Congress Has A Choice— Cut Social Security Benefits Or Make The Rich Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes

Do you trust these 2 to save Social Security and Medicare?

Yesterday, Catherine Rampell wrote that the House Republicans “say they want to reduce deficits— but meanwhile have ruled out virtually every path for doing so (cuts to defense, cuts to entitlements, wiping out nondefense discretionary spending, or raising taxes). Sorting out the country’s fiscal challenges is a worthwhile goal– one that should be achieved through the usual process lawmakers use for spending and taxation decisions, i.e., the budget process. There is no universe, though, in which holding the debt limit hostage (i.e., threatening not to pay our bills) would promote greater fiscal health.” Of course, what the basic problem is, is not complicated at all— and is actually well-understood by the American public: forcing the super-rich, which also happens to be the political donor class, to pay their fair share of taxes. That simple.

Tony Romm delved into the dilemma House Republicans are facing now: committing political suicide by tampering with Social Security and Medicare. And the train has already started rolling— and could even wreck the GOP in red states like Florida. “No other state relies so heavily on Social Security payments to its neglected citizens than Florida. For more than a million older Floridians, this federal retirement savings program is what’s keeping them from living below the poverty line. And yet, there’s a new push to cut it… Rick Scott of Florida has been pushing for cuts in Social Security by saying that they are necessary because the fund is ‘going bankrupt.’ But Scott’s hyperbola is misleading… Because Social Security is so popular, the lawmakers proposing cuts have to be opaque — or downright clownish. Take Georgia Republican Congressman Rick Allen, a member of the Republican Study Committee, a group that advocates raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. ‘People come up to me and they actually want to work longer,’ Allen said this month. ‘If people want to work longer, maybe you need to give them incentive to do it.’ People can still collect Social Security benefits while working. It’s not an either/or proposition. And working until 70 sometimes depends on what you do. It’s easier for a lawyer, a teacher or a newspaper columnist than it is for a bricklayer, a furniture mover or a roofer. Defenders of Social Security point to better fixes, such as raising the cap on taxable wages. This year, payroll earnings of up to $160,200 will be subject to Social Security deductions, an increase of 9 percent from last year. Any efforts to cut Social Security benefits will hurt the neediest of retirees, the people who rely on those monthly checks as their only source of income. About a third of Americans begin drawing their Social Security benefits at 62, the earliest possible time to do so, even though they are penalized tax-wise for the early withdrawal.”

Now, back to Romm, who wrote that “House Republicans have started to weigh a series of legislative proposals targeting Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, part of a broader campaign to slash federal spending that could force the new majority to grapple with some of the most difficult and delicate issues in American politics. Only weeks after taking control of the chamber, GOP lawmakers under new Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) have rallied around firm pledges for austerity, insisting their efforts can improve the nation’s fiscal health. They have signaled they are willing to leverage the fight over the debt ceiling— and the threat of a fiscal doomsday— to seek major policy concessions from the Biden administration. So far, the party has focused its attention on slimming down federal health care, education, science and labor programs, perhaps by billions of dollars. But some Republicans also have pitched a deeper examination of entitlements, which account for much of the government’s annual spending— and reflect some of the greatest looming fiscal challenges facing the United States.” Again, it’s crucial to remember what we’re talking about here, is keeping taxes low for the multimillionaires and billionaires who finance the careers of politicians.

In recent days, a group of GOP lawmakers has called for the creation of special panels that might recommend changes to Social Security and Medicare, which face genuine solvency issues that could result in benefit cuts within the next decade. Others in the party have resurfaced more detailed plans to cut costs, including by raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain federal benefits.

“We have no choice but to make hard decisions,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), the leader of the Republican Study Committee, a bloc of more than 160 conservative lawmakers that endorsed raising the retirement age and other changes last year. “Everybody has to look at everything.”

Any plan to rethink entitlements is likely to face steep opposition in the Democratic-led Senate and may never gain meaningful traction even among other Republicans in the House. Adding to the political challenge, former president Donald Trump waded into the debate Friday, warning his party publicly against cutting “a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have been unsparing in their criticisms, saying millions of Americans could see their benefits cut at the hands of the new House GOP majority. President Biden has stressed he will not negotiate such a deal with Republicans, as he prepares to discuss a raft of fiscal issues with McCarthy in the coming days.

…“We need to be taking this very, very seriously, and the tragic thing is, everybody knows it,” said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), a top lawmaker on the tax-focused House Ways and Means Committee, lamenting the state of Social Security and Medicare.

But, Buchanan said, the early political sniping around the issue threatens to make any meaningful overhaul impossible. He stressed the two parties have to work together, or else Republicans could face a political drubbing if they forge ahead on their own.

“It’s a good way to get fired quickly,” he said.

The Post didn’t think it was necessary to mention that Buchanan is the 4th wealthiest member of Congress, one of the 4 with a net worth north of $100 million— and whose taxes would rise under any of the proposals for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. The 20 richest GOP multimillionaires in Congress, all of whom would rather see Social Security go bankrupt and Medicare be privatized than pay their fair share of taxes:

• Rick Scott (R-FL)

• Michael McCaul (TX)

• Darrell Issa (R-CA)

• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)

• Mitt Romney (R-UT)

• Roger Williams (R-TX)

• Jay Olbernolte (R-CA)

• Kevin Hern (R-OK)

• John Rose (R-TN)

• Ralph Norman (R-SC)

• William Hagerty (R-TN)

• James Rich (R-ID)

• John Hoeven (R-ND)

• Ron Johnson (R-WI)

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

• James Baird (R-IN)

• Dan Meuser (R-PA)

• Marjorie Traitor Greene (R-GA)

• Diana Harshbarger (R-TN)

• Mark Green (R-TN)

Romm noted that “For the moment, Republicans are only beginning to plot a new fiscal road map. To maximize their leverage, they have pursued spending cuts in exchange for their support to raise the debt ceiling, the legal cap that allows the U.S. to borrow money to pay its existing bills. Hoping to engage top Democrats and the White House, GOP leaders have offered early hints of the deep cuts they seek: Some Republicans have suggested they want to pare back spending to levels approved in the 2022 fiscal year, meaning cuts across government could exceed $130 billion. Others have eyed new caps on key federal agencies and programs, hoping to keep domestic spending depressed for the next decade in ways Democrats have described as devastating. Yet GOP leaders have not said exactly what they’d cut, or whether some areas might be off-limits, including money for the military and its veterans. Instead, they have promised to produce a blueprint in the coming weeks that balances the budget over the next 10 years.

But balancing the federal till is no small feat— past Republican majorities that have passed measures to eliminate the deficit have used gimmicks and other fiscal wizardry, and they only achieved a balanced budget on paper. This time, the task is especially immense, potentially requiring the GOP to identify more than $14 trillion in cuts through 2032, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for reducing the deficit.

So far, the cuts that Republicans have considered represent only a fraction of the government’s ledger, which also includes mandatory spending— the category that encompasses Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and a wide array of other federal payments that totaled more than $4.8 trillion in outlays over the 2021 fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Social Security and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes collected from employers and employees. The programs are popular, and for many Americans, they are a financial lifeline: In 2022, an average of 66 million seniors received a Social Security check each month, according to the federal government; more than 59 million people are enrolled in a Medicare plan, recent private estimates show.

But these entitlements face annual shortfalls, especially as the number of retired Americans grows faster than the two programs’ dedicated tax revenue. The complicated fiscal picture has led CBO to conclude that Social Security could exhaust its trust fund by 2033, at which point it would become insolvent, potentially resulting in a 23 percent cut to seniors’ monthly checks unless Congress intervenes. For Medicare, meanwhile, its key hospital-focused trust fund faces a similar problem in 2028, risking payments toward Americans’ health care, according to its trustees.

“That would represent a substantial reduction in payments to Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have very modest income and would face real hardship if their benefits had to be cut back sharply at one fell swoop,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

The looming deadlines have emboldened some Republicans in Washington to take a look at the two programs, which are considered to be the third rail of American politics. GOP lawmakers have been counseled by a wide array of right-leaning groups, including the Heritage Foundation, that the new majority should consider significant changes to entitlements as part of their commitment to cutting spending and balancing the budget— but not tax increases.

“You don’t get out of our current situation without tackling entitlement programs,” said Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, noting the country is getting “closer and closer to the date of insolvency.”

In an early sign of their interest, House GOP leaders initially included “mandatory spending” as a legislative priority during a meeting with rank-and-file lawmakers earlier this month. But Republicans did not mention explicitly what they hoped to address with Social Security and Medicare. An aide to Rep. Jason T. Smith (R-MO), the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, only said this week that “tying those programs to the debt ceiling has not been a part of any conversation” he has had.

…In a sweeping road map unveiled last year, the Republican Study Committee— the largest GOP group in the House— called for significant revisions to Social Security and Medicare. Their plan would raise Medicare eligibility to age 67, while allowing for more private-sector plans, while lifting Social Security to age 70 for younger workers and changing the way benefits are calculated. That proposal also raised the possibility that lawmakers could rethink payroll taxes, allowing the money to fund private-sector retirement options.

Republicans proposed privatizing key elements of the Social Security system under then-President George W. Bush after the 2004 election, only to encounter an onslaught of opposition that scuttled the White House campaign. Eighteen years later, Biden and his top aides lambasted GOP lawmakers in the 2022 race for trying to “deny seniors’ benefits they have already paid into.” The president saved some of his most forceful comments for proposals put forward by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who sought to require Congress to reauthorize Social Security and Medicare every five years.

Still, some Republican lawmakers have signaled renewed interest in those plans. Earlier this month, Scott promised to seek entitlement reforms in the context of the debt limit, promising at the time that a “day of reckoning is coming.” Hern, the leader of the RSC, said in a separate interview that lawmakers should at least be able to discuss bipartisan legislation to change the retirement age for a “child who has not paid a single dollar in payroll taxes.”

“No one needing Social Security right now, or expecting to get it in the near future, should be impacted,” added Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), another member of the Republican Study Committee, who described the debt ceiling as a means of political “leverage.”

“We have a responsibility as guardians of the taxpayers’ money to make sure we stabilize Social Security and Medicare,” he said.

Other lawmakers have raised the prospect they could set up a special panel to explore entitlement spending on behalf of Democrats and Republicans who are wary of such a fight. Even a member of the president’s own party, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), has reaffirmed his recent interest in the idea: This weekend, he touted bipartisan legislation chiefly drafted by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would analyze entitlements and ease the process by which legislation involving those programs could come to the floor.

The idea could gain some traction in the House, where Buchanan pointed to the bill as he stressed the need to “work together and not make this so political.” Another top Republican, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), led a group of Democratic and GOP lawmakers two years ago in calling for “special, bipartisan, bicameral rescue committees” to study Social Security, Medicare and other federal trust funds, he wrote at the time.

As the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Arrington is set to oversee Republicans’ efforts to craft a blueprint that could eliminate the deficit over the next decade. He has previously endorsed changes to other federal benefit programs, including food stamps, seeking to impose new work requirements on poorer Americans. His office declined a request for comment.

But some lawmakers have expressed deep reservations about the creation of a new fiscal commission, fearing that would open the door for cuts— targeting seniors as well as those who are not yet eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said Saturday on Twitter that such a panel is the “last thing we need,” pointing to the fact a prior attempt to impanel experts on entitlements recommended cuts to the program.

“We must instead expand Social Security,” Sanders said.

Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union a day later, Manchin rejected his liberal colleague’s claims. “No cuts. No cuts to anybody that’s receiving their benefits, no adjustments to that. They earned it,” he said.

But Manchin appeared not to rule out other changes, as he broke with his own party in calling on Biden to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling. “Could we put basically something on the floor that we will get to vote on it? Let the people decide and see if we’re willing to basically get our house in order,” the senator said.

Marianne Williamson has opened a presidential exploratory committee and isn't waiting for Biden to be pushed out of running again. Last night I asked her about the conservative push to balance the budget by reducing Social Security benefits. "Social Security," she told me, "should be an unbreakable covenant between the US government and its citizens. No Democrat, certainly no Democratic president, should ever be willing to give an inch on this. If anything we should be expanding Social Security; we mustn’t agree to any cuts to it whatsoever. None of us should be surprised to hear that this crop of Republicans wants to cut Social Security or Medicare. Starving the government is simply what they do; what we need to hear now is what Democrats are going to do about it. We all get the mendacity of the GOP on issues like this; I want to see the spine and the principles of the Democratic Party. I want to hear what Democrats are going to do to protect Americans from that kind of corporatist tyranny. If Dems are willing to cave on this one, we’ve lost whatever moral legitimacy we ever had."

Southern California Congressman Mark Takano has a similar perspective. "House Republicans’ slash and burn agenda targets Social Security and Medicare, threatening the health and financial stability of tens of millions of Americans for political fodder," he told me. "To Republican leadership I say, 'don’t play games with the programs hardworking Americans have paid into their entire lives in order to appease dangerous extremists.'"

Last night, Ted Lieu expanded on his tweet (above) with no beating around the bush: "Holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage," he told me, "isn't a negotiating tactic-- it is irresponsible political brinkmanship and it should be universally condemned. It has been said a million times, but raising the debt limit simply allows the United States to pay its bills. More than a quarter of our current debt was run up when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. Now they are threatening the stability of the global financial system if we don't make severe cuts to vital social programs. It goes without saying but not paying your bills is the opposite of fiscal responsibility. Leaders should help American families solve problems and prevent crises-- they shouldn't cause them."