SOCIAL SECURITY: The Attempt To Kill It

Special counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the campaign to tip the election in his favor, and whether Trump obstructed justice such as by firing FBI director James Comey. Known deaths from illegal abortion were much smaller. The California senator conflated the estimated number of women who had an illegal abortion with the number who died from it, according to the research she cites. The Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, cites estimates in a report that , to 1. The report says the number of deaths from illegal abortion dropped from just under 1, in to just over by and a little under by The Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the Roe v.

They will show President Trump did nothing wrong. Trump and his allies including Giulani often cite a Justice Department policy on the issue.

• The Path of the Freemasons: A Collection of Inspired Masonic Wisdom.
• Rich Internet Application - Potenzial gegenüber Desktop Applikationen (German Edition).
• AP fact check: Has Trump made Medicare and Social Security stronger?.
• The Koch brothers' campaign to kill social security | Robert Greenwald | Opinion | The Guardian!
• Cinnamon Alley.
• Orthopaedics: Arthroscopic Management of Hip Problems (Audio-Digest Foundation Orthopaedics Continuing Medical Education (CME). Book 35)?

But in fact, no written policy setting a deadline exists and Mueller can continue the probe and issue new indictments. He also has no time constraints regarding finishing or releasing the findings of his investigation. So any action by Mueller between now and the Nov.

Social Security debate in the United States

The Justice Department does have guidelines about investigations in advance of an election, which have been interpreted over the past decade to mean that investigators, if possible, should avoid taking specific actions — such as indicting candidates or raiding their office — in the run-up to an election. Trump overstates his job performance ratings. Watch Dec 16 Marshall Islands: A third of the nation has left for the U. Read Dec 17 How long do cold and flu viruses stay contagious on public surfaces? Read Dec 17 Second straight plunge knocks stocks to lowest levels in more than a year.

Arts Poetry Now Read This. World Agents for Change. About Feedback Funders Support Jobs. What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter. Has Trump made Medicare and Social Security stronger? Politics Sep 10, A look at the rhetoric and how it compares with reality: Trump is using the word loosely now. Story highlights Paul Waldman: Rule change adopted by new Republican Congress could end up cutting Social Security disability benefits He says it's part of GOP's perennial attack on Social Security as unsustainable, but there are better ways to fix.

So why do Republicans keep sidling up to it and sticking their fingers out? There's a brewing controversy in Congress over a small part of the program, which is just the latest version of an old routine that goes like this: Republicans say Social Security is going broke, and they propose changes that would cut benefits or otherwise undermine the program.

Democrats shout "Republicans are trying to cut Social Security! And why do we keep going through this? Republicans will tell you it's because the program is in peril, and if we don't cut it back, it won't be there at all for future generations. Democrats will tell you it's because Republicans never liked the program in the first place, and would love to kill it. That may be an exaggeration, but the fact is that Republicans hate big government, and government doesn't come any bigger than Social Security. It's also the most successful and beloved social program in American history.

Most of us are too young to remember when growing old in America almost inevitably meant a miserable descent into poverty, but until the middle of the 20th century, that's what it was. The current controversy revolves around a rule change Republicans made as soon as the new Congress was sworn in this month. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come. President Ronald Reagan stated in October Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit.

It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So, Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. The claims of the probability of future difficulty with the current Social Security system are largely based on the annual analysis made of the system and its prospects and reported by the governors of the Social Security system.

With these predictions in hand, it is possible to make at least some prediction of what the future retirement security of Americans who will rely on Social Security might be. It is worth noting that James Roosevelt, former associate commissioner for Retirement Policy for the Social Security Administration, claims that the "crisis" is more a myth than a fact. The Social Security public trustees including Charles Blahous warned in May that the "window for effective action" to take place was "rapidly closing", with less favorable options available to rectify the problems as time passes.

Proponents of the current system argue if and when the Trust Fund runs out, there will still be the choice of raising taxes or cutting benefits, or both.

AP fact check: Has Trump made Medicare and Social Security stronger? | PBS NewsHour

They say that demographic and revenue projections might turn out to be too pessimistic—and that the current health of the economy exceeds the assumptions used by the Social Security Administration. These Social Security proponents argue that the correct plan is to fix Medicare , which is the largest underfunded entitlement, repeal the — tax cuts, and balance the budget. They believe a growth trendline will emerge from these steps, and the government can alter the Social Security mix of taxes, benefits, benefit adjustments and retirement age to avoid future deficits.

The age at which one begins to receive Social Security benefits has been raised several times since the program's inception. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: There are lots of ways to do both. It was the Commission's recommendations that provided political cover for both political parties to act.

The changes approved by President Reagan in were phased in over time and included raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, taxation of benefits, cost of living adjustment COLA delays, and inclusion of new federal hires in the program. There was a key point during the debate when House members were forced to choose between raising the retirement age or raising future taxes; they chose the former.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan indicated the compromises involved showed that lawmakers could still govern. Koitz cautions against the concept of a free lunch ; retirement security cannot be provided without benefit cuts or tax increases. Rivlin summarized major reform proposals in January It will take some combination of several much-discussed marginal changes: In view of the collapse of market values, no one is likely to argue seriously for diverting existing revenues to private accounts, so the opportunity to craft a compromise is much greater than it was a few years ago.

Fixing Social Security would be a confidence building achievement for bi-partisan cooperation and would enhance our reputation for fiscal prudence. Various institutions have analyzed different reform alternatives, including the CBO, U. The CBO reported in July the effects of a series of policy options on the "actuarial balance" shortfall, which over the 75 year horizon is approximately 0. Key reform proposals include: One way to measure mandatory program risks is in terms of unfunded liabilities, the amount that would have to be set aside today such that principal and interest would cover program shortfalls spending over tax revenue dedicated to the program.

These are measured over a year period and infinite horizon by the program's Trustees:. Raising the early retirement age from 62 to 64 has little impact, as those who wait longer to begin receiving benefits get a higher amount. For example, CBO wrote: Revenues credited to the Social Security trust funds in would increase by about 28 percent. It summarized its views on a series of reform options during October The Urban Institute estimated the effects of alternative solutions during May , along with an estimated program deficit reduction: In addition, the final report proposed the steps to ensure the sustainability of Social Security, such as: His website indicated that he "will work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle-class families from tax increases or benefit cuts.

The current system sets the initial benefit level based on the retiree's past wages.

• How to be Happy Throughout Eternity by Becoming G.R.A.C.E.D. - Seek Now the Greatest Blessing in All of Creation?
• Wörterbuch Deutsch - Englisch - Tschechisch Themen A1: Lernwortschatz für Integrations-Deutschkurs-TeilnehmerInnen aus Tschechien (German Edition);
• The Koch brothers' campaign to kill social security.
• Why is GOP going after Social Security?.

The benefit level is based on the 35 highest years of earnings. Recent COLA were 2. According to the CBO: However, CBO also reported that: Reducing each year's COLA results in an annual compounding effect, with greater effect on those receiving benefits the longest. There is disagreement about whether a reduction in the COLA constitutes a "benefit cut"; the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities considers any reduction in future promised benefits to be a "cut".

However, others dispute this assertion because under any indexing strategy the actual or nominal amount of Social Security checks would never decrease but could increase at a lesser rate. CBO estimated in that raising the retirement age to 70 gradually would eliminate half the year funding shortfall. The Social Security full payout retirement age in was 66 years of age; it is gradually rising to However, most Americans begin taking reduced early benefits at age While Americans are living longer, much of the increase in life expectancy is among those with higher incomes.

The Social Security Administration estimated that retirees who made above-average incomes in their working years live six years longer than they did in the s. However, retirees in the bottom half of the income distribution live only 1. In addition, many lower-income workers have jobs that require standing or manual labor, which becomes increasingly difficult for older workers. The Congressional Research Service reported that: Progressive indexing," would index initial benefits for low earners to wage growth as under current law , index initial benefits for high earners to price growth resulting in lower projected benefits compared to current-law promised benefits , and index benefits for middle earners to a combination of wage growth and price growth.

President Bush endorsed a version of this approach suggested by financier Robert Pozen , which would mix price and wage indexing in setting the initial benefit level. The " progressive " feature is that the less generous price indexing would be used in greater proportion for retirees with higher incomes.

Navigation menu

The San Francisco Chronicle gave this explanation:. As under the current system, all retirees would have their initial benefit amount adjusted periodically for price inflation occurring after their retirement. Thus, the purchasing power of the monthly benefit level would be frozen, rather than increasing by the difference between the typically higher CPI-W and typically lower CPI-U, a broader measure of inflation.

CBO estimated in that removing the cap on the payroll tax i. Strengthening Social Security Act of Diamond and Peter R. Orszag proposed in their book Saving Social Security: A Balanced Approach that Social Security be stabilized by various tax and spend adjustments and gradually ending the process by which the general fund has been borrowing from payroll taxes. This requires increased revenues devoted to Social Security. However, the poll also indicated Americans are skeptical about the future of the program: A January Pew Research Center poll indicated that "Making Social Security system sound" was the 5th highest priority of out 23 topics.

According to a July Gallup poll, many Americans doubt they will get Social Security benefits, although the level of doubt is similar to readings going back to Critics argue that privatizing Social Security does nothing to address the long-term funding concerns. Diverting funds to private accounts would reduce available funds to pay current retirees, requiring significant borrowing. The Economic Report of the President found that the federal budget deficit would be more than 1 percent of gross domestic product GDP higher every year for roughly two decades; U.

Privatization proponents counter that the savings to the government would come through a mechanism called a "clawback", where profits from private account investment would be taxed, or a benefit reduction meaning that individuals whose accounts underperformed the market would receive less than current benefit schedules, although, even in this instance, the heirs of those who die early could receive increased benefits even if the accounts underperformed historical returns. Opponents of privatization also point out that, even conceding for sake of argument that what they call highly optimistic numbers are true, they fail to count what the transition will cost the country as a whole.

Gary Thayer, chief economist for A. And this is really a key to understanding the debate, because if, on the other hand, a system which mandated investment of all assets in U. Treasuries resulted in a positive net recapturing, this would illustrate that the captive nature of the system results in benefits that are lower than if it merely allowed investment in U.

Treasuries purported to be the safest investment on Earth. Current Social Security system advocates claim that when the risks, overhead costs and borrowing costs of any privatization plan are taken together, the result is that such a plan has a lower expected rate of return than "pay as you go" systems. They point out the high overheads of privatized plans in the United Kingdom and Chile. Even some of those who oppose privatization agree that if current future promises to the current young generation are kept in the future, they will experience a much lower rate of return than past retirees have.

The proponents' argument is that projected returns higher than those individuals currently receive from Social Security and ownership of the private accounts would allow lower spending on the guaranteed benefit, but possibly without any net loss of income to beneficiaries. Both wholesale and partial privatization pose questions such as: For workers, privatization would mean smaller Social Security checks, in addition to increased compensation from returns on investments, according to historical precedent. A technical economic argument for privatization is that, without it, the payroll taxes that support Social Security constitute a tax wedge that reduces the supply of labor, like other tax financed government welfare programs.

Liberal economists like Peter Orszag and Joseph Stiglitz have argued that Social Security is already perceived as enough of a forced savings program to preclude a reduction in the labor supply. In fact, they might regard pension contributions as providing an opportunity for retirement saving, in which case contributions should not be deducted [by economists] from household's earnings and should not be included in the tax wedge.

To the extent that pension contributions are perceived as giving individuals rights to future pensions, the behavioral reaction of program participants to contributions will differ from their reactions to other taxes. In fact, they might regard pension contributions as providing an opportunity for retirement saving, in which case contributions should not be deducted from household's earnings and should not be included in the tax wedge.

Supporters of the current system maintain that its combination of low risks and low management costs, along with its social insurance provisions, work well for what the system was designed to provide: From their perspective, the major deficiency of any privatization scheme is risk. Like any private investments, PRAs could fail to produce any return or could produce a lower return than proponents of privatization assert, [] and could even suffer a reduction in principal.

Advocates of privatization have long criticized Social Security for lower returns than the returns available from other investments, and cite numbers based on historical performance. Supporters of the current system argue that the long-term trend of U. The general upward trend has been punctuated by severe downturns. Critics of privatization point out that workers attempting to retire during any future such downturns, even if they prove to be temporary, will be placed at a severe disadvantage. Proponents argue that a privatized system would open up new funds for investment in the economy, and would produce real growth.

They claim that the treasuries held in the current Trust Fund are covering consumption rather than investments, and that their value rests solely upon the continued ability of the U. Michael Kinsley has said that there would be no net new funds for investment, because any money diverted into private accounts would produce a dollar-for-dollar increase in the federal government's borrowing from other sources to cover its general deficit.

Meanwhile, some investment-minded observers among those who do not support privatization, point out potential pitfalls to the Trust Fund's undiversified portfolio, containing only treasuries.