want to avoid having to raise taxes on the rich.
Fred Musante via Facebook
