Tag: wbur

I prefer to post fun stuff on this blog, but sometimes political happenings really get me going. Right now it’s the Republican fight against the scheduled expiration of the tax cuts, combined with Alan Simpson’s apparent dominance of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Simpson is the man who, this past August, said…

“Yes, I’ve made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know ’em too. It’s the same with any system in America. We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits!”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014698-503544.html

Social Security is not, at this time, counted as part of deficit. It simply isn’t in the budget that is proposed by the President every year. Here, read it for yourself:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

During the Bush years, Republicans had a habit of pretending Social Security could be used for computing the deficit. Why? Because it had a surplus and made the deficit appear smaller. After Bill Clinton left office with a true budget surplus, what did Bush do? Instead of applying it to the national debt, he cut taxes. This is why I don’t believe Republicans when they say they’re desperately concerned about the deficit.

Something else that bugs me about the need to adjust Social Security, is that I keep hearing how much longer Americans live than they did when Social Security was introduced. Well, we do live longer, but only by about five years.

…the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

As expected, liberal economist Paul Krugman isn’t happy with the commission’s recommendations.

Matters become clearer once you reach the section on tax reform. The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.

So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Here is a discussion on the Fiscal Responsibility and Reform commission, from Friday’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook, a Boston-based NPR program. Jack Beatty sums it up succinctly.