Battle over Mandatory (aka “Entitlement”) Spending

How do these dead people cash the checks?

Or is the money being direct deposited into accounts that it could be retrieved from?
Most documented Social Security fraud involves misrepresenting assets to claim eligibility for disability and misrepresenting marital status to claim higher benefits, though there are cases of identity theft (especially from elderly suffering from mental decline and from the mentally disabled) and far less often covering up the death of a recipient to continue receiving checks.
 
On Social Security funding and solvency:

“…
Q. You say Social Security is heading toward insolvency. What does that mean exactly? Is it going to go broke?

Arnold:
Before I answer, it is important to understand how Social Security is funded. It is a self-funded pay-as-you-go program. That means it does not receive any money from general taxes, and by law, it cannot. It raises its own revenue through the payroll tax. We all pay a certain percentage of our base salary up to what has called the maximum taxable wage base, and our employers match everything we pay. Although the money is sent to Washington to be put in the trust fund, it’s quickly spent out immediately on beneficiaries.

The last solvency crisis was in 1983. At that time, legislators changed the tax and benefit formulas in ways that gradually built up the trust fund to almost $3 trillion. But right now Social Security is devouring its trust fund. Payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to pay all benefits. So, every month, Social Security withdraws more and more money from the trust fund. And the reason is the retirement of the huge baby boom generation. The next generation is not as large, so Social Security is not getting enough tax revenue.

Projections show that the trust fund will be empty by 2034. At that point, Social Security will have enough revenue to pay only 78% of benefits. And that is what we call the solvency crisis. It happened in 1977, and again in 1983, and each time legislators came together and fixed it. But Congress has been ignoring the problem since 1994, when the actuaries first identified it.

Q. What are some of the options for fixing the solvency problem?

Arnold:
Since we have had two solvency crises in the past — 1977 and 1983 — let’s see how legislators fixed the problem then. The first time, they simply raised the payroll tax rate by 25% and the maximum taxable wage base by 68%. Six years later, they switched course. They effectively cut benefits by raising the full retirement age from 65 to 67, phasing it in over four decades. So, those are the two basic options: raise taxes or cut benefits.

You could do similar things today. For example, to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years, legislators could raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 8.1%. According to current actuarial projections, this would fix the problem until 2095. So, it is fixable, but painful.

Alternatively, legislators could close three-quarters of the long-term deficit by immediately abolishing the maximum taxable wage base (currently $147,000), thus subjecting all wages to taxation. Or they could raise the full retirement age to 68. This would close one-seventh of the long-term actuarial deficit.

Legislators could also change the way benefits are adjusted for inflation. They are currently adjusted with the consumer price index. Some economists think this index overstates inflation. They suggest using an alternative index called the chained price index. If you switch to that index, you would solve one-fifth of the long-term deficit. …”

 
Anyway, Trump has repeatedly said that there will not be cuts to Social Security or Medicare, with a big asterisk — except fraud and waste.

I don’t think anyone would oppose cutting fraud or waste conceptually, the question will be how do Musk and Trump and the GOP define that? In particular, Social Security is not just retirement benefit payments, it also includes disability payments and “waste” could easily be stretched to include questioning whether eligibility standards are too forgiving and therefore wasteful.


Fraud and waste is simply how they plan on selling the unsellable to the mouth breathers (who are currently lapping it up). Notice how all of these "expiration" dates or due dates coincide with Trump's anticipated exit from office? The Trump tax cuts were slated to expire in 2025, Trump assumed he'd serve an 8 year stint and in 2025 they could blame the Dems for raising your taxes.

These entitlement cuts must be in place by 2030, Trump will leave office in 2029. They hope to blame the Dems for the cuts they are forcing to medicare/medicaid.

It's all a ruse, they are horrible people but wonderful schemers.
 
I'll never understand how and why so many blue-collar, hard-working, salt of the earth, everyday Average Joe and Jane in America openly cheer on the richest man in the world- someone who isn't even American by birth- openly calling them "parasites" and hellbent on squeezing them out of their last pennies in their old age.
Transgenders. Brown people. Gay marriage.
 
I have a very low opinion of the Trump Administration so far, but I also think we have to be adults about fixing our addiction to deficit spending, on the one hand, and the actuarial realities of social security as a separate but pressing issue.

Running up the National Debt got us through the pandemic with a robust economy and a lot less pain than a lot of other nations (just like deficit spending instead of austerity policies worked well for us to recover after the Great Recession). And deficit spending when interest rates were historically low made sense so long as we used those cheap funds to invest in the country’s future. Unfortunately, a lot of the deficit financed tax cuts, so rather than investing for future downturns we made lavish dividends to taxpayers and inflated the wealth gap.

Now the GOP is going to succeed in extending the first round of Trump tax breaks and exacerbate the issues already caused by prior cuts. And the tax cuts are so massive that spending cuts to the bone won’t offset us to match current deficit spending. At this point even amputations of government functions won’t be enough to get to a budget that is balanced and actually paying down debt.

We owe most of our debt to ourselves, so I’m not even pretending we should have to have budgets that eliminate debt. But we need to get a handle on deficit spending first and eventually either pay down national debt or roll over existing debt indefinitely and rely on it becoming a shrinking portion measured against GDP to create borrowing opportunities in the next downturn or catastrophe.
 
We really need to remove the SSA tax cap. I say that as someone whom it would affect comparatively more so than ultra-wealthy people and lower middle class people. There's no reason for there to be a cap, IMO.
And raise the retirement age. This seems like the two biggest no brainer things to do immediately.
 
And raise the retirement age. This seems like the two biggest no brainer things to do immediately.
Would you increase benefits to people paying the social security tax on amounts above the cap or just call it a premium to build up the social security trust fund without paying benefits based on that additional taxed income?
 
I have a very low opinion of the Trump Administration so far, but I also think we have to be adults about fixing our addiction to deficit spending, on the one hand, and the actuarial realities of social security as a separate but pressing issue.

Running up the National Debt got us through the pandemic with a robust economy and a lot less pain than a lot of other nations (just like deficit spending instead of austerity policies worked well for us to recover after the Great Recession). And deficit spending when interest rates were historically low made sense so long as we used those cheap funds to invest in the country’s future. Unfortunately, a lot of the deficit financed tax cuts, so rather than investing for future downturns we made lavish dividends to taxpayers and inflated the wealth gap.

Now the GOP is going to succeed in extending the first round of Trump tax breaks and exacerbate the issues already caused by prior cuts. And the tax cuts are so massive that spending cuts to the bone won’t offset us to match current deficit spending. At this point even amputations of government functions won’t be enough to get to a budget that is balanced and actually paying down debt.

We owe most of our debt to ourselves, so I’m not even pretending we should have to have budgets that eliminate debt. But we need to get a handle on deficit spending first and eventually either pay down national debt or roll over existing debt indefinitely and rely on it becoming a shrinking portion measured against GDP to create borrowing opportunities in the next downturn or catastrophe.
Yeah. The current administration has been such a brazen walking contradiction on this stuff, though. They claim want to do three things- balance the budget, extend the TCJA cuts, and "fully fund" SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. But, obviously, doing all three is fiscally impossible. We can't simultaneously slash revenue, while also keeping the three biggest items in the federal budget "as is", while also eliminating the deficit. Trump endorses the House plan that extends the TJCA and raises the deficit by $2.8 trillion through 2034; he opposes the Senate bill which puts off voting on extending the tax cuts off until later. The House bill mandates $880 billion in cuts but if you exclude Medicare and Medicaid, the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is tasked with the "budget busting" only had jurisdiction over something like $580 billion of spending.

I thought Aaron Rupar had a great piece yesterday about this. He said:

"the general bipartisan inside-the-Beltway insistence on balanced budgets is largely misguided in the first place. The federal government can print money and borrow on the full faith and credit of the United States. It is not a household and does not have to balance budgets like a household.

Under Biden, for example, the US spent more than any other comparable country on covid relief. This did not destroy the US economy. On the contrary, the US substantially outperformed its peers in job creation and growth and had lower inflation as well. Balanced budgets, then, are a very poor way to measure, or to achieve, economic health. Policymakers should see spending as an investment, not as waste. They should see taxation as a way to incentivize positive behavior and promote a more equitable society, not as picking people’s pockets."

The war on budgeting started because Republican priorities are deeply unpopular. Raising taxes on the rich polls extremely well; it has 79 percent support. By contrast, some 70 percent of Republicans view Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security favorably. Hardly anyone likes the idea of wealth transfers from the poor and working class to billionaires — except for billionaires. Republicans have reframed their agenda as fiscal responsibility because otherwise their agenda is transparently evil.



 
I'll never understand how and why so many blue-collar, hard-working, salt of the earth, everyday Average Joe and Jane in America openly cheer on the richest man in the world- someone who isn't even American by birth- openly calling them "parasites" and hellbent on squeezing them out of their last pennies in their old age.
Because brown people exist and might accidentally get something that makes their lives better.
 
How do these dead people cash the checks?

Or is the money being direct deposited into accounts that it could be retrieved from?
Dead people are not receiving SS payments. When a person dies, SS is notified. As a matter of fact, they take back the payment in the month the person died. My mother died in October 30, and SS took back her October payment. Musk is making claims without one bit of proof.
 
Back
Top