{"id":5341,"date":"2011-07-08T02:01:35","date_gmt":"2011-07-08T09:01:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=5341"},"modified":"2011-07-08T02:01:35","modified_gmt":"2011-07-08T09:01:35","slug":"outrage-over-social-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2011\/07\/08\/outrage-over-social-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Outrage Over Social Security"},"content":{"rendered":"

While I\u2019m still waiting to see what actually happens, before I make any condemnations, more information is now available, and the outrage expressed by congressional Democrats is a story on it\u2019s own.  Adjusting the COLA to reflect the effects of austerity is absurd.  If austerity makes Senior citizens switch to eating dog food, because they can no longer afford cat food, this plan would say their cost of living is less because of it and reduce their COLA.  Decreasing the increase by $0.14 per month, may sound tiny, but I ran  a spreadsheet.  It\u2019s a lot more than it appears.  Let look at this and at some of the reactions to this news.<\/font><\/p>\n

In my spreadsheet, I discovered that, after ten years, a Social Security check would be $16.80 less than it would have been without the change, and the total cost to the beneficiary would be $1,016.40.  After twenty years, the check would be $33.46 less, and the total reduction, $4,032.00.  And after thirty years the check is down $50.12, and the total reduction, $9,046.80.  That is NOT tiny.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"8SocialSecurity\"Last night, rumors began flying<\/a> that the president would offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. The administration is now trying<\/a> to stem the tide of outrage, suggesting that the President merely wants to "strengthen" Social Security. Never mind that as Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Robert Johnson and Thomas Ferguson have clearly shown<\/a>, the program is strong today and predictions about shortfalls decades down the road are wildly exaggerated. We asked Roosevelt fellows and friends to weigh in on the Social Security fracas.<\/p>\n

Richard Kirsch, Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute:<\/h6>\n

"Here are three numbers that tell the whole story on Social Security: $14,000; 90%; $0.<\/p>\n

$14,000<\/strong> is the average amount<\/a> that a retiree gets a year from Social Security. A related number is 19.8 million, the number of people (including retirees; surviving spouses and the disabled) who are kept above<\/a> the already skimpy federal poverty line because they collect even those low Social Security payments. Social Security makes up <\/strong>90% or more of income<\/strong><\/a> for one-third of older Americans and 50% of income for half of retirees<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

90% is the proportion of earnings that, if taxed at that level, would assure that Social Security is fully solvent for the next 75 years. For years that was the share of earnings on which workers paid Social Security, but the current level<\/a> is closer to 83%. While middle-income wages have stagnated, upper incomes have grown rapidly, so that the Social Security cap of $106,800 in 2011 (the same as in 2010) is applied to a lower portion of earnings than it has been historically<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

$0 is the amount that Social Security has contributed to the federal deficit. Ever<\/font><\/strong>\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Huffington Post<\/a>><\/p>\n

Since Social Security beneficiaries have not caused a penny of the debt, asking them to pay it off is ludicrous.<\/font><\/p>\n

Keith Olbermann covered the story in two segments on Countdown<\/a>.<\/font><\/p>\n