Granny Bird Award: Paul Ryan

Today's Granny Bird Award, one given from time to time to those who actively seek to harm or impair the rights of elders, goes to Rep. Paul Ryan (Asshole-WI) for his proposed 2015 budget, re-introduced in the House Of Representatives just in time for 2014 campaign purposes.

Yesterday, I examined his proposed cuts to the safety net, with an emphasis on Medicare. Today Granny Bird wants to point out his deceptions and misrepresentations with respect to Social Security.  Michael Hiltzik quite nicely assists in that endeavor:

...what concerns us here is his description of the Social Security trust fund, which currently holds close to $3 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, all purchased with payroll tax income paid by working men and women since 1983.

The idea of building up this trust fund was to bank excess tax revenues against the looming wave of baby boomer retirements, which has now begun. But the trust fund is still growing, because Social Security's income streams--the payroll tax, interest on its bonds, and revenues from income taxation of benefits--still are sufficient to cover current benefits, and then some.

Ryan wants you to think different. Here's the passage in question, from page 66 of his plan.

"Any value in the balances in the Social Security Trust Fund is derived from dubious government accounting. The trust fund is not a real savings account. From 1983 to 2010, it collected more Social Security taxes than it paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these securities is completely dependent on the Treasury’s ability to raise money through taxes or borrowing."  ...

...The money has been invested in U.S. Treasury securities, just as you might do by purchasing Series EE savings bonds, or TIPS. Why do people invest in T-bonds? Because they're the safest securities in the world. The U.S. has never, ever defaulted on them (although the Tea Party wing of the GOP seems to think that would be a good idea). The money isn't invested in corporate securities or anything else, because Congress hasn't allowed that.

The Social Security trust fund's bonds are backed by exactly the same commitment of the U.S.' "full faith and credit" as any other Treasury security. Keep your eye on that ball, because Ryan is going to try to palm it.

When one buys a T-bond, one is effectively lending the money to the government, which then uses it to do things. So, yes, Ryan is correct in stating that "the government borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other government programs unrelated to Social Security."

Right. On national defense. Two wars. Construction of roads, school buildings, courthouses. On the salaries of congressmen like Rep. Ryan. What of it?

Was this money wasted? Hardly. The U.S. economy has more than doubled in size (adjusted for inflation) over that time, in significant part because of the infrastructure and services provided by government--including with that borrowed money.

...there's no "dubious government accounting" involved here--the dubious accounting is all Ryan's.
The trust fund is indeed a real savings account, involving deposits and interest. Yes, the government borrowed the money, and it has paid interest on it every year (duly recorded and published, down to the last dollar, in the annual reports of the Social Security trustees).

And yes, "the ability to redeem these securities is completely dependent on the Treasury’s ability to raise money through taxes or borrowing." What Ryan doesn't say is that the Treasury's ability to raise taxes and borrowing is effectively unlimited.

The most important factor is the one that people like Ryan want you to forget: The money in the Social Security trust fund came directly or indirectly from the payroll taxes paid by millions of American workers--100% of it. It was paid by workers in the trust that the government would pay it back. Paul Ryan is hinting, pretty strongly, that he doesn't want to pay it back.   [Emphasis added]

I quoted the column extensively because Hiltzik's argument required it and I'd recommend you read it all.  His point (and mine) is that Ryan and his rich benefactors would be happier if we took our money and paid it into Wall Street brokers' hands.  And once we do that, we should just die.

Paul Ryan never met a rich campaign donor he didn't like and a "taker" elder he did.

How long, O Lord.  How Long.

 

Playing Catch Up At The Local Level

(Click on image to enlarge.)

We have been assured by lots of sources that the Great Depression is over.  Wall Street points to the welcome rise in the Dow Jones.  The White House points to the improving job numbers.  Multinational corporations point to increased productivity.  And yet ...

State and local governments aren't quite so sure that the crunch has finally over.  Infrastructure (roads, power grids, sidewalks, sewer and water lines) are deteriorating faster than budgets can cover.  Taxable incomes still haven't returned and sales taxes are still down because consumers still aren't and can't buy as they once did.

On top of all that, state and local governments are facing public employee pension shortages in the years to come if more funds aren't poured into them:

From an AP report in the Pasadena Star News:

California’s government will increase the amount it contributes to state employees’ pensions starting this summer, and cities and other government agencies will follow suit in two years, to help cover the cost of benefits for retirees who are living longer.

The board of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System approved new assumptions for the pension system Tuesday that effectively increase contribution rates.

Projections show workers are expected to live an average of as much as two years longer, driving up the cost of paying benefits to people until they die. Women retiring at age 55 in 2028 are expected to live to 87.

 Contributing more to CalPERS’ $282.5 billion pension fund means local governments will have less money to pay for services such as police, roads and parks. But delaying payments to the pension system would cost more in the long run. ...

Most county and city governments surveyed by associations agreed with CalPERS’ approach to phase in the increase over five years and spread the total cost over 20. But the new rate increases are on top of additional rate increases coming next year.

“Together, they are going to cause serious service reductions,” said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities.  [Emphasis added]

Many short-sighted citizens are screaming about funding public employee pensions on several bases.  In the private sector, employer paid retirements are a benefit of the past.  The very most workers in the private sector can hope for is continued contributions to their 401(k) accounts, however minimal those contributions might be.  Those who don't have even that are scrambling to add to their IRAs and are reduced to hoping that Social Security will be enough to live on.  They find the notion that their tax dollars are going to fund someone else's retirement repugnant.

Understandable? Certainly, but like I said, short-sighted in all sorts of ways.  First of all, most public employees who are either retired at this point or nearing retirement accepted jobs at lower rates of pay than their private sector counterparts because a pension was guaranteed.  Second of all, as more and more private sector employees rejected unions over the past decades, public employee unions such as SEIU swooped into play and negotiated better benefits across the board.  Private sector employees didn't have that bargaining power, but they shouldn't blame their counterparts for that.

Now, however, because of the disastrous ten to twelve years, state and local governments have a lot of catching up to do to meet the obligations.  With any luck and some kept-promises, that catch up will be eased somewhat by increased revenues.  If not, a lot of people are going to think wistfully of that "sandal in Florida."

Chain Of Fools

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 4/10/13 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

Doyle McManus had a very instructive column up in the Los Angeles Times dealing with the president's offer to convert the cost of living increase formula for Social Security to the Chained CPI.  He suggests that Obama is using this to get his "Grand Bargain" on the budget, a major aim for his second term.

In an attempt to meet Republicans halfway in the battle over taxes and spending, Obama has offered to change the formula for calculating Social Security's annual cost-of-living increase — an "entitlement reform" GOP leaders have long asked for.

The result would not change current Social Security benefits, but it would reduce future raises by an estimated three-tenths of 1% in the first year, or about $42 for the average beneficiary. Over the long run, thanks to the magic of compounding, a lower rate of increase would have a substantial effect. After 20 years, estimating very roughly, a retiree might be looking at a yearly payout more than $1,000 less than he or she would have received without the change. ...

Many economists say chained CPI is a more accurate way to measure the cost of living for retirees and therefore it should be the basis for Social Security adjustments.

Greenstein, the patriarch of liberal budget experts, doesn't agree. In fact, in a paper he issued on Tuesday, he argued that chained CPI is probably less accurate as a measure of inflation's impact on the elderly and the poor. Older people spend more on healthcare than on chained CPI measures, he noted. And poor people — who gave up steak long ago — can't substitute cheaper goods as easily as the middle class. ...

Even if GOP leaders buy in, the public will take some convincing. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 55% of Americans think preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits is more important than cutting the deficit, including 73% of Democrats. (A slim majority of Republicans, 52%, believe cutting the deficit is more important.)   [Emphasis added]

I suspect that the elder Republicans are all among the 48% who don't believe that the deficit is more important than Social Security benefits, or would if they knew just how the shift to chained CPI is going to affect them.  McManus's column can be useful in that regard.

What is especially helpful in McManus's column is the history of Social Security increases over the years and his exposition on why the chained CPI is not such a good idea.  For that reason alone I'd recommend you click on the link and read the rest of the piece.

So, as Luckovich's brilliant cartoon points out, Obama's opening gambit is a loser all the way around, but the president apparently doesn't see it that way.  If he thinks getting a "Grand Bargain" is the most important thing in the world to put on his resume after 2016, he may be disillusioned come 2014.  Already the GOP has started airing comments about the Dems cutting Social Security.  If those comments seep into the public's consciousness, the next election could be a blood bath and that might be the last agreement of any kind that Obama gets.

I guess that doesn't bother him either, but it has made me angry enough to call my DC reps once again.  I hope you will do the same.

Granny Bird Award: Barach Obama

This Granny Bird Award, given from time to time to those who go out of their way to harm the interest and benefits of the elders, goes to President Obama for his unconscionable proposal to cut Social Security benefits.

From the Los Angeles Times:

As part of his new budget, President Obama will propose cutting Social Security and other government benefits by lowering the cost-of-living adjustment, putting a key GOP negotiating demand into a formal White House proposal for the first time.

The proposed change to the government's inflation measure, the consumer price index, is opposed by many congressional Democrats, although House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) recently suggested she was willing to consider it, if it could be done in a way that did not hurt the poor. ...

A senior administration official said that the president’s budget, which he will send to Congress next week, was not his “ideal deficit reduction plan,” but also said, “This is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands.” ...

Organized labor, as well as seniors and veterans groups, has raised objections, and the Senate unanimously rejected the proposal in a symbolic vote last month as Republicans, too, appeared uninterested in pursuing it.   [Emphasis added]

Of course the Republicans are uninterested in pursuing it:  conservative elders already on Social Security and those 55 and older don't want it.  They all know that the chained CPI actually lowers the benefit appreciably, especially over the life-time of the plan.  It is simply bad for elders, all elders.

And by opening negotiations with this "capitulation," President Obama has made it clear that he simply doesn't care about Social Security or the elders.  He just wants his "Grand Bargain" as detailed by Simpson and Bowles.

What he also doesn't care about is the 2014 elections, during which the GOP will run campaign ads pointing out that it was the Democrats who want to destroy this key benefit, thereby making it difficult for Democrats running for the House and Senate.

Congratulations, Mr. President.  You've gotten this Award the old-fashioned way:  you earned it.

Elder Belle's Blessing: Michael Hiltzig

(Photograph by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

This edition of Elder Belle's Blessing, an award given from time to time to those who enhance elders' rights and benefits, goes to Michael Hiltzig whose latest column delineates the sham of those who want to cut Social Security and Medicare because both are unfair to the children of the country.

Here's a phrase you can expect to be hearing a lot in the national debate over fiscal policy, as we move past the "sequester," which is the crisis du jour, and toward the budget cliff/government shutdown deadline looming at the end of March:

"Generational theft."

The core idea the term expresses is that we're spending so much more on our seniors than our children that future generations are being cheated. An important corollary is that the government debt we incur today will come slamming down upon the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. ...

So here's the truth about the "generational theft" theme: It's wrong on the numbers and wrong on the implications.

Let's start with that 7-to-1 spending ratio on seniors versus children. Among the flaws in the calculation is that the vast majority of government dollars spent on children comes from state and local governments, which pay most of the cost of education. On a per capita basis, state and local spending on kids swamps the federal government's spending 8 to 1.

Moreover, there are twice as many children 18 and under as seniors 65 and over (this 2008 figure also comes from the Urban Institute report). Put the numbers together and you discover that spending by governments at all levels in 2008 came to about $1 trillion on seniors and $936 billion on children. In other words, very close to 1 to 1. ...

In other ways, treating Social Security and Medicare spending on the one hand and spending on kids on the other as though they're opposite sides of a zero-sum game is just an act of ideological legerdemain aimed at undermining those programs.
If America wants to spend more on children, it's plenty rich enough to do so without eating away at the income of their grandparents. The money can come from the defense budget, farm supports or dozens of other places, even higher income taxes.

Let's not forget, too, that the people who will really suffer from gutting Social Security won't be today's seniors, who will escape the worst of the cutbacks — they'll be today's young people, for whom Social Security would become much less supportive when they retire.   [Emphasis added]

Oh, it's theft alright, but the thievery is being perpetrated against today's and tomorrow's elders, not by them.  The whole point is to destroy both programs for the benefit of the Wall Street Banksters and mega-insurance companies, and the children and elders be damned.

Go read all of Michael's column.  You'll see why he earned yet another Elder Belle's Blessing.

Things That Make You Go Wow!

Every once in a while, a legislative body comes up with what is actually a good idea, something that will benefit someone other than the wealthy 1%.  The California state legislature did just that, and Michael Hiltzig took a look at it in his column earlier in the week.  The state will be putting in place a special program for low income workers to save money for their retirement.  It's no grandiose program, but it hopefully prove to be a useful supplement to Social Security.

In September, the state launched a plan to enable these workers to put aside about 3% of their wages a year for retirement. As enacted by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the program's goals would be modest indeed.

The best thing about the plan is that it would allow workers to build up retirement stakes at low cost and low risk; their contributions would be pooled with other enrollees' for the purpose of making investments, which would cut down on fees. Workers would be signed up automatically, though they could opt out at any time. They'd be protected against the loss of their contributions and guaranteed a modest investment gain — say about 3% over inflation. When they retire, their nest eggs would be turned into annuities designed to last to the end of their lives, presumably at a conversion cost lower than they might incur in the commercial annuity market.

There would be no cost to state taxpayers. Employers with five or more workers would be required to offer the plan to their workforce and to allow contributions to be withheld through their payroll systems, as they do for taxes. They'd be free of any other legal or administrative burdens.

It's a great deal. It's also necessary, given the decades-long assault on employer-sponsored defined-benefit pensions, which were once an important pillar of retirement security for average Americans. "This could be a real model for the nation," Karen Friedman, policy director at the Pension Rights Center in Washington, told me.   [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, there will be a substantial delay in implementing the program:

 But it's going to take at least two more years to get off the ground, which is ridiculous. That's chiefly because the legislation requires that a feasibility study be done first to determine the demand for such a plan and the best way to avoid sticking taxpayers with the costs of an investment guarantee, and a few other details. The kicker is that the feasibility study has to be financed from privately raised funds, and that takes time.   [Emphasis added]

In other words, to get the proposed bill passed and signed off by the governor the sponsors had to include language of delay.  While a feasibility study isn't a bad idea, having to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from the private sector to get that done shows that even California Democrats can be foolish.

Still, it's an idea that shows thinking outside the box and might inspire other states to take a look at such an option.  At this point we can't count on the DC folks to be looking out for our interests.

Elder Belle's Blessing: Atrios

(Photograph by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

This edition of Elder Belle's Blessing, an award given from time to time to those who enhance elders' rights and benefits, goes to Atrios, the proprietor of Eschaton, a lefty-blog.  Atrios (whose real name is Duncan Black) is an economist of the Keynesian School and he thinks that the very worst thing to do in this economy is to institute austerity measures.  Among his many suggestions for kick-starting things is lowering the age for Medicare and Social Security and increasing the benefits.  Here's his latest.

The pain caucus, austerity freaks, fix the debt assholes, the Washington Post editorial board, etc... basically exist to scare politicians away from actually promising (and maybe even delivering) nice things to voters. One would think it'd be a nobrainer for politicians, especially in certain parts of the country, to campaign on an immediate across the board 20% increase in Social Security benefits. Some people completely screwed by the great recession could really use it.   [Emphasis added]

 The post was written in response to this New York Times article

In the current listless economy, every generation has a claim to having been most injured. But the Labor Department’s latest jobs snapshot and other recent data reports present a strong case for crowning baby boomers as the greatest victims of the recession and its grim aftermath.

These Americans in their 50s and early 60s — those near retirement age who do not yet have access to Medicare and Social Security — have lost the most earnings power of any age group, with their household incomes 10 percent below what they made when the recovery began three years ago, according to Sentier Research, a data analysis company. ...

The share of older people applying for Social Security early spiked during the recession as people sought whatever income they could find. The penalty they will pay is permanent, as retirees who take benefits at age 62 — as Ms. Zimmerman did, to help make her mortgage payments — will receive 30 percent less in each month’s check for the rest of their lives than they would if they had waited until full retirement age (66 for those born after 1942).  [Emphasis added]

That's a pretty sizable loss. That's one good reason for raising the benefits just by itself.

Lowering the eligibility age for both Medicare and Social Security would also take the pressure of the elders, something which Atrios has also advocated.  The upside of both of his proposals would have a dual effect:  elders could remove themselves from the labor market (whether working three part-time jobs at much lower pay just to pay the mortgage or holding onto a job only because of the need for health insurance) and be able to exist more comfortably; their retiring also would free up some jobs for the rest of the labor market.

We don't need to cut Social Security and Medicare, we need to expand it.

Picking Their Fights

Doyle McManus had an interesting op-ed column this weekend, one that made sense to me and gave me a little hope that maybe this Congress will actually get something done.  He used the metaphor of "an orderly retreat," and I think it works beautifully.

Astonishingly, for perhaps the first time since they won the majority in 2010, Boehner's House Republicans were seized by a sudden fit of pragmatism. That debt ceiling that couldn't be lifted as a matter of sacred principle? It was "suspended" until May with only perfunctory debate.

Boehner's sometimes fractious lieutenants, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, fell into line. Tea party firebrands including Michele Bachmann of Minnesota voted no, but they remained uncharacteristically quiet.

Score one for Boehner.

It may seem painfully obvious that a political party needs to seek favorable ground on which to wage its battles — to choose "smart fights" and avoid dumb ones.
But until last week, Democrats could pretty much count on House Republicans to ignore that rule. Only three weeks ago, the same Republicans had dared President Obama to take the country over a fiscal cliff of brutal tax increases and spending cuts — only to retreat in disarray when they noticed that the country wasn't behind them.

The logic of Boehner's gambit last week was straightforward: A debt ceiling showdown looked like another dumb fight. The speaker wants to change the subject to federal spending, an issue on which conservatives think they have more public support. On March 1, deep automatic cuts in both domestic and military spending are scheduled to take effect. And on March 27, the federal government will have to shut down unless Congress passes a new spending bill. Both of those events, Republicans say, will let them push for new spending cuts without the hair-raising dangers of a debt-ceiling crisis.   [Emphasis added]

First, apparently Speaker Boehner is getting better at herding cats.  Maybe he got some coaching from Nancy Pelosi, or maybe House Republicans finally figured out that they actually took quite a hit in November and might want to change their mode of operating.  Their obstructionism in the last Congress led to their actually losing ground in both houses.

Secondly, and more importantly, the manufacturing of crises to get their way just didn't work the way they thought it would.  The President isn't playing nice any more, and he's making them look bad.

I'm not suggesting that congressional Republicans will turn into nice guys who will voluntarily cut the entitlements to oil companies, banks, large farm corporations, and wealthy investors.  Not hardly.  They've still got their knives out for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  At least, however, they are now meeting with Democrats to start on the broad outlines for an immigration reform bill, something that has been totally off the table with them.  That's a start.

With a little more pressure from the public, they might even consider cutting the Pentagon budget, lopping off a few of the more ridiculous programs and cheating contractors.

I sure hope so, even though I know hope is not a plan.

Popcorn futures are up.

Deal/No Deal

(Editorial cartoon by Jim Morin / Miami Herald (December 31, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

This is being written at 4:35 PM PST on Monday.  I'm not going to waste New Year's Eve tracking the yahoos in DC and any deals they might make before Midnight to avoid the fiscal cliff.  At this point, the tentative agreement between the White House and Senate Minority Leader McConnell has not yet been voted on.  Even if it were voted on and passed, the House leadership has already announced that it will not hold a vote on the bill before Midnight.  That means we go over the cliff. 

BFD.

Now, it's possible that all of this is simply posturing and that a bill will sail through both houses tonight.  If that is the case, I will update the post and apologize for being a slacker tomorrow.  Tonight I intend to spend curled up with my cat, my kindle, and the vaporizer which is finally dispelling the chest congestion which has bedeviled me all week.  At midnight, when all the fireworks go off in the neighborhood, and there will be plenty, I will toast the new year with hot apple cider.  And then I will go back to sleep.

Assuming, however, that the House has no intention of passing any kind of bill, I do have a few suggestions for the White House and the Democrats in Congress.  Come January 1, 2013, it's a new ball game.  It's time to tell the Republicans that all previous negotiations are null and void.  Time to start from scratch.  Those Bush tax cuts are over.  That Pentagon budget is sliced.  You want a deal, start talking.

And, no, we're not cutting Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  And, yes, we are extending Unemployment Insurance for another year.  So, what should we be talking about?

Of course, that's not the way the White House and the DLC Dems negotiate, and that's a rotten shame.

Other than that, Happy New Year everyone!

New Day, Same Old Crap

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/19/12 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge.)

Kind of says it all, don't you think?

Back to the phones:

Senate

House

White House

Sic'em!

A Bump In The Road

(Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

I have to admit, I am not too terribly worked up about the looming, dooming "fiscal cliff" so many people are concerned about.  Yes, yes, I know:  if Congress doesn't act by the end of the year, there will be drastic cuts to some of the programs I would just love to see cut, but also to programs I don't want to see cut any further.  And I appreciate that some of those cuts will add to the economic problems we currently face.  It just seems to me that it's about time Congress and the President face the music for their joint refusal to take care of business, and the rest of us face the music for letting them get away with it.

David Horsey's cartoon and column makes the same point, although he is far more concerned than I am.

The reason we are where we are is because our elected leaders put us here. The fiscal cliff -- a set of automatic draconian budget cuts and tax increases that will start taking effect on Jan. 1 -- was purposely created as a way to force the squabbling Congress and president into a budget deal. It is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that grew out of the near-disastrous debt ceiling showdown between President Obama and House Republicans.

The idea was that Republicans and Democrats would finally put differences aside and reach a budget compromise because both sides would be motivated by dread of automatic across-the-board cuts and tax hikes that would almost certainly hit the U.S. economy like a wrecking ball. ...

Many folks who claim to be political experts say this is mere posturing and that both sides will give up something to get a deal done -- with Republicans giving up more because the president is in a commanding negotiating position having just won reelection. Perhaps they are right, but the kind of hardheaded political calculation that used to get deals done in the days of Lyndon Johnson or Tip O’Neill has given way to ideological purity.

Congress is now filled with people like tea party cheerleader Michele Bachmann who has said that maybe it would not be such a bad idea to let the country go over the fiscal cliff. Boehner will have a tough enough time cajoling Ryan into any kind of compromise; he is unlikely to ever get crusaders like Bachmann and her hyper-conservative compatriots to give him an inch or a vote.

Hard-line liberals will also be difficult to move, especially if a proposed deal threatens the status quo in Social Security or Medicare. What is needed in the House and Senate is a bipartisan effort of folks in the center. That's where all the work used to get done in the old days, but it has been a long time since anyone has pulled together a coalition of rational compromisers.

While I agree that it is lamentable that our elected officials cannot seem to get any kind of deal done, I disagree with Horsey that it's because both far ends of the spectrum are to blame.  I mean, c'mon, David:  the "hard-line liberals" haven't had any kind of voice for over 20 years at least.  Our two parties keep moving further and further to the right thanks to the DLC, Blue Dog, and Third-Way Democrats who are perfectly happy keeping our owners perfectly happy.  The rest of us, all 99%, have been hung out to dry for a long time because we can't write the big checks come election time.

And it's not like THE DEFICIT is such a big deal.  Really.  It wasn't a big deal in 2000 when the GOP took power with the SURPLUS Bill Clinton handed it.  It didn't take long for the Bushies to run through that surplus in various ways, including fighting two wars off budget.  Deficits surely didn't matter then, and, truth be told, it really doesn't matter now.  Adjust a few things and we can offset a lot of the damage.

First of all, we should damned well take Social Security and Medicare off the table.  Social Security has absolutely NOTHING, zero, zip, nada, to do with the deficit.  It is a user-funded program which for too long has been used as an ATM by Congress.  If folks are so concerned that 35 years from now Social Security will go into red-ink, then raise the payroll tax from its current level.  Cap it at $130,00 or remove the cap entirely.  Medicare has the potential for being a drag on government spending, but there are ways to short-circuit that, including adding funds to the DOJ for slamming the fraudsters who are ripping the program off.

Next, end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.  It finally looks like President Obama and the Dems got the message from the election that the rest of us are tired of that 1% getting more breaks than they are entitled to.  Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan may throw a snit-fit, but both had a harder time than expected in returning to Congress.  And the rest of the GOP, smarting from the last election, is hardly in any position to object too vigorously if it wants to continue as a viable party.

I'd also end the "middle class" payroll tax break.  All that did was undercut Social Security and Medicare funding.  Instead, provide real tax breaks for those of us with incomes below, say $250,00.  Avedon Carol has an excellent idea, one that hadn't occurred to me: raise the standard deduction from the laughable $3,800.  Go read what she has to say about that.  And then put real money into people's pockets by lowering rates.

Then tax all income, regardless of the source and regardless of the recipient.  Make corporations actually pay taxes.  To those who say that would affect job creation I would reply "Bovine Excrement!"  I didn't see any jobs being created by those tax breaks.  All I saw was outsourcing and offshoring.  The only "trickle down" we've seen has been of the decidedly urine-based  fluids raining down on all of us.  Those corporations who object and threaten to move out of the country can pay for their own damned security.  I'm sure Eric Prince and whatever his mercenaries are called these days will be happy to oblige.  We, then, can apply tariffs to the imports.

And that's just for openers.  I don't have any hard and fast rules for cutting "the fat" out of government programs, but, then, neither does the GOP beyond killing Big Bird and FEMA.  I do think cutting the junk contracts of the Pentagon is long over-due, as are outsourced programs in Homeland Security and the State Department.  Let government do the job the Constitution gave to it.

But I'm not sure we have enough stiff-necks and strong spines to accomplish this.  If not, there's always 2014.

The Poor? Never Heard of Them

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (October 16, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

There are several issues notable for their absence in the presidential campaign.  Climate change is one of them.  Another one is that of poverty in America.  We have been hearing a lot of rhetoric about Helping The Middle Class, but virtually nothing about the poor, many of whom have fallen into that status from the middle class in the past five years.

Steve Lopez has an interesting column in the Los Angeles Times on the missing issue.  He suggests several reasons for the absence of any meaningful discussion of poverty by the candidates.

 If you've been following the presidential campaign, you might easily have gotten the impression that the poor no longer exist. The word "poverty" was mentioned once in the first debate between President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Together, the two candidates made 29 references to the middle class. And in Tuesday's debate, I lost count after Romney reeled off more than half-a-dozen references in a single answer.

In the vice presidential debate, the word "poverty" got one mention. But Vice President Joe Biden and GOP challenger Paul Ryan dutifully followed their leaders, with 33 references to the middle class. ...

And yet, said Harris-Dawson, many poor people have an interesting thing in common.

They don't consider themselves poor.

"We actually came up with a list of people on welfare and went door-to-door, and do you know what? The majority of people said they were not poor," said Harris-Dawson, who thinks the candidates may be aware of this phenomenon.

He said people who were out of work framed it as a temporary condition related to the distressed economy or some other factor.

"Being poor has been so demonized. Being poor means being on 'Jerry Springer.' That's what it means nowadays, and who wants to be on 'Jerry Springer?'"

Yes, and it means that in 2012, with 46 million people living in poverty — 16 million of them children — candidates for president of the United States seem to think it won't matter if they pretend you don't exist.   [Emphasis added]

I suppose that's one good reason the candidates have shied away from discussing poverty:  the newly poor don't want to claim that status because that would make them one of the 47%.  But I think there's a bit more going on, and I think Avedon Carol has done her usual excellent job in sussing it out in a post having to do with  the purpose of voting.

 Something I think I've mentioned before, and that Stuart Zechman and I talk about privately, is that without the New Deal framework, social progress goes down the drain. It was that New Deal framework that made social progress movements possible, and that's why the arch-conservatives and Big Business banded together to destroy it.

And it's working. It is already difficult-to-impossible to obtain local access to abortion in most parts of the United States. It is not only difficult but damn-near illegal to protest in public. And even where you can legally protest, you get diverted, attacked, and arrested anyway. The relationship between your politics and your ability to obtain or keep a job is increasingly so strong that anyone who isn't on board with the arch-conservative program is terrified to make any statement that can be interpreted as economically liberal in the hearing of anyone who might make their employer aware of it.

These things add up, especially in an environment where "equality" means little more than an equal shot at no jobs.

And this is why, above any other issue, I am on board with Stuart when he says:

    Restoration of the New Deal framework is my priority policy agenda.

    This is because I am convinced that social liberalism's successes, e.g. civil rights, the successes of liberation movements (sexual, women's, etc.), intolerance with respect to security state regimes, etc., follow from the small-d democratic, economic and cultural empowerment of the majority of ordinary citizens. The history of the 20th century is the history of the balance of powers created by such a modern liberal-democratic framework, and the "culture of liberty-entitlement" that such empowerment produces in populations of otherwise reactionary-agricultural or labor-competitive citizens.

    Without the New Deal, or a New Deal-oriented governing framework, there is no liberal democracy, only oligarchy. Without liberal democracy, the cultural forces of popular reaction take hold in American populations, and social liberalism's creativity has little value in solving the problems faced by ordinary folks

 under plutocratic rule. Without liberal democracy, majority literacy itself is at risk. Bedford Falls' economy's culture produces the broad acceptance and (therefore) legality of privacy rights. Pottersville's economy's culture produces the broad rejection of and (therefore) illegality of natural selection being taught in public schools. One comes before the other. In post-19th century capitalist America, there can be no civil rights, and no dominance of individual liberty without first securing the economic rights and democratic power of the majority against "the old enemies of peace."

    Of all of the policy agendas I support, such as limiting executive power, expanding privacy rights, de-industrial militarizing of America, reforming the justice system, inhibiting poverty creation, etc, there is a preference order, with "Restoration of the New Deal Framework" being at the top. My vote will therefore reflect what I believe to be the priority policy agenda for movement liberals.

Yes, because the New Deal framework is fundamental to any other social liberty.

Bingo!

We know that the key features of the New Deal, the ones still left, are "on the table" as far as the president, his administration, and entirely too many Democratic members of Congress are concerned.  Oh, they talk about "tweaking" Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but it is clear that is only the first step in the drive to dismantle them (although I guess the favored euphemism is "privatize" them).  Federal programs which provide even a minimal safety net for the poor (Food Stamps, WIC) are slashed or eliminated as both sides fight to increase the defense budget so as to keep defense contractors fat and happy.

And those of us who object are marginalized, quite literally kept far away from the seat of power (hence the Pett cartoon above) and arrested for exercising the most basic of First Amendment rights.

It doesn't appear that there is much we can do this election cycle, but come January it might be time to put our comfortable shoes on.

Granny Bird Award: Mitt Romney

It's been a while since I've issued a Granny Bird Award, given to those who go out of their way to harm the interests of elders, but Mitt Romney certainly deserves this one for his now infamous characterization of the 47% of those who pay "no taxes" as defective mooches on the other half of the country.

I've seen a lot of great analyses of just how wrong and how nasty this superior being is in his assertion, but one of my favorites came from Michael Hiltzig.  His most recent column nails Romney for his blatant abuse of the facts.  I especially appreciated what he had to say about the elders place in all of this.

Voters can decide for themselves whether Romney's words, taken at face value, bespeak a hopelessly crabbed approach to government's role in our lives or a principled stand for private enterprise and economic freedom.

But they should be concerned about the fundamental inaccuracy of Romney's claims and the erroneous conclusions he draws from them. For those point to the important questions of how he can make policy in a fact-free context, and how he can even know his own mind if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So let's examine Romney's numbers and their significance.

The key number he cited is that 47% of Americans "pay no income tax." The statistic is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't come close to reaching the finish line. In fact, its shock value derives from the legerdemain of focusing solely on the federal income tax. This misleads Romney and his audience into thinking that the group in question is mostly people on a lifelong dole.

The truth is that the vast majority are people who are working or who have worked in the past. Their ranks include millions of Americans who are now retired, living on Social Security and Medicare benefits they paid for throughout their working lives.

Preach it!

Those of us who receive Social Security and Medicare are not mooches getting a free hand-out from the federal government.  We worked for years and had money deducted from our paychecks to cover these benefits.  We paid in advance.  We're just getting our money back now.

While the elders may not be paying federal income taxes now, they sure as hell did in the past.  Furthermore, they are still paying sales taxes to their state and local government.

Somebody needs to grab Mitt by the shoulders and shake him like an etch-a-sketch.  In the mean time, this award will have to suffice.

Granny Bird Award: Simpson-Bowles Enthusiasts

This edition of the Granny Bird Award (given from time to time to those who go out of their way to damage elders' rights and benefits) goes to those who continue to support the disastrous Simpson-Bowles "Grand Compromise", including those Democrats who have sold their souls on the issue.

After nearly a year of exposing the Simpson-Bowles report (which did not get the support of the Super Committee of which it was a part) for what it was, a gift to Wall Street, you'd think it would be dead. You would be wrong: vampires and the undead are in this year.

Fortunately, there are still people who are paying attention, people like Michael Hiltzig of the Los Angeles Times who notes that the report always brings to mind that classic cartoon sequence of Wiley Coyote, treading air, as he jumps off the cliff to catch the Roadrunner.

Is it that the debate over when and how to cure the federal deficit has reached new heights of cartoonish inanity? That we are now being treated to finger-wagging about the need to get our fiscal house in order by corporate CEOs like JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon (trading loss $5.8 billion and counting, potential cost to ratepayers from alleged manipulation of the California electricity market $200 million and counting).

Or is it that the remedies for the deficit always seem to involve cutting taxes for the top 1% of U.S. income earners while cutting Social Security retirement benefits (average monthly check: $1,230) for everyone else? ...

...there's still reason for most Americans to fear the deal-making aimed at avoiding the fiscal cliff. For one thing, the debate seems increasingly to be driven by the wealthy, who can be trusted to protect their own prerogatives while declaring everyone else's to be wasteful. Just two weeks ago, a squadron of CEOs and bankers, including Dimon and hedge fund billionaire Pete Peterson, lined up behind a campaign to impose adult supervision on our squabbling Congress. ...

The Simpson-Bowles plan has inexplicably become the starting point for deficit cutters in both parties. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who in 2010 pronounced a draft version "simply unacceptable," more recently has signaled that she'd support it. [Emphasis added]

Say what?

A plan to cut Medicare costs by forcing the elders to pay for vouchers for care they've already paid for by withholding taxes the past 30 or so years? Pelosi is in favor of such a plan? She'd garner votes in the House for that?

But, again, there's more:

In any environment of serious debate, Simpson-Bowles would be dismissed out of hand. Praised for its sober bipartisan spirit, it's a compendium of flatulent platitudes ("We all have a patriotic duty to make America better off tomorrow than it is today"), vague prescriptions ("cut all excess spending" and "avoid excessive taxation" — as if reaching broad agreement on the meaning of "excessive" is a snap), and the occasional nostrum that earns a "not" on the gonna-happen scale (strip down the mortgage-interest deduction). According to some estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the plan's sample cuts in the tax deductions wouldn't replace the revenue lost to its proposed reductions in marginal tax rates. ...

The single program getting the bulk the Simpson-Bowles plan's attention is Social Security, which in fact contributes not a dime to the federal deficit, and can't by law. Something else is at work here other than deficit reduction: It's a plan to cut benefits to seniors by ratcheting back on inflation protection and sharply cutting the benefit formula for everyone, starting with those whose average lifetime earnings are $9,000 a year.

What's riskiest about Washington's peculiar approach to deficit cutting, which erodes the programs most important to working Americans while preserving those enjoyed by the wealthy, is that it could sap the resolve of President Obama and his Democratic colleagues to end tax cuts on high levels of income while extending them for average and low-income earners. [Emphasis added]

Hello?

Once again, this "Grand Compromise" gives everything to the Wall Street Banksters and their 1% owners and nothing to the rest of us. We didn't cause the financial melt-down. Social Security didn't screw up the economy. Why is this set of lies still getting any currency?

Hiltzig has a response to that:

...as much as corporate CEOs and other privileged incumbents claim they're concerned about the future, it's their future they mean.

Exactly.

Maybe it's time we start insisting that our future, and that of our children and grandchildren, the ones who will actually be paying for this nonsense, receive some attention.

Elder Belle's Blessing: Michael Hiltzik

(Photo by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

This edition of Elder Belle's Blessing, an award given from time to time to someone who has enhanced the rights or well-being of elders, goes to Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzig for his outstanding article detailing the efforts of Wall Street and other members of the 1% to derail Social Security by pitting younger people against the elders and the surprising push-back by that younger generation.

For years now, efforts to set young against old have been linchpins in campaigns to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and turn those programs over to the private sector. The basic tactic is to portray those programs as giveaways to undeserving seniors that rip off the young; the goal is to turn the ostensibly dispossessed young into an effective political counterweight to reform-resistant elderly. ...

For example, billionaire investor and deficit hawk Peter G. Peterson's charitable foundation has spent millions of dollars in recent years trying to inculcate college students via essay contests, social affairs and curricular materials with the idea that programs like Social Security and Medicare are sapping their patrimony.

And, with the burgeoning deficit caused by the banksters and two wars fought off-budget by the Bush administration, the privatizing ghouls think they've got the perfect opportunity to push their agenda through, led by Alan Simpson:

Recently, the image of generational warfare has gained new currency as an adjunct to panic over the deficit. The talking point is that freewheeling spending today will condemn you youngsters to permanent servitude to a huge federal debt, so it's only proper to cut entitlements now.

Perhaps the most prominent dispenser of this argument is former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who has toured the country to promote the deficit-cutting plan he and Clinton-era White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles conjured up as co-chairs of President Obama's 2010 fiscal commission.

Their plan would cut benefits sharply for all but the poorest and oldest Americans, reduce cost-of-living increases and raise the retirement age, all of which would essentially transform Social Security from universal social insurance into something resembling a welfare program.

Fortunately, the next generations are no dummies. Hiltzig has discovered and tells us about some groups who actually get what's going on and are fighting back against the distortion and outright lies.

For me, this is the money quote:

"Wall Street and everyone who crashed the world economy has a really strong incentive to get young folks who are struggling to blame older folks who are likewise struggling, and no one will notice that the people pointing their fingers are the real culprits," [Alex] Lawson told me. "But once you get the truth out, young folks are well suited to figure out that the young and the old need to work together for the entire system."

Well done, Michael, and thank you.

Go read the entire column. It's well worth it.

Granny Bird Award: Alan Simpson

This edition of the Granny Bird Award (given from time to time to those who go out of their way to damage elders' rights and benefits) goes to former Senator Alan Simpson for his work on the bipartisan "cat food commission" and his comments thereafter explaining why Social Security is a socialist plot which was never intended to serve the interests of elders. I could have given him the award months ago, and probably should have, but I was holding off to see how far he could shove his foot in his mouth before someone in the press finally called him on his mendacity.

Michael Hiltzig did just that in a recent column in the Business Section of the Los Angeles Times.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who has long been the go-to guy for obnoxiously know-nothing takes on Social Security, this week uncorked yet another spectacularly misinformed "factoid" about the program's history.

In a letter to Max Richtman, a former Senate staffer who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Simpson asserted that Social Security's creators did not design it to be a retirement program. The letter dated Friday was obtained and made public by ABC News.

Simpson wrote in his unbelieveably rude and ignorant letter to Richtman: "You know damn well that the system was never created as a 'retirement' -- it was an 'income supplement' to take care of folks working in CCC camps and who lost everything in the Great Depression."

It's hard to know what to think of Simpson's version of history, but the term "sheer fantasy" comes to mind. ... [Emphasis added]

Hiltzig then proceeds to demolish Simpson's assertion by nailing down the actual history of the legislation and the express intentions behind it. It's clear that Simpson's allegations don't even merit the designation of "truthy", much less truth, but that certainly hasn't stopped Simpson from flapping his gums on the issue.

The man is a liar, and his lies go to the very heart of a program that is keeping a lot of us alive and eating. He is, to be polite, an arrant knave whose head is so far up his netherparts that major surgery would be required to restore any vision to him. Ironically, this is from a man who after three terms in the Senate retired with a cushy government pension and the best health care plan the American taxpayers can provide.

But here's the scary part, and Hiltzig nails it:

Alan Simpson obviously has a problem with the facts, and with the basic concept of civility in public discourse. Yet he's been held up by President Obama as a paragon of bipartisan policy-making. So here's a question for the president: Does Alan Simpson speak for him on Social Security? [Emphasis added]

It is the question that should also be posed to Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House who has suggested that the catfood commission's suggestions (no report ever issued) must be considered, and to every senator and representative in Congress. Apparently the Democrats have taken this as a fall-back position given the GOP's drive to completely demolish the system in favor of a Wall Street privatized version of retirement funding.

ENOUGH!!

Call, fax, write, email your congress critters and scream long and hard about this travesty. If the funding of the trust fund is such a concern remind them that the easiest, quickest, and smartest solution is raising the payroll deduction cap so that those who make more than $110,000 per year can pay a few bucks more to ensure that their parents and they themselves have a guaranteed income upon retirement.

Do it.

Now.

Granny Bird Award: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is the latest winner of the Granny Bird Award, that award given from time to time to those who go out of their way to harm the interests of the elders in this country. The GOP candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination earned this prize in particularly dramatic fashion: by trying to win the duel to see who could gut social security benefits the fastest.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits, risking the wrath of older voters and countless others who balk at changes to the entitlement program.

"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary. ...

This week, he told New Hampshire audiences that Americans over 65 were society's poorest age group in 1937, when Social Security was created. Now that group is the wealthiest, he said.

He also noted that Americans now live much longer, putting far bigger demands on the government retirement program. [Emphasis added]

Like his confreres, Santorum conveniently overlooks the fact that this program is not paid for by the government, but by money which each worker has deducted from his paycheck. Some of us paid into our accounts for nearly fifty years. It's our money they're talking about.

Further, while the Social Security Trust Fund will need some shoring up, that can be accomplished by simply raising the limit of earned income subject to the payroll tax by 5-10%. That will hardly bust those earning more than $106,000 per year.

Finally, as to the assertion that those over 65 years of age compromise the wealthiest group in the country, well, that's one he pulled out of the south end of his alimentary canal. Most baby boomers I know don't have the benefit of an employer-provided pension to supplement social security, and their 401k accounts have been decimated by the economic upheavals of the past ten years.

Little Ricky is playing us, and is doing so just to get votes. He's earned his award.

Not Quite Surprising News

According to the Republican presidential candidates, it's time to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The programs are too expensive and too poorly run to keep in their present form. That isn't all that surprising. Wall Street doesn't like all that money tied up in government programs when it could be all tied up in the banksters' and streeters' ledgers. And the Tea Partiers have made it clear that they want a smaller government and less money flowing from their pockets into the government coffers. The candidates, along with a lot of congress critters, have a mandate from the voters.

Or do they?

Perhaps not, according to a recent poll taken of Republican voters in Florida.

Florida Republican voters have a clear feeling about cuts to Medicare and Social Security: Don’t do it, according to a new poll by the AARP.

By wide margins, the survey shows that Republicans of all kinds — whether they’re Hispanic, moderates or in the tea party — would rather fix the nation’s budget by withdrawing from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, eliminating foreign aid or eliminating so-called tax loopholes. ...

The issues are particularly important in Florida, which has the largest number of retirees in the nation. The poll shows that 60 percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida are retired, and that 87 percent of all respondents say Social Security benefits are or will be important to their retirement. Nearly 45 percent say they rely on Medicare for health insurance.

If you think about it, this isn't all that surprising, either. It's a form, I guess, of NIMBYism. "Cut, but not those programs which are important to me." And the numbers are pretty dramatic:

But even modest changes to benefits for future retirees are opposed by 66 percent of voters, the poll shows. Only 27 percent favor future reductions, which could include raising the retirement age, though the poll didn’t specifically address that issue.

Asked if they favored or opposed reducing Medicare benefits to help reduce the deficit, only 22 percent liked the idea. About 70 percent didn’t.

When given predetermined choices to cut the deficit, most voters wanted to “eliminate tax loopholes” (40 percent), cut foreign aid (34 percent) or reduce involvement in foreign wars (18 percent). [Emphasis added]

Quite a disconnect with the voters, there. And it just leaves Wall Street as wanting those government programs switched to the market place, which also is not all that surprising. After all, there has to be a reason why even some Democrats in Congress are willing to go after these programs in some grand attempt at reducing the deficit without hurting the feelings of our owners.

So the voters, regardless of party affiliation, have some work to do. One place to start is with the current crop of elected officials. Rep. John Conyers has an idea that I think is a good one. Click on over to his web site and join him in "co-sponsoring" a bill which will leave these programs in place. Let Congress know what the 99%, those who actually do the electing, think of shredding the safety net.

Like I said, it's a good place to start.

Mitt Joins The Crowd

The entire contingent of GOP candidates for president appear to have only one thing in common: bashing Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Yesterday, Mitt Romney joined them with his own proposal to carve up these "entitlements". I'd have awarded Mitt the "Granny Bird Award" but his plans were too hazy, too ambiguous to nail down, so he will have to wait for the coveted award. I'm sure it will be real soon, now, that he will fill in the blanks enough for me to make my decision.

Romney's proposals to reduce federal spending to 20% of the nation's gross domestic product by 2016 were far-reaching but often lacked specifics.

The former Massachusetts governor said he would lower the cost of Social Security by raising the eligibility age for benefits, but he did not specify how quickly those changes would be phased in. He estimated that he could achieve tens of billions of dollars in savings by capping the cost of Medicaid, the federal program that provides medical care to the poor, and allowing the states to take it over — a move his campaign said would "empower them to innovate."

In one of the most controversial elements of his plan, Romney proposed a major restructuring of Medicare, which currently provides health insurance to about 47 million elderly and disabled people. Under the changes, Medicare would become just one of many plans that seniors could purchase with a new "premium support" system that would give them a set amount of money each year to purchase a plan. [Emphasis added]

What we have here is a little me-too-ism, some "I can cut Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid just like the other guys." Extending the work life of roofers, mechanics, waitresses, and all of the rest of us at a time when the job market is non-existent for all but farm laborers working at subsistence levels is such utter cheap-sausage that I'm surprised the wealthy scion took so long to discover it. At least he's smart enough to not disclose just how soon the changes would be phased in. He knows the nomination is one thing, but winning the general election is another.

As to his proposals on Medicare and Medicaid, he really hasn't revealed much more than his colleagues have already set out. These safety nets, nets woven by contributions made by the recipients over the years, are superfluous. Let the market decide, the market driven by profit not the timely and effective provision of health care.

Yesterday I pointed to the staggering number of people who now fit into the category of the "poorest of the poor." Mitt and his cohorts are obviously not satisfied that only 1 of 15 Americans are mired in deep poverty. Their goal is raise that number, especially among the elderly.

Morons.

Granny Bird Award: The Washington Post

It didn't take long for a new Granny Bird Award, an award which is given from time to time to individuals or groups who adversely affect the rights and interests of the elders, especially if they go out of their way to do so. I guess it's a sign of the times.

This one goes to the Washington Post for its article on Social Security.

Now, Social Security is sucking money out of the Treasury. This year, it will add a projected $46 billion to the nation’s budget problems, according to projections by system trustees. Replacing cash lost to a one-year payroll tax holiday will require an additional $105 billion. If the payroll tax break is expanded next year, as President Obama has proposed, Social Security will need an extra $267 billion to pay promised benefits.

But while talk about fixing the nation’s finances has grown more urgent, fixing Social Security has largely vanished from the conversation. [Emphasis added]

The article is wrong on so many bases it's hard for a mere mortal to know where to start. Fortunately, Paul Krugman, no mere mortal, rather gracefully pointed out the most basic flaws in his blog post:

In legal terms, the program is funded not just by today’s payroll taxes, but by accumulated past surpluses — the trust fund. If there’s a year when payroll receipts fall short of benefits, but there are still trillions of dollars in the trust fund, what happens is, precisely, nothing — the program has the funds it needs to operate, without need for any Congressional action.

Social Security is not sucking money out of the treasury. It is still solvent and will be for a good while. Why the Washington Post didn't mention that fact is pretty clear evidence of what's really afoot: the GOP wants to dismantle the program and push us all into the stock market by privatizing a safety net and the paper is only too willing to help catapult the propaganda.

Atrios got it right

And, no, sensible liberals, there is no way to make this "debate" go away with some "grand compromise." Fake news articles like this should make that clear. The rich want that Social Security money, it's how they guarantee themselves a lovely tax cut.

Morons. Evil, evil morons.