Social Security Cuts Are Part of Deficit Plan

December 1, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (23)

WASHINGTON — Divisions remain within President Barack Obama's deficit commission on politically explosive budget cuts and slashes in Social Security benefits, even as the panel's co-chairmen go public with a revised plan to tame the runaway national debt.

The new plan by co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, unveiled Wednesday, faces an uphill slog. Resistance is certain, not only because of the idea of raising the Social Security retirement age, but also because of proposed cuts to Medicare, curtailment of tax breaks and a doubling of the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline.

Though the plan appears unlikely to win enough bipartisan support from the panel to be approved for a vote in Congress this year or next, Bowles has already declared victory, saying he and Simpson have at least succeeded in initiating an "adult conversation" in the country about the pain it will take to cut the deficit.

[Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

The plan faces opposition from many commission members. House Republicans appear uniformly against tax increases, while liberal Democrats like Jan Schakowsky of Illinois appear unlikely to be able to accept big cuts in federal programs for seniors.

Obama named the commission in hopes of bringing a deficit-fighting plan up for a vote in Congress this year, but it appears to be falling well short of the 14-vote bipartisan supermajority needed.

A new version of the plan makes mostly minor changes to a draft that whipped up enormous controversy when unveiled earlier this month. Some domestic spending cuts are modestly higher than previously proposed, and health care savings from overhauling the medical malpractice system would reap less than proposed earlier this month.

Even with all of the sacrifices, the plan would fail to balance the budget — leaving a deficit of $421 billion in 2015 — but would stabilize the national debt at a economically sustainable level compared to the size of the economy.

Unlike their original proposal, Bowles and Simpson stop short of calling for caps on medical malpractice awards. Instead they recommend changes in how awards are made.

But other proposals remain the same. Among them are a gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075, using a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for the programs and increasing the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. The early retirement age would increase from 62 to 64 along the same timetable.

The plan also retains a 15-cent-a-gallon increase on gasoline, a three-year freeze on federal worker pay and the elimination of 200,000 workers from the federal payroll through attrition.

Other recommendations:

— Impose tight "caps" on the agency budgets adopted by Congress each year, including a near-freeze on the Pentagon's budget.

— Eliminate congressional pet spending projects known as "earmarks."

— Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent and stop taxing the overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations.

— Overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes, giving Congress the choice of reducing the top rate to as low as 23 percent and no higher than 29 percent. The lower the rate, the fewer the tax credits and deductions that would be available to taxpayers.

[See our editorial cartoons on the economy.]

Under one scenario proposed by Bowles and Simpson, taxpayers would face three tax brackets of 12 percent, 21 percent and 28 percent. Taxpayers would still be able to claim an earned income tax credit and child tax credit as well as all standard deductions and exemptions. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Taxpayers could claim a mortgage interest deduction up to $500,000, but only on their primary residence.

Tags:
Jan Schakowsky,
Democratic Party,
social security,
Republican Party,
Congress,
deficit and national debt,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (23)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

A few other observations: When we paid into social security, we paid with dollars that were taxed before they were deducted. Now, many of us pay taxes on 85% of the benefits received (a "temporary" tax that has become permanent). Isn't this double taxation?

As I understand it, social security is an "insurance" program, not an entitlement program or "welfare" for the elderly. We paid our premiums over 40 - 50 years, now we're entitled to our annuity payments based on what we paid in. So, why's the government intruding into this arrangement?

Perhaps we should insist that the social security administration, if it's going to renege on its contract with us, return what we paid in, adjusted for inflation, and with reasonable compounded interest, and we'll take that lump sum, invest it ourselves, live on the proceeds and whatever principal we need, leave what's left to our heirs, and the hell with them.

You may want to contact your congressperson with your feelings including the insights above if you agree. http://www.congress.org/

Jake of PA 11:06PM December 18, 2010

There are enough of us gray haired retirees on social security who rely upon the promises of our elected official. If they cut my social security I will for the first time in my life become politically active to make sure all those who voted to cut the budget on the backs of the soscial security recipients my main full time job to identify them and do everything within the law I can do to make sure they are not re-elected. There are millions of us and a united angry group of retirees will come out of the wood work and create a force much greater than I think the politicians are betting ld not happen.

David K Wheaton of TN 11:14PM December 10, 2010

the national govt is bad enough but how many people really look at your city taxes. When these people get voted in they go on and on about lowering taxes. They get lowered alright, if you check you taxes you will see everything goes up but your property value. that goes down and that is how they lower your taxes. The milage goes up, the cost of garbage goes up, sewer goes up, schools go up and then your property value goes down. Then they pat themselves on the back saying they lowered your taxes......the state govt has allowed electric companys to raise their rates almost every year, they have allowed ins companys to raise their rates and just drop everyone when ever they want to. Now they dont want us to have health ins unless it is given to us from these big companys that raise their rates every year. sooner or later we are going to look just like Hati. Even china won't want us.....

joyce of FL 9:06AM December 09, 2010

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos