Let’s talk “entitlements”

MoonHowler

 

 

A month or so ago I posted a letter from my friend Bear who was on a rant about the use of the word ‘entitlements.’  I agreed with him which brought out a fury of people telling me what the word ‘entitlement’ meant.   You know, it isn’t the word ‘entitlement.’  It is the way most people SAY entitlement and what it is grouped with. 

Americans are entitled to Medicare and Social Security, or at least most of them are.  There are probably some exceptions.  My problem comes from the snarl people have when they talk about those taking ‘entitlements.’  Those under 50 often unknowingly go into facial contortions when they utter the word.  Why?  If you are entitled to something, why do others resent it so much?  They will be entitled also…one of these days. 

I think the other thing that bothers me so much is that Medicaid is thrown in along with other forms of what we used to call ‘welfare’ to the ‘entitlements’ conversation.   Now that is just down right irritating because many of the folks pulling from these programs haven’t paid in the thousands upon thousands of dollars that those of us who are entitled to Medicare and Social Security  have paid.    Maybe its the Medi- prefix that just make people relate Medicare and Medicaid.

To those of us who are getting close or who are already there, we resent like hell being lumped in with the medicaid crowd.  Call me an elistist.  I really don’t care.  I worked for years and I paid into both Social Security/FICA and Medicare for what seems like forever and what also seemed like a lot of money.

If MediCARE and Social Security are going to be called ‘entitlements’ then MediCAID and other social programs need to be called something else.  I know that ‘welfare’ isn’t politically correct but neither is ‘entitlement.’  

Do you resent ‘entitlements’ and if so, which ones?  Do you think they will be there for you?  How about the programs for poor people?  Do you resent those?  What do we do about those less fortunate?  Are they entitled to various government programs that most of them have not paid in to?

The Republican Debate: The Social Security Question and the Baby Boomers

MoonHowler

Social Security was the top question during tonight’s CNN/Tea Party Debate.   Everyone admits that there are serious problems with Social Security and that the program, as it exists, it not sustainable for those young people who are now paying in to it.

At least one  of the candidates has called it a ponzi scheme.  Others would give young people the option of putting their funds into private accounts.  There are many fixes out there being discussed.  However, none of the answers address how you fund for the people still in the program.  What needs to happen to Social Security and how can any candidate who wants to tweak Social Security get elected?  The baby boomers are going to be a serious force to be reckoned with. 

Anyone 50 to 65 is a baby boomer.  That is a rather huge voting  block.  I simply don’t think anyone who seriously challenges the Social Security is going to be elected.  There are too many boomers and seniors.  The boomers aren’t nuts and they will turn up the heat on this issue.   They have the numbers.  They have been paying in to a system for a life time and it is going to be pay back time.

What would you do if you were running for president?  How would you do the impossible?

Social Security Healthier Than We Were Led to Believe

MoonHowler

For the past 30 years I have been hearing how I will never see a penny of social security and how it will be bankrupt  long before I ever got there.  The doom and gloom has been a slow drum roll.  All the boomers thought they were paying in to a system that was giving all our money away to various groups who weren’t old people. 

Now in the Huffington Post:

Social Security, according to its annual report, is expected to pay out slightly more in benefits than it receives in payroll tax this year, for the first time since changes were made in 1983. But payroll taxes are only one source of income for the program, and with the others — including interest income on its $2.5 trillion trust fund, held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities — the program is expected to continue to run a surplus until 2024.

The program will need to start spending from its trust fund in 2025, with that fund becoming exhausted in 2037, which is consistent with last year’s estimate. But at a press conference Thursday, Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue, one of the government trustees releasing the report, begged reporters not to scare the public by exaggerating the significance of trust fund exhaustion

“That does not mean that there will be no money left,” Astrue said. At that point, even if Congress took no action, Social Security could still pay out 78 percent of expected benefits from annual revenues. “That would be a bad result, but it is a far cry from having no benefits at all,” he said.

Inaccurate reporting on the topic tends to “make young people despair about Social Security,” he said.

The program, signed into law in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has served as an economic lifeline for millions over the past 75 years. “I’m excited about the next 75 years of Social Security, and you should be too,” Astrue said.

So who has been the social security grim reaper all these years and why?  Has it been a way to control seniors?  Do we need to look to the future?  Of course.  But social security is not at critical mass and we need to stop the panic reaction.

No Social Security Cola Again this Year

MoonHowler

The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be no social security COLA again this year.   A COLA is a cost-of-living adjustment.  This will be the second time in history that there has been no automatic adjustment.  The first time there was no COLA was 2010. 

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch:

The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.

The projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September.

The timing couldn’t be worse for Democrats as they approach an election in which they are in danger of losing their House majority, and possibly their Senate majority as well.

“If you’re the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election,” said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“It’s not the congressional Democrats’ fault, but that’s the way politics works,” Biggs said. “A lot of people will feel hostile about it.”

This past Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6 percent.

Democrats have been working hard to make Social Security an election-year issue, running political ads and holding press conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the national retirement program

I am not at all sure how this affects the Democrats.  Supposedly those on social security will feel hostility and that they are not getting ahead.  It would seem to me that the idea that there was low inflation might slip into those thoughts but I guess not.  On another not, this kind of news usually affects other retirement plans such as pension COLAS. 

Read More

Social Security Turns 75

MoonHowler

Social Security turns 75 this year.  The following was taken from their first pamplet to Americans:

To Employees of Industrial and Business Establishments

FACTORIES-SHOPS-MINES-MILLS-STORES-OFFICES AND OTHER PLACES OF BUSINESS

The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have. They are what the law calls “Old-Age Benefits” under the Social Security Act. If you prefer to keep on working after you are 65, the monthly checks from the Government will begin coming to you whenever you decide to retire.
Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you, if you are eligible. To understand your obligations, rights, and benefits you should read the following general explanation.THERE is now a law in this country which will give about 26 million working people something to live on when they are old and have stopped working. This law, which gives other benefits, too, was passed last year by Congress and is called the Social Security Act.Under this law the United States Government will send checks every month to retired workers, both men and women, after they have passed their 65th birthday and have met a few simple requirements of the law.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU

THIS means that if you work in some factory, shop, mine, mill, store, office, or almost any other kind of business or industry, you will be earning benefits that will come to you later on. From the time you are 65 years old, or more, and stop working, you will get a Government check every month of your life, if you have worked some time (one day or more) in each of any 5 years after 1936, and have earned during that time a total of $2,000 or more.

Read More