(10-25-2018 11:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 07:08 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles...10876.html

This is when you need a Ronald Reagan.

"Democrats in Congress have seized on recent comments by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to accuse Republicans of planning to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid if the GOP holds onto power after the midterm election. If only it were so!

Alas, what McConnell actually said is the opposite of what Democrats are claiming. He didn’t say Republicans will move forward with plans to reform entitlements if they win the election. Rather, he said they won’t pursue such an agenda on their own because they fear the political consequences of doing so.


In an interview with Bloomberg News, McConnell was clearly trying to explain to disappointed fiscal conservatives why Republicans — with control of both Congress and the White House — have done nothing to get government spending, deficits, and debt under better control. McConnell argued, correctly but incompletely, that the primary problem in the federal budget is the steady and rapid growth in spending on entitlement programs over many years. He then conceded that the GOP won’t do anything about this problem without the cooperation of some Democrats because an effort led by Republicans alone would be too politically perilous...."

I'm in favor or looking at ways to reform entitlements. There are a few issues to clear up first:

1) What the definition of entitlement is. As far as I'm concerned, something that I've paid in to for decades with the guarantee of something in return for having money taken from my check IS NOT an entitlement. An entitlement is something that people think they have a right to even though they've done nothing to deserve it.

2) Before we start taking that which was guaranteed and earned, we need to first cut back on that which there is no right to.

3) Before we start talking about reforms, specifically adjusting benefits downward, we should make sure that fraud and abuse is eliminated to the best of our ability.

4) We need to reexamine just WHO is eligible to collect and from whom.

After we come to agreement on those, let's talk.

First. Political propaganda works. The idea that "entitlement" is a bad thing is proof of that.
An entitlement is something you have a right to. Receiving Social Security benefits and Medicare coverage in exchange for having enough quarters of coverage by paying at least a set threshold of tax for enough quarters is the very definition of an entitlement.

Second. Social Security probably does need to be rethought. It serves a valuable purpose. It prevents workers and their dependents going to into abject poverty in the event they failed to save for when they were no longer able to work or because of bad luck had some event that wiped out most or all of their savings. Retirees are in general good for the economy until they are no longer able to travel and move about independently because they smooth out the tourism industry taking advantage of discounted rates during months kids are in school. They tend to invest their cash in a conservative manner which means more capital for banks to loan. They expand the market for luxury goods for their own enjoyment or purchasing gifts for family.
Sure Bill Gates is never going to NEED a Social Security check but the cornerstone of the program is it is for all workers. If he were 100% invested in Microsoft and everyone followed my lead and switched to Linux and LibreOffice wiping out Microsoft, Gates would still be able to collect about $2400 a month in Social Security.

Now "investing" the Social Security trust fund at essentially 0% interest wasn't one of the finer decisions by Congress. Overall we'd probably be better of doing what one of the Nordic countries (Sweden maybe?) did which was retain a defined benefit old age pension but permit workers to direct the investment of a portion of the tax paid in (I want to say 15% choosing among a small handful of broad funds) and required all employers to also run their own plan primarily paid for by deductions from wages though I think is a bit of an employer contribution. Those plans are generally like our 401k as I understand it with broader investment possibilities. Most low wage workers would benefit more from expanding their retirement savings than from raising minimum wage.

Fraud and abuse is around 0.4% of Social Security outlays. Medicare is somewhat higher. The problem on both programs is the sequester has resulted in fewer people being on staff to investigate. Both programs have been pounded the past few years in their capacity to chase down problems. That 0.4% is not a net value that's just the higher end estimate of what is paid out improperly. There is also money flowing in improperly. In 2015 it was discovered that there are over 6 million Social Security numbers in use by people who would 112 years old or older. Only 13 were being used to claim benefits. The rest? Some are just identity theft to try to take out fraudulent loans and some are being used by illegal workers who are paying in but will never collect and of course some are just typos.

W. wanted workers to be able to invest some of their money other than in US Treasuries. But it got demagogued to death.