Geithner on White House Plans to “Fix” Social Security

So they did some projections and found that if they keep stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for planes that the Defense Department doesn't want at the current pace, it will be "exhausted" four years earlier than projected -- in 2037.

In honor of this remarkable event where the government suddenly cares about paying for something with money it won't have thirty years from now, because after all the security of old people is not as critical as the security of the banking system, Secretary Geithner releases a statement:

"Despite projections that Social Security can continue to pay full benefits for nearly 30 years, the sooner action is taken the more options for reform will be available and the fairer reforms will be to our children and grandchildren.

"To ensure that these critical programs are there for future generations, the President and his Administration are taking the following steps.

"First, we are intently focused on bringing the current economic and financial crisis to an end and getting on with recovery. The return of robust growth will help solve some--but by no means all--of the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare.

"Second, we are reforming the health care system to get costs under control and improve quality, which will strengthen the Medicare program and improve the long-term fiscal position of the U.S. government. Just yesterday, the President worked with major health care providers to secure a commitment to reduce costs of care by more than $2 trillion dollars. These voluntary efforts will complement the President's efforts to enact comprehensive reform to assure quality and affordable health care for every American. The Administration is committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures while ensuring that all Americans receive the high quality, affordable health care they deserve.

"Finally, after we have passed health care reform that puts our nation on a path to lower growth in health care costs and expanded affordable coverage, this President will work to build a bipartisan consensus to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security. The President explicitly rejects the notion that Social Security is an untouchable politically and instead believes there is opportunity for a new consensus on Social Security reform.

Translated: Anyone who bought that ten-dimensional chess crap about the administration having no plans to cut Social Security benefits: psyche!

Continued>>>
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/13/geithner-on-white-house-plans-to-fix-social-security/

Thereby making a bigger pile of money to use for other things. I would not be surprised if more of the FICA tax burden is shifted to the employee side too. Bet on it.

Doubt if we can take much more on our end.

Masquerading as "self-employment" tax.

.
That means it is now touchable under a Dem administration after we fought so hard to keep Bush away from it.

:puke:

meaning those who earn beyond the cap, will now have to continue paying in.
I have not heard that they were going to increase the retirement age nor cut benefits.

From Obama's mouth.....
"Right now, the Social Security payroll tax is capped. That means most middle-class families pay this tax on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income. That's why I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected. That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden onto seniors. And we should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase so that the change doesn't burden middle-class Americans. This means that 97 percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan—97 percent."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/06/13/obama-plans-a-massive-hike-in-social-security-taxes.html

Is there anything the Geithner or Obama has recently said that would point to something else? I don't see it in this article....in terms of anything said.

Especially after they retire. The rich don't have to go back to work in order to survive. They live off dividends and interest. So they have no "earned income" to report and be taxed additionally on. There is another cap which is the amount a retiree can "earn" before they are penalized. The rich in most cases would actually lose their social security if their dividend and interest income were reported as "earned" income. Instead most get the maximum benefit and use it to buy little extras with each month. Because while they have income it is not "earned" income.

The rich have more schemes to avoid taxes with than Ponzi could have ever dreamed up. All of them quite legal - all of them written into the tax code. By a complicit Congress. Ponzi's real mistake was not buying a couple of senators. Too bad Phil Gramm wasn't around. Ponzi would have become a standard business model for Wall Street. Although in a way, he is.

They won't cut benefits. But they also won't increase them significantly. Forcing more and more to go back to work in order to survive. Quite a country we live in.

The rich are getting richer. Everyone else is heading for the freeway underpasses.

If you remove the cap, and even lower the percentage rate so that those up to $250k don't have any increase of payroll tax liability, it would be a progressive tax cut for those under $250k, get more money into the system for both medicare and social security payouts, and make it more expensive to keep workers over $250k on the payroll than those under $250k for businesses than it is now.

That plus the Medicare report is a means to claim using a similar program to fix the health care crisis isnt viable.

Ideally we would just have Medicare for all in this country. Sliding scale universal health care. The problem is they would have to overhaul Medicare which seems to be tied more into the needs of the private health care providers and co-insurance carriers than the needs of the elderly. It has become a nightmare for the elderly.

D as in disaster...

Everybody ought to have medicare.

If you're on Medicare, you're the first person who said it was great. More and more providers, particularly the "preventative care clinics" are no longer accepting Medicare. That in itself a major problem.

I have no insurance, I think it would be great too. The problem is not Medicare, the problem is ridiculous cost structures in the "Health Care" system.

Damn, just damn.

with interest. That should carry SS well into the next century!

Anyone who can lie that easily doesn't belong in a (D) administration.

For those of you who don't get it, there is no reduction, no savings or anything else except for a hollow promise by the insurance companies to REDUCE THE RATE OF GROWTH of our health insurance costs to a level below what is forecast. In the same ten years, the industry can expect to increase their own profit by at least that much and, given that they're ONLY in it for the $$$$, I expect much, much more.

It's pretty much the same as any of us saying we saved a cool million by not buying that loft in NYC, or that we're millionaires because that's how much we'll have made by the time we can afford to retire at age 97. It's not real and there's not a reason in the world they would follow through once they've killed a public, not-for-profit option.

If these are the standards we can expect from the Obama administration regarding logic and the use of language, then there's not much hope for progress. You can call it whatever you like - manipulation, massaging the message, etc... - but we've had enough lies. It's time for some hard truths and for our government to serve the people, not the corporations.

If we want universal coverage, we're going to have to fight like hell for it. There's too damn much money at stake for the corporations and the politicians they own to give in without a fight to the death - and, make no mistake, it is us or them. They don't care whether we're healthy or not, as long as the river of money keeps flowing their way.

Obama's change is not change we can believe in. He'd better find a new slogan.