House Dem Says 'Every Republican Should Be Asked' About GOP Ploy to Cut Social Security

[f8ta1ity54]

House Dem Says 'Every Republican Should Be Asked' About GOP Ploy to Cut Social Security (commondreams.org)

"This is Republicans' own words and Americans need to hear them loud and clear," said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell.

 

Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell said Tuesday that every congressional Republican and GOP candidate should be pressed on whether they support their party leaders' stated plan to hold the U.S. economy hostage to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare, popular programs that have emerged as key midterm issues.

"The Republican Party is openly promising to topple the entire American economy unless they are allowed to demolish Social Security and Medicare,” Pascrell said in a statement after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) confirmed that the GOP will use a fast-approaching debt ceiling fight as leverage to enact spending reductions if Republicans retake control of the chamber in the November elections.

 

While McCarthy declined to explicitly say the GOP will target Social Security and Medicare, other top Republicans haven't been so reserved.

In an appearance on Fox News over the weekend, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) defended his party's plans for the two programs, claiming that the GOP supports "shoring up Medicare and Social Security" and deploying the usual—and false—talking point that they are in crisis.

Earlier this year, the Republican Study Committee—of which Scalise is a member—released a proposal that called for raising the retirement age to 70, mean-testing Social Security benefits, and partially privatizing the New Deal-era program.

Speaking to Bloomberg Government last week, several Republicans hoping to serve as chair of the House Budget Committee next year explicitly said they plan to take aim at Social Security and Medicare if the GOP wins a majority.

In his statement Tuesday, Pascrell said it "isn't hyperbole" to warn that Republicans are willing to risk an economic disaster to impose long-sought changes to Social Security and Medicare.

"This is Republicans' own words and Americans need to hear them loud and clear," said the New Jersey Democrat. "Every Republican should be asked if they agree with their leaders' stated plans to tank the economy to demolish Social Security and Medicare. Breaching the ceiling and blowing up the entire American economy can never happen. We must use every tool at our disposal to prevent Republicans from destroying America."

 

Democratic lawmakers who want to raise taxes on the rich to fund an increase in Social Security benefits haven't hesitated to spotlight GOP leaders' recent comments, even as they receive relatively little attention in the corporate media.

"Seniors are about to see the largest increase in their Social Security checks in 40+ years," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, tweeted Tuesday, referring to the newly announced cost-of-living adjustment.

"But if Republicans take control of Congress," Jayapal added, "they'll cut benefits and raise the eligibility age—forcing seniors to risk their health by delaying retirement."

A number of Republican candidates—including incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)—have said on the campaign trail that they would like to cut or privatize Social Security and Medicare. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has proposed sunsetting all federal laws—including those authorizing Social Security and Medicare—every five years.

In recent weeks, Democrats have begun more frequently highlighting Republicans' comments on Social Security and Medicare in campaign ads as the pivotal midterms draw closer.

"All you have to do is Google Blake Masters to see how extreme he is,” says a recently launched Senate Majority PAC ad in Arizona.

The Democratic ad plays footage of GOP Senate nominee Blake Masters putting his support for gutting Social Security in plain terms.

"Maybe we should privatize Social Security, right?" Masters said during a candidate forum in June. "Private retirement accounts, get the government out of it."

 

 

 

[Philly'sFinest]

Sure. That's what open debates in forums are for

Good luck asking Dems anything though because they are refusing debates all over the country

Disgraceful and very telling

[f8ta1ity54]

9 minutes ago, Philly'sFinest said:

Sure. That's what open debates in forums are for

Good luck asking Dems anything though because they are refusing debates all over the country

Disgraceful and very telling

You put me on ignore because you couldn't handle debates.

Disgraceful and very telling, for sure.

[HipKat]

4 hours ago, Philly'sFinest said:

Sure. That's what open debates in forums are for

Good luck asking Dems anything though because they are refusing debates all over the country

Disgraceful and very telling

Herschel Walker approves of this post

[f8ta1ity54]

2 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Herschel Walker approves of this post

That's Special Agent Herschel Walker to you, buddy.

[Very Wide Right]

It must be close to election day, Dems say Republicans are going to cut social security. YAWN

[jc856]

When they started using the word “entitlements” to describe SSI, that’s when I started to look into social security.

how is it an entitlement, if they took money out of my paycheck to go into the program?

they threw SSI in with the “general fund” during the Vietnam war, and politicians have been plundering it ever since.

the govt is not your friend.

they say it runs out in a decade. I’ll be fine, but what about you younger guys that have been paying into it, and kinda counting on it?

 

[f8ta1ity54]

1 hour ago, jc856 said:

When they started using the word “entitlements” to describe SSI, that’s when I started to look into social security.

how is it an entitlement, if they took money out of my paycheck to go into the program?

they threw SSI in with the “general fund” during the Vietnam war, and politicians have been plundering it ever since.

the govt is not your friend.

they say it runs out in a decade. I’ll be fine, but what about you younger guys that have been paying into it, and kinda counting on it?

 

Lift the cap on what is taxable for ssi. They stop taxing it after ~140k. It would be more than enough.

[TonyasTaters]

1 hour ago, jc856 said:

When they started using the word “entitlements” to describe SSI, that’s when I started to look into social security.

how is it an entitlement, if they took money out of my paycheck to go into the program?

they threw SSI in with the “general fund” during the Vietnam war, and politicians have been plundering it ever since.

the govt is not your friend.

they say it runs out in a decade. I’ll be fine, but what about you younger guys that have been paying into it, and kinda counting on it?

 

At 40 years old I don’t plan on seeing any money from SSI. I have been hammering the 401k.

[HipKat]

5 hours ago, Very Wide Right said:

It must be close to election day, Dems say Republicans are going to cut social security. YAWN

Actually, Republicans said that

 

Rick Scott's Social Security Plan Sets off a Firestorm Within the GOP

The plan calls for “no government assistance unless you are disabled or aggressively seeking work,” and for all legislation to sunset after five years.

Despite that a 2021 government report warned that Social Security would lose the ability to pay out full benefits a year earlier than previously projected, it hasn’t made front-page news so far this year. 

One exception, however, has been the  reaction to a plan put out this spring by the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC), titled the "11-Point Plan to Rescue America." The plan, which has largely been pushed by RSCC chairman Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), is seen as an overarching campaign document for the midterms elections similar to Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract With America.” 

The plan, however, has run into opposition from Republicans, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate minority leader, publicly criticizing Scott’s manifesto. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” 

At issue, as well, are provisions in Scott’s plan, which proposes to “force Congress to issue a report every year telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt.” In addition, the plan calls for “no government assistance unless you are disabled or aggressively seeking work,” and for all legislation to sunset after five years. 

This week, op-ed writers and fact-checkers have been facing off about Scott’s plan and what it means for Social Security. 

Vance Larsen, in a Seattle Times op-ed this week, questioned the notion raised by Scott that Social Security is “bankrupt,” which is part of a long-running semantic argument about the solvency of Social Security. 

“This is a narrative that is at worst false and at best misleading. It is important to provide some context as to where that figure comes from, and while there is cause for concern, it is not a doomsday scenario, nor an unfixable problem,” Larsen wrote. “Whether the terms bankrupt and insolvent accurately describe the future financial picture of Social Security is debatable, but what is more important is how people interpret those words and make predictions and decisions about retirement.”

Meanwhile, Politifact raised objections to a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad about Scott’s plan, calling it misleading. Politifact argues that it’s not true that the plan is the “Senate Republicans” plan, or that it specifically calls to “end Social Security” or to “end Medicare.” 

“The plan would sunset all federal laws after five years, requiring Congress to renew the laws it wants to keep. Federal sunsetting provides for programs to terminate automatically on a periodic basis unless they are explicitly renewed by law,” Politifact concluded. 

Senator Rick Scott wants to "sunset" Social Security and Medicare

By now, many listeners have probably seen Senator Rick Scott (R. Florida) on television trying to deny what is in his infamous 11-point plan to “rescue America.” One example that he tries to deny is in the section on government. Buried on page 19 of the 31-page pdf of the plan is a very significant promise.

[I believe it is worth the time and perhaps waves of disgust that will accompany this reading –Check out the 31-page power point of Scott’s alleged “rescue plan.” You can access it here. To read the plan, itself, click on the TV screen and the entire sent of pdf pages will show up.]

Here is the language from page 19: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” [There are a number of promised changes on that page all under the rubric of “Government” but this one is quite a doozey!]

Now among the many federal laws on the books is a law called the Social Security Act. This law was originally passed in 1935 to create Unemployment Insurance, Aid to Dependent Children (cash welfare for widows and orphans --- later extended to cover all poor single women with children renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC]), and Old Age and Survivors Pensions (what is commonly thought of today as “Social Security.”). Since then, the law has been amended many times and expanded dramatically. Here is a link to the current Table of Contents of the law: . The law currently has twenty-one titles --- and under each title are many sections. (I have actually tried to find out how many pages are in the now expanded Social Security Act but could not. I would venture to guess it might be in the thousands!). Included in the current law is an entire section covering Medicare which is administered by the Social Security Administration. (Medicare was passed as an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1965.)

So --- if Scott actually understood his own proposal, the entire Social Security Act --- including Medicare and the Social Security Pensions almost all Americans over 70 are receiving monthly --- would either disappear (that’s what “sunsetting” means, by the way) or have to be re-enacted by Congress.

So naturally, a reporter asked Scott how he could justify “sunsetting” Medicare and Social Security pensions: programs that are wildly popular and have been in existence for decades. Scott dismissed that concern as “Democrat Talking Points.” The reporter retorted, with a tone of exasperation in his voice “No! It’s in your plan.”

[Folks can watch the video here.]

And of course, Scott was lying and the reporter was right. When I delivered this orally over the radio, I went through Scott’s language again – I reminded my audience that the word “All” referred to every piece of federal legislation – including the entire Social Security Act and its many amendments since 1935.

Now let’s consider Scott’s assertion that, “If a law is worth keeping [like the Social Security Act?] Congress can pass it again.

Well, yes. Congress COULD pass the entire Social Security Act word for word again. But will they? Will they not hold hearings? Is there nothing in the current Social Security Act, that some member(s) of Congress might want to change or eliminate? Try and imagine the scenario when the entire Social Security Act (let’s remember that includes the Medicare program – Parts A, B, C and D) needs to be re-authorized.

Since the entire Social Security Act deals with taxing and spending (budget items) Budget Reconciliation could be used in the Senate to re-authorize the law, thereby avoiding the need to get 60 votes. But even getting 51 votes might not be all that easy.

Republicans have always had it in for Medicare. When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House in 1995, the Republican majority in both houses passed legislation that cut Medicare spending by $270 billion in order to finance $245 billion in tax cuts. There have been bills suggested to partially privatize social security pensions and to transform Medicare into a government subsidy for individuals to buy private medical insurance.

When Gingrich tried to cut back Medicare in 1995, President Bill Clinton vetoed the Medicare cut and tax cut embedded in two separate budget bills. When his vetoes were upheld, Gingrich shut down the government twice. Ultimately, Clinton and the Republicans in Congress did reach a compromise that involved the abolition of the old AFDC program. (The massive Medicare Cut and tax cut plans were shelved --- the compromise also involved promises to balance the federal budget --- which actually occurred for three years 1998-2001!)

(By the way, the compromise on welfare was a disgusting piece of legislation called the Personal Responsibility Act. For details see Peter Edelman, “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Ever Done,” Atlantic, March, 1997. For the differences between what Clinton initially proposed and what ultimately passed, see Meeropol, Surrender, How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution [U. Michigan Press, 1998, 2000]: 247-9)

Because Medicare has been attacked repeatedly by Republicans, imagine what will be proposed if it “sunsets” and has to be re-imagined and re-authorized by Congress. Now, I do agree that if Scott’s plan were adopted, there would be a great deal of pressure on Congress not to mess with Medicare or any other part of the Social Security Act. However, previous efforts by Republicans make it clear that given a chance, they’d go after Medicare again.

And there might be other sections of the Social Security Act (dealing with Unemployment Compensation, for example) that wouldn’t sail through to re-authorization without a fight. But let’s for the moment assume that something very similar to the current Social Security Act (including Medicare and Unemployment Insurance) would pass again.

In certain other situations, a law that was sunsetting would be allowed to disappear. The Affordable Care Act would not be re-enacted if one house of Congress were to be controlled by Republicans. The SNAP program (also known as food stamps) or Medicaid might have work requirements added. (Or Medicaid might be allowed to disappear!)

And the list of laws goes on and on. Please remember, Scott’s statement refers to ALL federal legislation. There are thousands of federal programs in existence --- all of which would have to be re-authorized. The environmental protection agency would have to be re-imagined. The clean air and clean water acts would have to be re-negotiated in Congress. The entire tax system at the federal level would have to be re-imagined and then re-negotiated.

(The current tax code controlled by the Internal Revenue Act runs to thousands of pages!)

If Scott’s proposal were ever adopted, how would Congress ever have time to consider the problems of today? They would be busy deciding whether to re-enact every law they had ever passed. If they wanted to re-enact them, they would have to re-imagine and re-negotiate them.

Obviously, the entire eleven-point program is mostly hot air. BUT --- it does include some dangerous concrete proposals including this one and the ones I have discussed in two previous commentaries.

[See, for example “Senator Rick Scott’s Plan to Raise Taxes on Low-Income Americans,” available here. In an even earlier commentary, I took on Scott’s proposals about education. See “Senator Rick Scott Proposes a Right-Wing Wish List,” available here.]

The dangerous concrete proposals must be exposed and countered. The fact that most of Scott’s “plan” to “rescue America” is mindless boiler-plate should not cause us to laugh it off. The concrete stuff is dangerous. All Republican candidates for Congress in the Fall should be forced to either own them or repudiate them.