money and politics

[gsh]

The deficit commission is starting to leak at least some of the recommendations. I took a look, and while they take direct aim at civil servants, they seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the problem with social security, and had a set of 8 recommendations that, taken together, look like they will solve the problem.

However, one of the recommendations calls for a tax increase, which means no republicans will support it, and
one recommendation calls for a benefit cut, which means no democrats will support it.

Back to the drawing board I guess.

Comments

[arashinomoui.livejournal.com]

Social Security isn't the problem though. And if it is fixed, it won't change the current deficit forecast (that whole the money going in pay the benefits out thing; the issue is when the money coming in doesn't cover the benefits going out) - but the difference is rather minimal in the grand schemes of things:


Remove the ceiling on Social Security and you are probably a good ways there, I think I read something 90% of the fix. Perhaps some age raising, but that gets into a white-collar bias - sure *I* can work till I'm 70, but the guy who is hauling crates? Not so much. Let alone the ageism that creeps into the job market when you are trying to get a job in your late 40s and 50s.

Means testing is just a way to kill it down the road when upper middle income folks have no stake in it any longer, IMO.

The killer is medicare/medicaid expenditures - those are what are blossoming out of control, and of course that's no where under any sort of real discussion- Republicans just ran under a "Democrats are going to take away your health care" and won the elderly vote in droves; which means no cuts, and are deeply opposed to the idea that you can make a budget by increasing the revenue, not just decreasing expenditures.

[gsh]

Well, SS *is* a problem, although not nearly the biggest one we face. My point was if we can't solve an easy one like SS, how will we ever fix the hard ones?

[leimon-malakoi.livejournal.com]

Do you mind posting the link you used as a source for that graph?

[arashinomoui.livejournal.com]

I saw it here: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/most-important-social-security-chart

It was pulled from the trustee's report here: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf (page 15 to be exact)

[arashinomoui.livejournal.com]

Page 14 of the document, page 22 of the PDF.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Doing the 'right' fiscal thing involves cutting a lot of federal spending and curtailing/ending a number of popular 'hand out' programs.

The truth of the matter is, programs that help you and almost everyone, are going to get cut back and/or ended, and you are going to pay higher taxes.

Both of which are highly unpopular and I don't think that elected officials will do anything meaningful until the national version of "the sheriff is on the doorstep with an eviction notice" happens... and at that point we will need to make MASSIVE cuts in everything, probably to the point that the 1920's look like happy times in comparison.

[gsh]

I notice that the "deficit commission" still calls for large tax cuts, most of which go to the upper 20% in income. It would be nice if "the deficit is too large, you'll have to pay higher taxes" wasn't a controversial statement. But it is.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Yep large cuts in rates, but substantial changes in deductions, so its hard for me to make any personal assement as to how it changes the net tax burden for any income group.

[gsh]

I may be overly pessimistic, but I generally find that assuming that for most members of congress "screw the poor, how do I most help the rich" is an accurate reflection of what happens.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

The rich help pay for the adds that get you reelected, so its a reasonable course to expect for most of the congress-critters.

[mtnwlf.livejournal.com]

I believe its just that kind of thinking that's getting us into trouble. The rich do NOT put a critter in congress in America, the PEOPLE do. It takes a majority vote, just like it has for 200+ years. What's changed are the people, who have been incorrectly told and foolishly believe that only the rich get their way from Congress. The rich get their way cause they have power of money and they buy a loud voice that appears powerful to represent the few. The people have only the power of their VOTES but they will always possess the potential for the loudest voice. It says more about our generation than I like to think that the majority of us can't be bothered to vote. It says worse that we allow the few to tell the many "No" in the name of money, fear and exploitation.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Money puts ads and opinion on the street. True or not, the advertising helps sway the voters.

You can't put the image forward without money. You might in a small town, running for a small office be able to do a campaign on personal finance. However, any substantial state level office is going to take 100's of thousands to millions of dollars to mount an effective campaign.

I agree that more people need to vote, but I don't know how you motivate/inspire people to vote.

[mtnwlf.livejournal.com]

Me neither. *sigh*