House Republican prepares plan to reduce and restrict Social Security benefits

[Blue3]

On the domestic front, at least one House Republican is already planning a law to reduce Social Security benefits. Something that's definitely important to keep an eye on, like with Ryan saying he wants to privatize Medicare/Medicaid along with repealing Obamacare, and I think Ryan supported Bush's failed Social Security privatization push. This is something we need to loudly fight Trump on, if he approves it. We need to save our energy for big fights like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-house-republican-social-security-cuts_us_584b1bb8e4b0e05aded3ff3c

[mvd10]

FF. Cutting benefits for the middle class and (especially) the wealthy while protecting the poor from cuts probably is the best way to make social security solvent. But isn't social security exempted from budget reconciliation? There is no way the Republicans are going to convince (atleast) 8 Democratic senators to vote for this proposal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FF. Cutting benefits for the middle class and (especially) the wealthy while protecting the poor from cuts probably is the best way to make social security solvent. But isn't social security exempted from budget reconciliation? There is no way the Republicans are going to convince (atleast) 8 Democratic senators to vote for this proposal.

They're probably waiting till 2018 when they most likely will have 60 votes

While not impossible, it's far from certain, even if Manchin takes a Cabinet post.

[Fusionmunster]

FF. Cutting benefits for the middle class and (especially) the wealthy while protecting the poor from cuts probably is the best way to make social security solvent. But isn't social security exempted from budget reconciliation? There is no way the Republicans are going to convince (atleast) 8 Democratic senators to vote for this proposal.

They're probably waiting till 2018 when they most likely will have 60 votes

I think the silver lining of loosing the presidency for dems is losing 8 seats isn't likely to happen. And more to that point, Susan Collins has already come out and said she's wary of any proposal to cut social security.

[FDRfan1985]

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline for which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:

    if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
    if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
    if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
    if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
    if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; or
    if it recommends changes in Social Security.

[Indy Texas]

FF. Cutting benefits for the middle class and (especially) the wealthy while protecting the poor from cuts probably is the best way to make social security solvent. But isn't social security exempted from budget reconciliation? There is no way the Republicans are going to convince (atleast) 8 Democratic senators to vote for this proposal.

No, making a social program only benefit the poor is the best way to enable it to be smothered to death with a pillow.

Americans only support social programs that benefit everyone.

[Blue3]

How do you measure how "poor" someone is after they retire from working and begin collecting social security?

And then there's people like my 94-year-old grandmother, who hasn't worked since she married my grandfather in the 1940's and doesn't have social security except through my grandpa even though he passed away 14 years ago.

[jaichind]

How do you measure how "poor" someone is after they retire from working and begin collecting social security?

And then there's people like my 94-year-old grandmother, who hasn't worked since she married my grandfather in the 1940's and doesn't have social security except through my grandpa even though he passed away 14 years ago.

They can look at the AGI of the retiree in question.  Medicare premiums already work like this already where the premium one pays based on the AGI of said person.  Currently SS benefits are a function of length of years worked and average SS  taxable income during those years with a heavy bias toward greater payout relative to contributions for those in lower income averages.  They can tweak this some more. 

All my personal financial planning for my post-retirement life I plan on collecting around 55% of my SS benefits under the current formula.  On the long run SS is funded at around 70% without any changes.  I figure I will get a worse end of any adjustment based on my past, current and future AGI.

[Shadows]

This is gonna cost them in the election, Even moderate Dems won't go with this - This is just a disaster electorally especially because the Dems & the progressive will make this an issue.

How can they afford to give huge tax cuts to the super rich while cutting Social Security?

[Intell]

FF. Cutting benefits for the middle class and (especially) the wealthy while protecting the poor from cuts probably is the best way to make social security solvent. But isn't social security exempted from budget reconciliation? There is no way the Republicans are going to convince (atleast) 8 Democratic senators to vote for this proposal.

No, making a social program only benefit the poor is the best way to enable it to be smothered to death with a pillow.

[/quote]


It really isn't, you have the resources to have social security, be a wide-ranging program, you just need a party, who doesn't want to cut it to shreds to make it work.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This seems like a good linchpin for a Democratic wave in the midterms like Obamacare was for the Republicans. Polls very clearly show people don't want the government screwing around with their entitlements. GOP tinker with Social Security at their own peril.

[President Johnson]

Didn't Trump say there will be no cuts in Social Security?

[RINO Tom]

Didn't Trump say there will be no cuts in Social Security?

What's your point?