Rep. Becerra: Social Security Should Not Be On the Table for Debt Ceiling Increase
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) did a nice job this morning on Fox News Sunday of explaining why Social Security should have never been offered up as part of the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling even though he supported making sure it stays solvent for the long term as a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission. He also shot down nicely Bret Baier's attempt to paint the Social Security trust fund as full of worthless IOU's that have already been spent because the government borrowed against the program to pay for other things.
BAIER: Congressman, you were on the president's debt and deficit commission, the Bowles-Simpson commission, and you voted against the recommendations at the end. But during the meeting, one of the meetings, you said this, quote, "As you just said here, I don't want to leave the table because I started off the first day saying everything must be on the table" -- what you just said.
But as the negotiations in the debt ceiling increase have continued, you said this week, quote, "I don't see why I would support any plan that would cut benefits to seniors to pay for the reckless fiscal policies that led to us these massive deficits." That seems like a big change.
So, now, there are some things that are off the table for you.
BECERRA: As when I was on the fiscal commission and when any proposal comes before me for a vote, I would take a look. As much as I believe that Social Security should not be on the table because Social Security hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion.
So, why should Social Security, why should seniors have to pay to balance the budget through Social Security cuts? But it should be on the table. I would fight to take it off the table, but it should start off on the table and then what should remain on the table are the things that really drove us into this deficit. And most folks know what drove us into these deficits. When you don't pay for two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you borrow all the money from China, you're going to have to pay for it at some point.
BAIER: OK. You mention Social Security. In the president's deficit commission report, they say, among other things, "Without action the benefits currently pledged under Social Security are promise we cannot keep."
Do you think changes need to be made to Social Security for future generations or not?
BECERRA: Absolutely. That you just said the operative words, "future generations." We're not talking about balancing these budgets today for future generations. We're doing it because if we don't do it today, the person who got to pay that mortgage tomorrow will find interest rates will have shot up.
And so, we're trying to take care of past debts. Remember, the debt ceiling vote is about past debts. So, it's not about future obligations.
Social Security will be good for the next quarter century. But we should still do something to make sure that after that quarter century, we're not paying 78 cents on the dollar in benefits, we're paying 100 percent on the dollar.
BAIER: Right. But last year, for the first time since the '80s -- excuse me -- Social Security paid out more benefits than it took in payroll.
BECERRA: True.
BAIER: Correct?
BECERRA: True.
BAIER: And, essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Social Security Trust Fund is a pile of IOUs from the government, that was taken from Congress' past that have already borrowed that money and spent on other programs. So, eventually, you have to pay that back. Is that not accurate?
BECERRA: Well, OK, this is -- this is the best way for me to display this for you. Do you have a wallet?
BAIER: Not on me.
BECERRA: Well, let me pull this out. Five-dollar bill, right? OK. It's just a piece of paper but it says $5 on it.
OK. Let me show you something else. This is a $50 savings bond. My daughter got it when she was born 16 years ago.
Both of these are pieces of paper. This is a Treasury certificate, this is a dollar. Both of them rely on the full faith and credit of the United States to be covered. If I try to cash either one of these in, it's only because the federal government says you can count on getting paid.
That's what Social Security has to the tune of $2.5 trillion. So when people say that Social Security has no money, they're saying to you that for the last 30 some odd years politicians have been stealing the money out of Social Security. It's there. Ask China, because China has these as well and they expect to be paid. Social Security expects to be paid.
And, by the way, you and I expect to be paid.
BAIER: Sure. But with 10,000 baby-boomers retiring every day for the next 19 years and with people living longer, and Social Security trustees report says the program will not be able to pay fully beginning in 2036, eventually, you're going to have to deal with this program. And you have the White House saying, why not now?
BECERRA: And we could. But you have to do it in strengthening Social Security, not paying for deficit that the Social Security and Social Security beneficiaries had anything to do with. That's the difficulty that Democrats had with what Republicans are proposing. Republicans want to put Social Security and Medicare on the table.
You just heard Senator McConnell say we need to put the two programs on the table to deal with deficit and debt of today. And Democrats are saying wait a second. Whoa!
Every day an American works, when he or she pays a FICA tax out of the paycheck, it's going to Social Security and Medicare. Why when it's paid for system should it now have to pay for deficits that were caused by Bush tax cut to wealthy, unpaid for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That's the big rub.
BAIER: You're against any changed consumer price index, changed CPI, consumer price index change, that would -- which is essentially adjusting benefits for what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says is overstated inflation? You're against that?
BECERRA: If you -- are you parents still alive? Grandparents still alive?
BAIER: Sure.
BECERRA: OK. Do they have the same healthcare cost that you do? They don't. Seniors have higher healthcare cost than someone your age or my age. What's going to happen if you change the CPI, the backdoor cut to Social Security? Why?
Because while you and I are nimble enough still to make a consumer choice to say not buy a Mercedes Benz and buy a Ford -- less expensive Ford vehicle, a senior can't decide, I need to find a substitute for health care. I need health care. And so, the changed CPI does exactly, it changed seniors to lower benefits, which is unfair to them because they worked for those Social Security benefits.
.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Therefor Repulican operatives will now be investigating his past history and love life looking for any means possible to bring him down. They realize they can't beat him with logical agruments.
How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that at least nominally a dollar bill is a paper representation of someone's labor that has been taken from that person and sent to the Federal Govt. to be put in a Social Security "Trust Fund" from which that person is SUPPOSED to receive retirement benefits. A Bond is a govt. promise to, at some time in the future, confiscate more of the "labor-created- wealth" of some Americans who have yet to become taxpayers and give it to those who "purchased" those Bonds. If THAT isn't debt, I don't know what is.
Social Security better not be on the table. The Democrats would never live it down. Social Security is not even an expense.
If they started taking from it, that would amount to a default. A breach of contract. A breach of the constitution.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
the republicans rise the dept ceiling 19 times under bush....
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/14/...
Your mother wouldn't let you get away with using that argument - "well everyone else is doing it" It was a bad idea when "the Republicans" did it and it is STILL a bad idea. Bush did a whole bunch of things that made him look pretty much like a Democrat while he was in office. You don't have to look very hard to find Conservatives who thought it was a bad idea when Bush did it - at least THEY are consistent. Obama actually OPPOSED raising the debt limit when he was a Senator but is NOW in favor of doing so.
When I first saw his name listed for the FOX show, I thought "yep, typical to choose some unknown democrat." But, I thought he did an excellent job,
The words "Lock Box" isn't that big of a joke anymore is it? Gore was right. Now the right wants to take the SS money to pay down the debt to pay for Republican policies over the past 10 years.
is intended to be a factual statement
Thanks for calling it that instead of the Republican term Entitlement. A term which Obama the DINO has adopted willingly. It is a term that is both insulting, and belittling to retirees and is 100% inaccurate.
That it is our money and has never been the government's money, and that we are entitled to it upon retirement is true.
But it is not a congressional created tax supported Entitlement, like, say, Congressional perks and benefits.
SS and Medicare are super Savings Accounts held in Trust by the Government, and invested in Trust by the Government.
They are not tax revenue and Obama is 100% wrong to allow them to be in the same discussion with the deficient discussion. They are neither a government expenditure not a government revenue.
He is either to big a fool to realize what he is saying or he is a Republican.
Remember that tax cut he brags about having given all Americans is a 2% cut in SS deductions. Exactly what the Republicans want, starvation of the SS Medicare Trusts. He offered it and the Republican gladly took it.
every time I hear a talking head use the term "Entitlement" I am almost provoked enough to throw a shoe through the TV.!!!
"He (Obama) is either too big a fool to realize what he is saying or he is a Republican."
Almost correct, he is neither. He's no fool - he got himself 'selected' to the office of President; and he's no Republican - just another sociopathic patsy for the corpora-fascists and banksters who own him and the rest of our government.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
because that is exactly what it is, an entitlement program which the beneficiaries are entitled to. You might want to check a dictionary on its' precise meaning. If you have bought into the idea that entitlements are wrong then the problem lies with your acceptance of the Republican framing of the term and not what it actually means..
Hasa Diga Eebowai
from the whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/medicar...
whitehouse.gov
I would vote for Becerra.
(Sent from IPhone at Paco's in Culver City....Ha! Cadillac Margie anyone?!)
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
The former government's reckless spending plus the two wars is why we are where we are at today!
The Social Security is what citizens paid into all their earning years. It is not a hand-out! Social Security and
medicare is necessary for the well being of our Nation. We cannot go backwards into the 30's!
It is up to the wealthy's loop holes! The agricultural subsidies! The oil subsidies! Big Corporations should start paying their fair of tax! And etc.! Our Government should never have cause to attempt to dip into Soc.Sec. and Medicare and Medicaid and budget cutting for the middle class ... while Republicans refuse to handle the deficit properly!!! The Republicans in Congress are driving the working middle class to rebel and it will be a sad affair if it comes into force!
He's my congressman and I'm proud to vote for him. He holds town meetings by phone and answers questions thoughtfully and without the condescension that politicians often display. He's on the correct side of every issue I care about and he's accessible when he needs to be. I respect and admire him. As I said, I'm proud to have him represent me - how many of us can say that?
Jim Kelly
www.infinitepi.com
He is my Congressman in Highland Park.
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
I do not know why people look into complicated solutions for easy problems. The Republicans I can understand because they want to eliminate SS and Medicare, but not the Democrats. Remove the cap from Social Security. Problem solved for a very long time. In fact, the Democrats should put a 1 page bill together and introduce it and pass it in the Senate and see what happens on the House. For Medicare, they need to revise Medicare part-D and buy drugs at a discount. That will save billions, but actually solving the Medicare problem is more complex because of rising costs, which no one is addressing.
stll wrong,
here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036
charts to 2019....still result of xx.
This bickering has got to end! The GOP has got to quit trying to force Obama into desolving or putting limitations on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid for the poor!!! The American people will not stand for anything less than what is present! Obama will be just wasting his efforts, if he thinks he can soft-soap the public into settling for less to appease the GOP for the deficit!! President Obama better get his priorities in order ... he needs us more than we need him! The American people voted him in and if he wants a 2nd term in office he has to know to stand up for the rights of the American people who paid taxes all their lives. He has to get his act together once and for all and not allow the Republicans to push him into screwing up the Nation!!
Ok, please bear with me. I realize that you are predisposed to believe what the Senator said. Here is the truth. A bond bears interest from the Federal Government and represents a debt upon which the Federal Govt pays interest. If you put a $50 bill in your pocket and hold it in your pocket for 20 years you still have a $50 bill. If you buy a bond you buy it for less and it matures and in twenty years you have been paid interest. Same as any loan with scheduled interest. The problem isn't that the govenment wants to raid Social Security, the problem is that the govenment has already raided Social Security.
You paid in cash, the stuff that you can take to the grocery store and come out with groceries. The government then took that cash to fund govenrment spending and replaced it with bonds representing a loam to the govenment, which represents its ability to tax people to pay back the loan. If this was cold hard cash sitting in a lock box then Obama wouldn't be telling you that social security checks might not be issued. If you managed a 401K plan and took out the money intended to fund retiree pensions other than purchasing assets that were intended to pay interest, you would be in jail! A bond is only valid to the extent that the borrower has the ability to pay it back. Obviously the government does not.
I have tried to write this post as non-offensively as possible, no name calling. Both republicans and democrats are to blame for allowing SS to fund other govt spending. Because of this betrayal, the money you put in can't fund your retirement and the only answer is to cut benefits. We should be angry about that but its not a betrayal that's about to happen its a betrayal that already has.
Comments are closed on this entry