Social Security is just another entitlement for taxpayers to bear

The filthy bastards ought to be restoring SS, not tearing it down.

I agree with some of this, but I also think it promotes some common misconceptions about Social Security that confuse the debate. In the letter below, it says:

Social Security is part of the social safety net in this country, what Republicans like to call an "entitlement". There is nothing insulting about that. Social Security is not a retirement plan as the letter implies. You don't "pay into" it, you pay Social Security taxes. What you get from from Social Security is only very loosely tied to what you pay in taxes and people who never paid in at all can get Social Security payments. There is no real Social Security "interest" account or "lock box" other than as a paper exercise. It is also one of the most important poverty reduction programs of all time. It is completely reasonable that people who spent their entire lives contributing to the community are not left to rot in their later years, becoming a huge drain on the communities they spent so much time and effort building. Social Security is not a lavish retirement deal, it is just barely enough to keep someone in their home and maybe put some groceries on the shelves. My grandmother supported my grandfather through WWII, Korea and Vietman. He's been dead for twenty years. She has his small military retirement and Social Security. Without Social Security she would have no home and no food without family help. That's why we have Social Security, so that people don't have to become dependent in their later years on the fickle generosity of others after having given so much for so long.

Just let them repay what they "borrowed". Thank Reagan for this little book-keeping trick, cut taxes and borrow from SSI.

The only reason politicians allow defunding of SS and medicare and medicaid is so they can have more to play with. Why the people have not risen up against them, I can't figure out.

Don't you mean to thank the Dem controlled House? After all spending bills come from the House. The Dems ran The House for about 40 years. GOP didn't get control of The House until 1996. This is the funny part about politics.

It should also be noted that a majority of people get more back in SS payments then they ever paid into. I already know I'm not getting SS. There will be no money left.

You and me both, and then to top it, they point to the empty bank they robbed ans say the program is bankrupt and an "entitlement". Its like killing one's parents and pleading mercy for being an orphan.

The Republicans have held the House for 18 years and had all three branches of government for some of that time so I mean the Republican controlled House.

Which 18 years did the GOP control the House? The Dems controlled The House from 1949 until 1993. When talking about Reagan and spending bills you have to remember this. Unless you mean to say that The House was more bipartisan in those days. Then the same could be said about the Senate as it was held by the GOP for the first term under Reagan.

Did the GOP run the Senate like Reid runs the current Senate? Did the Dens run the House like Boner does?

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Agree with virtually everything you've written here.

In addition:

I get that someone is ticked off about raising eligibility ages but demographics were always bound to have their impact at some point. As prosperity grows, birth rates decline. The Baby Boomers are a generational anomaly that tax the system but offer no promise of a future demographic solution. I don't think people in their 20's and 30's should start hoping for a stunning victory in WWIII and a prosperous period of post-war peace.

There are a number of ways that they system can be "reformed" to assure its long term viability, but as we all have seen, SS Reform is for the congress what garlic is for vampires.

Raising the eligibility age makes sense to me. SS was never intended to finance or supplement a long period of retirement spanning decades. The very noble and important purpose of the program was to prevent people from living like beggars when they reached an age where they could no longer work. I'm all for long, enjoyable retirements, but that's just not what SS is intended to provide, and it's unsustainable.

Means testing also makes sense, although I think care has to be taken here. Clearly people with millions of dollars in post-retirement don't need the comparatively paltry amount of money SS provides and I doubt many of these folks would object very strongly to not getting paid. Unfortunately there aren't enough of these people to make a significant difference and so the means test will have to consider income levels where it is not quite so clear cut and resistance will be strong for reductions in benefits.

I don't know what the magic income level(s) is but we need to avoid penalizing people for financial prudence and foresight who have sacrificed during their earning years to ensure for a comfortable retirement. Someone making $300,000 a year can have $0 dollars saved and invested for their retirement. They will need every penny of their SS benefits, but it doesn't sit well to think that the guy who made the same amount but refrained from spending it all and saved for his retirement should have his SS benefits taken away or too sharply cut; particularly if those benefits were contemplated as expected income in his retirement plan.

This leads to a discussion of whether any current age group should be exempt from reforms. Whether or not they should be, the simple fact is that there will never be any reform if they are not. It a matter of equity though as well. If you are 55 years or older you've been in the work force for at least 35 years. You may have a pension but it may have gone bust. If you have planned for your retirement, you have considered your SS benefits as expected income. Unless it comes to a point where everyone is subject to reforms or no one gets any benefits, a carve out for people of a certain age (maybe it's 60) should be made.

As far as private investment mechanisms I think this makes sense as well providing there are the right controls. We can't allow people to make wildly speculative investments with individual SS accounts, lose it all and then look to society to step in and save them from their folly. This is exactly what would happen though and we would step in, and there would be an even bigger drain on the system. However an option could be offered where a certain % of your SS taxes would be place in an individual SS account and be available for investment in the sort of low risk, low return funds that most people have with their 401Ks.

People of my age are in fairly good shape, there should be enough money to pay benefits for the duration of our retirements (unless some breakthrough extends life expectancy by decades, in which case there is a lot more than SS to rethink) and we are likely to be exempted from any enacted reforms. To some extent this might mean we should just shut up and let those who really have something at stake decide what to do, but the irony is that the people who have the most to lose (young people) don't want to even bother thinking about SS, and so the people with very little or nothing to lose have the loudest voices, and their voices keep saying don't touch anything!

A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
1945-2010

Which party controls Congress? Which, the White House? The answer reveals the "balance of power" in the two branches of government that have elected officials (Congress and the White House).

Americans seem to prefer that the checks-and-balances envisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. This is reflected in the 2010 election results, which will take effect when Congress convenes in January 2011. While the Senate's Democratic majority will remain intact, Republicans will gain at least 60 seats in the House of Representatives, putting it at odds with the Democratically-controlled White House and Senate.

Contrary to popular belief, most of the time (in modern political history) Congress and the President are at odds; that is, most of the time the same political party does not control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Only 10 times (20 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party.

However, most of the time, Congress has been controlled by the same party. The "odd man out" has literally been the President. Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only five times (10 years). And there have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1945: one in 1949 and the other in 2007.

Also see A Guide To Sessions of Congress : Congressional Calendars, 1971-2008

Updated 5 January 2009
Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242

Yellow years mark Presidential inauguration.

Sources: Senate, House, Janda

* There were 50 Ds and 50 Rs until May 24, 2001, when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage.

** Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders (VT) gives the Democrats a one-seat majority.

** Two Independents and two vacancies (IL and MN)

A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
1945-2010

Which party controls Congress? Which, the White House? The answer reveals the "balance of power" in the two branches of government that have elected officials (Congress and the White House).

Americans seem to prefer that the checks-and-balances envisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. This is reflected in the 2010 election results, which will take effect when Congress convenes in January 2011. While the Senate's Democratic majority will remain intact, Republicans will gain at least 60 seats in the House of Representatives, putting it at odds with the Democratically-controlled White House and Senate.

Contrary to popular belief, most of the time (in modern political history) Congress and the President are at odds; that is, most of the time the same political party does not control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Only 10 times (20 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party.

However, most of the time, Congress has been controlled by the same party. The "odd man out" has literally been the President. Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only five times (10 years). And there have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1945: one in 1949 and the other in 2007.

Also see A Guide To Sessions of Congress : Congressional Calendars, 1971-2008

Updated 5 January 2009
Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242


Sources: Senate, House, Janda

* There were 50 Ds and 50 Rs until May 24, 2001, when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage.

** Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders (VT) gives the Democrats a one-seat majority.

** Two Independents and two vacancies (IL and MN)

PASS IT ON...........