From Firedoglake

I’ll bet you know a lot of good people who depend on their Social Security check.
Hard-working folks who have contributed their whole lives and now need those checks. Like my grandparents. Or your grandparents. Or your parents. Or you.
Well, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson was just caught on camera calling them “lesser people.”
That kind of condescending disrespect would be infuriating coming from anyone, but Senator Simpson isn’t just anyone. He’s a co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, which is charged with finding ways to cut the deficit.
And Simpson is joining with the other right-wing ideologues on the “deficit commission” to find a way to cut Social Security for those “lesser people”—even though Social Security hasn’t caused the deficit.
Someone with Senator Simpson’s disdainful attitude and ideological commitment to cutting Social Security has no business serving in this powerful position. This video shows it’s time for him to resign.
Can you check out the video, join our call for Simpson to resign, and then pass on the video to your friends?




Paul Krugman:


Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.
We went through all this at length back in 2005, but let me do this yet again.
Social Security is a government program funded by a dedicated tax. There are two ways to look at this. First, you can simply view the program as part of the general federal budget, with the the dedicated tax bit just a formality. And there’s a lot to be said for that point of view; if you take it, benefits are a federal cost, payroll taxes a source of revenue, and they don’t really have anything to do with each other.
Alternatively, you can look at Social Security on its own. And as a practical matter, this has considerable significance too; as long as Social Security still has funds in its trust fund, it doesn’t need new legislation to keep paying promised benefits.
OK, so two views, both of some use. But here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke.


And bear in mind what happens when payroll receipts fall short of benefits: NOTHING. No new action is required; the checks just keep going out.


So what does it mean that the co-chair of the commission is resurrecting this zombie lie? It means that at even the most basic level of discussion, either (a) he isn’t willing to deal in good faith or (b) the zombies have eaten his brain. And in either case, there’s no point going on with this farce.


On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.
Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.
But here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke [...]
So what does it mean that the co-chair of the commission is resurrecting this zombie lie? It means that at even the most basic level of discussion, either (a) he isn’t willing to deal in good faith or (b) the zombies have eaten his brain. And in either case, there’s no point going on with this farce.



In 1983, Congress agreed with the "Greenspan Commission" to raise SS taxes and begin "pre-funding" Social Security in anticipation of the baby boomers. Since then, the Trust Fund has been building a huge surplus, now at about $2.5 trillion. As the baby boomers retire, it will gradually use that surplus, plus continuing payroll taxes, plus interest on the US bonds it purchased with the surplus, to pay full benefits in coming decades.
Eventually (2037 or 2044 or later), it may need more revenues to continue paying full scheduled benefits in later decades, depending on what happens with economic growth, interest rates, etc. But its structure is basically sound for decades to come.



Republicans and Peter Peterson’s hired guns don’t want you to know that. They want you to think Social Security is in some "crisis" and somehow related to or causing the deficit.
It’s not. The Hager article, for example, says interest on the bonds shouldn’t count as part of the funds Social Security has available to pay benefits. That’s like saying the interest you’ve been earning on your retirement or savings account doesn’t belong to you. But that money clearly belongs to the Trust Fund, because the Trust Fund owns the US bonds earning that interest. That’s how Congress set it up. And the fact the US may have to raise money through some means — taxes, borrowing, printing, etc — to pay that interest or pay when the bonds are cashed in, isn’t a problem with the structure or solvency of Social Security.




Social Security is not going to go bankrupt this year or in the next 15 years. Cutting the deficit is the stupid way of trying to fix the problem. Never has cutting spending and taxes resulted in lowering ANY deficit. There are two simple ways to make sure Social Security is there for all of us.

First: Increase the tax ceiling. Actually remove the ceiling altogether! Currently if you make over $106,000 you pay no more into the fund, BUT you get more out later in life, Does this seem fair to you? It sure doesn't to me. If those who make more paid their fair share, we'd never even be considering this a problem.

Second: Forget about the deficit. The deficit didn't cause the potential problem with Social Security. Congressional greed did. They stole money from the fund to help their own districts for good old pork projects. Why should we here give up our Social Security money so Alan Simpson can build fences to keep in herds of cattle that are to be sold to the Japanese for less money than here in the states?

Our own representative, Jason Altmire, last time checked, was in favor of changing Social Security and not in a beneficial way for the seniors of this area. Call him and tell him not to touch Social Security and to demand Simpson resign. By the way, Altmire doesn't pay any extra tax on his salary over the $106,000 yet he makes over $165,000 per year. And he will get a higher proportion in Social Security because he paid NOTHING after that ceiling. Why should you and I give him part of our money if he doesn't contribute to the fund?

Call him today or try to live on a lot less tomorrow.

724 -226-1304