Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Here is some fear mongering:
Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress.
And he’s one of many Republican candidates touching the “third rail” of American politics and calling for cuts to long-term Social Security, against Democratic objections, per NBC News.
Mandela Barnes, Johnson’s Democratic opponent, accused him of “want[ing] to strip seniors of the benefits they’ve worked their entire lives for.”
Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for Senate from Arizona, offered the “fresh and innovative idea” to “privatize Social Security” during a speech at a fiscal conservative forum this June. He later recanted that idea, but Democrats showcased footage of those comments in TV ads asking voters to “say no” to Masters.
In February, Senate Republican campaign chair Rick Scott (R–Fla.) published “An 11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” which included a call to sunset “all federal legislation” in five years unless Congress opts to pass that legislation again.
And:
Bloomberg’s Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed several Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt-ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs. “Our main focus has got to be on nondiscretionary — it’s got to be on entitlements,” said Representative Buddy Carter. Representative Jodey Arrington said he wants “eligibility reforms,” which means raising the eligibility age and imposing a means test for Social Security and Medicare benefits. “We should ensure that we keep the promises that were made to the people who really need it, the people who are relying on it,” said Representative Lloyd Smucker. “So some sort of means-testing potentially would help to ensure that we can do that.”
It might seem strange that Republicans would be pivoting to a more aggressive agenda without holding the White House. But this is actually consistent with the strategy they have followed over the past three decades. Republicans are committed to scaling back the safety net. But they realize this agenda is toxically unpopular — even less popular than defunding the police, a policy Democrats have repudiated en masse.
They could try to accomplish this through compromise — the previous two Democratic presidents showed some willingness to trade social-spending cuts for higher taxes on the rich. But higher taxes on the rich are completely verboten in the GOP. And so their strategy is to force Democratic presidents to sign spending cuts into law against their will.
The 1995–96 Republican Congress instigated a series of government shutdowns in the belief they could force Bill Clinton to accept cuts to taxes and social programs. This crusade blew up in their faces and helped Clinton win reelection. But rather than abandon it, they tried it again under Barack Obama, this time using the debt ceiling as the hostage of choice. That, too, failed.
But the Republican plan is to try it again with Biden. They are already floating their message: The Republicans will insist they won’t raise the debt ceiling unless Biden agrees to Republican-designed spending cuts, and they will blame him for the global meltdown if he refuses their demands. “If Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely he wouldn’t try to default,” said Representative Jason Smith, the prospective chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.
And while this tactic has never worked before, it has the theoretical attraction of evading the public’s deep aversion to the GOP policy agenda by extorting the Democrats into endorsing it.
Last June, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that includes more than three-quarters of the House Republicans, released a sweeping domestic-budget plan. It received little attention in the mainstream media. The plan, notes Fitzpatrick, would
gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to “phase-in an increase in means testing” for Medicare.
On top of partially cutting Medicare and Social Security and partially privatizing the latter, the RSC plan would implement various regressive tax cuts favored by the GOP.
|
"Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress."
Oh, that's fear mongering! Then why are public teachers allowed to not take part in Social Security? As always, it's ok when liberals benefit from participation being voluntary, but you say it's fear mongering when a Republican suggests it.
"Mandela Barnes, Johnson’s Democratic opponent, accused him of “want[ing] to strip seniors of the benefits they’ve worked their entire lives for.”"
Nowhere in your quote attributed to Johnson, did he come close to saying he'd take away benefits that people paid for.
You want to see a lying fear monger? Look in the mirror.
SS and Medicare are programs where current benefits are paid for, by people currently contributing. Which necessarily means benefits for todays younger people are NOT funded by their own contributions, but rather rely on future contributions of future participants.
There's a term for that kind of structure. It's called a Ponzi scheme. I'm not saying SS and Medicare were set up to defraud anyone, but they are nonetheless ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes don't usually end well for people who come along later, the math is especially unfavorable to generations after the baby boomers.
If I could opt out of SS today (meaning I'd walk away from everything I've ever contributed, never see any benefit, never pay another cent in SS taxes, let the feds keep the taxes I've paid so far), Id jump at the chance. I'd be crazy not to do so. This is precisely why teachers bought their way out of it, because it stinks.
Are you telling us you'd rather pay into SS for 45 years, instead of being able to privatize your contributions, and invest them yourself? You gong to say that with a straight face? You wouldn't be way better off putting that money into an age-indexed mutual fund?
Why do teachers deserve the benefit of not being dragged into it? Why is their well being more important than everyone elses?