Battle over Mandatory (aka “Entitlement”) Spending

I’m glad to see there’s conversations about reforming our entitlement spending. I don’t trust this administration to do it well but it absolutely has to be done. Now let’s talk about military budgets and raising taxes.
 
nycfan said:
“… The change in the phone service comes after the Social Security Administration announced a massive restructuring last month, with plans to cut about 7,000 jobs, or 12% of its workforce, and reduce the number of regional offices to four from 10. …”

——
This is one of those things that makes sense if you have never tried to help anyone 75 or older do anything online. And from everything I have heard the hold time for a SSA call can sometimes be 1-3 hours anyway. But I am open to details confirming this will actually prevent fraud (a tweet is insufficient to confirm the basis for this).

But it certainly leads to questions about also closing local office in-person service centers at the same time.
Click to expand...


“… In a tense Tuesday meeting, DOGE staff grilled SSA officials about phone fraud and proposed shifting all claims processing to online channels and in-person offices, according to The Post.

SSA employees floated possible solutions, but DOGE wasn’t “interested in anything else but defending the decision that they had already made,” a source familiar told the [Washington Post].

… The Post reported on DOGE’s proposal to slash SSA’s telephone services on Wednesday afternoon. Hours later, the agency said in a statement that media reports were “inaccurate.”

DOGE confirmed on X, however, that the administration would still push forward with one part of its proposal: Customers will no longer be allowed to change their direct deposit routing number and other bank information by phone. …”
 
If the GOP wants to cut entitlement spending they should be trying to reform the Healthcare industry. The Medicaid expansion under the ACA was incredibly effective at reducing the healthcare cost curve. Cutting Medicaid will mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. I've posted this before - but it's important to note - reduced Medicaid spending on the Federal level means the states will either have to take up the slack (increased state taxes) or cut people off Medicaid. Cutting people off Medicaid will mean fewer people are insured. Fewer insured means more people utilizing ambulatory and emergency care - and more people who can't pay their medical bills. More medical care debt defaults mean higher costs for everyone because those unpaid debts are passed on to everyone in the system. Nearly 25% of the US Federal budget is allocated for healthcare.

Obviously the GOP doesn't care about debt or healthcare. The GOP cares about tax cuts and reducing the size of the government. Why the fuck would a cabinet of billionaires care about Medicaid? They can get on their private jets and go to Singapore for their annual executive check up. The absurdity of this whole situation is only outmatched by the pure ignorance of the millions that vote for the GOP every cycle.
 
nycfan said:
“… The change in the phone service comes after the Social Security Administration announced a massive restructuring last month, with plans to cut about 7,000 jobs, or 12% of its workforce, and reduce the number of regional offices to four from 10. …”

——
This is one of those things that makes sense if you have never tried to help anyone 75 or older do anything online. And from everything I have heard the hold time for a SSA call can sometimes be 1-3 hours anyway. But I am open to details confirming this will actually prevent fraud (a tweet is insufficient to confirm the basis for this).

But it certainly leads to questions about also closing local office in-person service centers at the same time.
Click to expand...
I can fully say that the hold time is easily 2+ hours on the phone. My wife has done it twice now in the past month.
 
dukeman92 said:
Agreed. There is no reason to raise the retirement age. Most people are already working to the grave.
Click to expand...
When the original retirement age was set in 1935 (65 years old) the average life expectancy was 62.

Full retirement is 67 today, with an average life expectancy of 77.
 
nycfan said:
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?
Click to expand...
I would go with "a little of column A and a little of column B".
 
Does that matter so much if the contributions are adjusted to compensate? I do think it's a point to consider but it's not all there is to consider.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
The retirement age for social security, Medicare, etc is not keeping pace with average life expectancy.
Click to expand...

That means nothing to me. Any potential benefit cuts associated with increasing the retirement age would be unfairly borne by low-income workers who were more likely to have worked in labor-intensive industries, and are less likely to live and collect Social Security. Remove the cap.
 
dukeman92 said:
That means nothing to me. Any potential benefit cuts associated with increasing the retirement age would be unfairly borne by low-income workers who were more likely to have worked in labor-intensive industries, and are less likely to live and collect Social Security. Remove the cap.
Click to expand...
This is true. It's more important what the age expectancy of the group most likely to be dependent on SS rather than those with more money, better healthcare and likely less physically demanding jobs is.
 
dukeman92 said:
That means nothing to me. Any potential benefit cuts associated with increasing the retirement age would be unfairly borne by low-income workers who were more likely to have worked in labor-intensive industries, and are less likely to live and collect Social Security. Remove the cap.
Click to expand...
Right, there were labor-intensive jobs in 1935 and there are labor-intensive jobs now. Any number of things contribute to life expectancy, but the fact remains that the retirement age isn't keeping pace with life expectancy.

The other issue is that modern medicine keeps people alive when they would have otherwise died but at an extremely high cost.
 
Has anyone done the math on whether it would suffice to charge a premium above the cap (with no resulting increase in benefits) that is less than the full 4.2% tax amount? Sort of like the 0.9% Obamacare tax and the 3.8% net investment income tax already charged if you have taxable income above specified thresholds?

As a matter of fairness, if we are going to start charging a social security tax untethered from any social security benefits (to which I am not objecting conceptually but think the tax should be lower if it is just to guaranty solvency of the program past the size pressure of the Baby Boomers), I would like to propose a similar premium on the taxable portion of capital gains in any year at least at a premium amount, if not the full 4.2% (say at least 0.9% on all taxable capital gains in excess of $500,000 in any year).
 
Huh? said:
As a first step, I'd support a doughnut in which the cap kicks in at current levels and then kicks out again over $400K.
Click to expand...
I'm not following. Are you saying that it wouldn't be paid between the current cap and $400k?
 
Right, there were labor-intensive jobs in 1935 and there are labor-intensive jobs now. Any number of things contribute to life expectancy, but the fact remains that the retirement age isn't keeping pace with life expectancy.

One of the dumbest comparisons ever made on this board. Most of the labor intensive jobs now are considerably less common and less strenuous that they were even 45 years ago. Hand labor on foundations is clearing out corners after a backhoe, not using picks, shovels and wheelbarrows to dig 6 feet deep in rock and clay. You don't carry shingles up a ladder. Either they go up a ladder lift or put on a roof with a boom truck. Forklifts move lumber, plywood and drywall.
 
p5mmr9 said:
If the GOP wants to cut entitlement spending they should be trying to reform the Healthcare industry. The Medicaid expansion under the ACA was incredibly effective at reducing the healthcare cost curve. Cutting Medicaid will mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. I've posted this before - but it's important to note - reduced Medicaid spending on the Federal level means the states will either have to take up the slack (increased state taxes) or cut people off Medicaid. Cutting people off Medicaid will mean fewer people are insured. Fewer insured means more people utilizing ambulatory and emergency care - and more people who can't pay their medical bills. More medical care debt defaults mean higher costs for everyone because those unpaid debts are passed on to everyone in the system. Nearly 25% of the US Federal budget is allocated for healthcare.

Obviously the GOP doesn't care about debt or healthcare. The GOP cares about tax cuts and reducing the size of the government. Why the fuck would a cabinet of billionaires care about Medicaid? They can get on their private jets and go to Singapore for their annual executive check up. The absurdity of this whole situation is only outmatched by the pure ignorance of the millions that vote for the GOP every cycle.
Click to expand...
The degree of evil exuding from this admin makes me wonder if functionally eliminating EMTALA is on the docket, in concert with gutting Medicaid. Pubs then assume blue states aren’t evil enough to eliminate emtala within their borders, but as result pubs have a mechanism to basically bankrupt non-NY and CA blue states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top