Favorite

Social Security is for the rich 

You're an average working stiff who earns less than $87,000 a year, so they take payroll taxes out of the first and last dollar you earn each week to pay your Social Security when you retire. The payroll taxes that you and everyone else who draws wages or a salary for a living are giving the government far more money than it needs every year to pay current benefits, but it's all recorded there in the Social Security Trust Fund ledger and the treasury will be obliged to pay you when the time comes. Now let's say that the wise leaders of your government make this proposition to you: "Because of your generosity in paying so much into the Social Security Trust Fund to make it solvent far into the century and pay as well for the other costs of benevolent government, we're now able to reduce the income taxes on our richest friends and eliminate all taxes on the vast estates of untaxed wealth that they will leave when they die. Your surplus tax payments into the Social Security Trust Fund will help us continue to pay the government's bills - war and what have you - since the rich and big corporations won't be paying too much into the treasury anymore." Would you give them your blessing? And what if they proposed going a little further: "Since things are getting a little tight after eliminating so much of the tax burden of the rich and corporations, we know you won't mind if we reduce the benefits that we promised when you retire." Does that sound like a good deal? But this is not a fantasy. It is exactly what the government - the Bush administration and the Republican Congress - have done and what they now propose. And it is the explanation for the latest bogus Social Security scare roused by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Bush Treasury Department. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but so far their bluff has not been challenged. Here's the truth: Social Security is robust, in fact about the healthiest program in all of government. It can pay the full benefits promised by current law to all the baby boomers for the next 38 years, after which it would either need an infusion of more cash or a reduction in benefits. Raising the income ceiling would make it solvent through most of the 21st century. Social Security is not the fiscal crisis, but Greenspan, George W. Bush and his treasury buffoons just don't want to say what it is. Three tax cuts in three years, mainly benefiting the richest Americans and the most profitable corporations, have plunged the nation into the scariest fiscal crisis in 70 years and now even your payroll tax dollars can't paper over their misdeeds. That's why Greenspan gravely called for adjustments in Social Security benefits and Bush ignorantly called again for partial privatization of Social Security - to get this deficit spending under control. Let's go over this one more time: Reducing payroll taxes and diverting them into private stock accounts, as Bush proposes, would make the budget deficits $1 trillion worse, not better, over the next 10 years. Nobody seems to be able to explain it to him. A little history might illuminate this discussion. President Ronald Reagan asked Congress in 1981 to sharply reduce taxes, mainly for high-income people, who would invest the extra money and create jobs, which in turn would produce massive new government revenue and eliminate the modest budget deficits of that time. But it tripled the deficits instead. So the next year he raised excise taxes, paid by the little people, to make up some of the loss. Then in 1983, on the recommendation of the Greenspan commission, Reagan and friends phased in a series of payroll tax increases on workers. The taxes weren't needed to fund Social Security, but the huge trust surpluses would pay down the burgeoning deficits spawned by the Reagan tax cuts and military spending. See, Social Security could then borrow more easily in the future when it needed the cash because it had held down the national debt. That's where we found ourselves when Bush took office in 2001, after promising in the campaign never - NEVER - to use Social Security funds to pay the bills of the rest of government. By then, remember, the rest of government was running a surplus, too, though a small one. He pushed through the Republican Congress the first of three tax income cuts. The first one amounted to 6.2 percent of the annual income for households receiving more than $1 million a year in income. For middle-class taxpayers the break amounted to a few hundred dollars - at most, 2.5 percent of their household income. The huge surpluses vanished overnight, and the government is running a deficit approaching $600 billion this year, so Social Security is again paying down nearly $200 billion a year of it. Now Bush is seeking more tax cuts from corporations and the wealthy and more hits on Social Security - to save it, you understand. Do you see the pattern here? If he were as honest as Gov. Earl Long, who was asked to explain to Louisiana people how he had promised them one thing and done the opposite, Bush would say, "tell 'em I lied." He won't, but he did.
Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Ernest Dumas

  • ACA will stand

    If you are worried about your health care — and that ought to be nearly everyone — pay no attention to the triumphant tweet of President Trump last Friday or the hurrah the same day from Leslie Rutledge, the Arkansas attorney general, after the most political judge in America declared the whole Affordable Care Act null and void.
    • Dec 20, 2018
  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • ACA will stand

    If you are worried about your health care — and that ought to be nearly everyone — pay no attention to the triumphant tweet of President Trump last Friday or the hurrah the same day from Leslie Rutledge, the Arkansas attorney general, after the most political judge in America declared the whole Affordable Care Act null and void.
    • Dec 20, 2018
  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • More »

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Of Freud and foolishness

    • Please tell me that the Times did not give Lyons money to produce this drivel…

    • on January 17, 2019
  • Re: Of Freud and foolishness

    • Perhaps, dss, the relevant data is found in the types of jobs held by men…

    • on January 16, 2019
  • Re: Of Freud and foolishness

    • Wondering what my name would be if not for Jonathan Swift. Probably Pamela.

    • on January 15, 2019
 

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation