If Obama cuts Social Security could he be Impeached?

[ErikJ]

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:40 AM - Edit history (3)

This cut is like a knick in a knife fight. It will start the bleeding and lead to further cuts until by 100 cuts, Social Security will be gone forever. Obama has betrayed his sacred trust of Social Security and willing to sacrifice it for a tiny few percent increase in taxes on the rich when we need a gigantic increase on their taxes to make up since 1980 when the top tax rates on the rich were 75% and now as low as 20% if that!!.

Its funny how the SS Trust Fund has a SURPLUS OF $2.6 TRILLION and the Bush Wars have a DEBT OF about the same ..$2 to 3 trillion with the help of the Bush Tax cuts on the rich. And NOW they want to pay for it with the SS TRUST FUND by cutting benefits? OUTRAGE!!

Perhaps Obama really was a Republican planted by the Powers that Be? It would be an extremely clever move if they did. Killing SS has been the Holy Grail of the GOP forever.
Is this the beginning of the end for SS? Time for impeachment?

[pnwmom]

1. No.

He can't cut Social Security without the votes of a majority of House members and at least a majority of the Senate.

And his bill is just a proposal -- the actual bill they vote on will be one THEY write, not him. They're not going to vote to cut Social Security, and then vote to impeach him for suggesting it.

[dballance]

30. Thanks, same point I wanted to make.

When exactly will we all learn the President does not control the budget and SCOTUS ruled line-item veto out? And, revenue bills are supposed to originate in the lower house.

[Katashi_itto]

36. They could vote to impeach him for spitting on the sidewalk. The House decides whats impeachable.

[Lil Missy]

2. No. n/t

[cali]

3. theoretically, yes. the House decides what is and isn't an impeachable offence

as what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not specified in the Constitution. Realistically, of course not.

Ridiculous shit.

[Summer Hathaway]

4. Thank you for your screenplay submission,

"Manchurian Candidate - No! This Time We're Series!?!", which we read with great interest.

Sadly, our market research shows that there are not enough tin-foil-hat-wearers to accept the premise of the film enough to actually spend money to see it.

If you come up with any other bright ideas in future, please let us know. We would be most amused to hear them.

[ErikJ]

5. On the bright side then=

Obama is just too weak to protect the greatest legacy of the Democratic party from the RepubliCon sharks and wolves just waiting for blood?? Either way its impeachable.

[Summer Hathaway]

6. When SS benefits are cut

on Obama's watch, we can discuss it then.

But that ain't gonna happen.

[daybranch]

15. silver lining

Did Obama just totally unite the Progressives, the rest of the dems, moderate republicans, and a majority of independents against the type of actions desired by republican leadership? The kind of action republican lackeys of the rich would not attempt until they sneak their members into majority positions in the House, the Senate and the Presidency? Thank you President Obama for showing us who they are. Thank you republicans for being the cowards you are. If you support such cuts , let us hear you say so. The people are listening? Obama has given you the chance to speak, why do you cower in your own impotence?
President Obama and the dems win again.The people found the repubs disgusting before, this is another nail in the coffin for repubs. Silence, silence, the silence is amazing. It is time John Boehner to admit what you repugnants are trying to do? Why are you so silent?Lets have a vote on the Presiodents Budget in the House and the Senate. You repubs can find out how well you connect with the voters. Dems will not vote for this and you are afraid to let the repubs vote for it, in light of what it will do to their number in 2014. Obama has paralyzed you by revealing what you want but you are too cowardly to admit the truth. What lying punks, the republican leadership has to be to adequately serve their rich overlords.
By now, it should be clear to evangelicals that the only lord the republicans serve is named Koch or after some other very rich human. Bye Bye Republicans, Obama will stop at nothing to help the people. He will go down as the best and most progressive President since Franklin Roosevelt.

[ErikJ]

23. Yes interesting.

Earlier tonight I was on a conservative forum and complained about the Obama SS cuts and nobody knew what I was talking about! Hush now.

[Nay]

41. I also have noticed that RW coworkers have no idea that Obama has proposed chained

CPI/SS cuts. It seems that information is not being spread in the RW blogosphere. It will be spread in the mid-term elections, of course, but not until then.

[onenote]

37. By historical standards its not impeachable

As has been stated, in theory anything or nothing can be grounds for impeachment. But by historical standards, proposing legislation has never been viewed as impeachable and as has been pointed out, since a majority of Congress would have to vote for such legislation in order for it to take effect, there is zero -- nada -zilch -- possibility of any such thing happening. The mere fact that it has been suggested a couple of times here on DU is a sign of some serious need for some people to come back to the real world from whatever fantasy land they are visiting.

[davidpdx]

22. ^^ Priceless

[dkf]

7. Do you realize when SS first started there was NO inflation adjustment?

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30.

These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose.

In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits.

The separate bill creating automatic COLAs also provided for automatic increases in the earnings subject to Social Security taxes and an automatic adjustment in the wage-base used in calculating benefits. This second adjustment was put in the law as a sort of companion to the COLA. The COLA adjusts for increases in prices, whereas the wage-base adjustment corrects for increases in wages. The purpose of the COLA was to maintain the purchasing power of benefits already awarded. The purpose of the automatic adjustment in the wage base was to maintain the relative value of Social Security benefits for future applicants. Unfortunately, the procedure for adjusting for price and wage increases contained a flaw which resulted in future benefit levels soaring out of control. Indeed, it became apparent that if the trends of the mid-1970s continued, future Social Security beneficiaries could end up receiving more in their monthly retirement benefit than their gross salaries while working. This problem was corrected in the 1977 Amendments. However, the correction led to the appearance of what came to be known informally as "The Notch."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[ErikJ]

8. Then came Greenspan and Reagan who DOUBLED the SS tax in 1983

to make up for their huge tax cuts on the rich. Starting to get the picture?

[dkf]

10. By law the trustees are supposed to review the funds for a 75 year horizon.

They did what they needed to do to fix it. We need to do that too.

The 1983 Trustees Report indicated that the Social Security program was put into "actuarial balance" for the 75-year, long-range projection period. This meant that under the intermediate assumptions used in that report, representing the trustees' best estimate of future experience at that time, program financing was expected to be sufficient to pay scheduled benefits in full through 2057

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html


Of course we could also accept the 25% cut when the trust funds run out but I doubt that would go over well.

Chained CPI delays the day the trust funds expire. If we keep it as is that day is expected in 2033.

[ErikJ]

11. The surplus is still growing and wont be exhausted til 2037

even then without any adjustments I heard it will be able to pay out 90% of its benefits. I dont believe SS Trust fund had much of any surplus before the Greenspan SS commission tax increase. Its income equaled its expense for most of the time.

[dkf]

13. Those aren't the latest intermediate numbers.

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

[ErikJ]

16. Obvious solution is to raise the cap or get rid of it entirely

Why should billionaires pay only .0001% of their income on SS when the average worker pays 15%? (Granted the employer pays half but that is compensated by lower wages)

[dkf]

18. Well maybe someone should bring that up.

It would help if Democrats explained what's coming down the road. Obama is trying to address a problem the population doesn't even know it has and refuses to acknowledge exists.

[ErikJ]

20. If Obama was for defending SS dont you think he would talk about raising the cap?

instead of CUTTING benefits? How many billions do the rich in this country need stashed in their off shore accounts? I think Sanders submitted a bill for raising the cap but I dont hink anybody knows about that as well. The Powers that Be shut that down pretty fast-quietly.

[dkf]

25. Maybe he doesn't believe it should work that way.

I don't know.

[madville]

17. New numbers were released in the 2012 trustee report

The OASI trust fund is projected to be exhausted in 2033 now and then 75% benefits would be available from that point on.

The SSDI trust fund will be exhausted in 2016. So disability checks are not affected, SSA could use money from the OASI trust fund to continue to pay out full disability benefits after that date. If that happens the big trust fund, OASI, is exhausted even earlier, like around 2027.

[dkf]

19. Whoa I hadn't seen the effect of the disability fund depletion on the retirement fund.

That makes it even worse and it's only 14 years away. No wonder they are addressing this now.

[olddots]

12. this one of the most informative posts I've read on DU

America is one of the lowest taxed countries in the world and the so called wealthiest .

[ErikJ]

14. Wealthiest Banana Republic soon.

With the top 1% confiscating all the resource wealth and neglecting the rest of us to poverty.

[Kolesar]

24. I dunno. You have a budget for internet service apparently

Or is this some sort of "gentle poverty" that you are approaching?

[ErikJ]

28. The wealth inequality is growing at staggering rate.

Its higher now than before the 1929 Crash. The middle class is decreasing for the 1st time in 60 years. How long before the middle class disappears entirely?

[CBGLuthier]

39. RW Talking Point Number 104

Yeah, that is what we call it all right. Gentle Poverty.

[Kolesar]

26. ^Lots of good articles at Social Security dot gov ... eom

[bowens43]

9. Of course not, Obama can't cut anything, congress has to do it.

[djean111]

21. Oh, goodie, I see we are entering the "it's a GOOD thing" phase.

The "he would never do it" phase has run its course, evidently.
And now, without skipping a beat, on to why it is brilliant.

[ManiacJoe]

27. For impeachment, what would be the crime he is to be charge him with?

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. It is not plausible that the Congress would first vote to approve cuts in Social Security benefits

then turn around and vote to impeach the President for proposing what they just voted to enact.

Every Democratic President and every Democratic nominee and every serious contender for the Democratic nomination who had a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning the Democratic nomination for the past three decades and longer - have been to the right of old-style moderately liberal Republicans. Even Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988 were to the right of Bill Scranton of 1964 or George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller of 1988. They are all moderate Republicans now. Those who seek the nomination and who are not moderate Republicans from 1976 on are not taken seriously and will not be taken seriously anytime in the near future.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Your OP starts out stupid and ends deranged

[99Forever]

32. Signing a really bad budget into law...

... is not an impeachable offense. Period.

[fasttense]

33. So when will it be enough?

When RepubliCONS (the uber rich) and Democrats (the want to be uber rich) cut your Social Security benefits by 6% that you paid twice for? Will that be enough for people to stand up and say workers in this country deserve a decent life, even in retirement? Or will you just wait and wait to see if anything happens then go to sleep while workers and their children live in crushing debt and poverty despite working hard all their lives.

The RepubliCONS set up a trap for Obama and he stepped into it. They ran up huge debts in the federal government which stimulates the economy (unless you deregulate banks and they crash the world economy). Then when a Democratic President gets in, they scream, and cry, and whine and act like chicken little over the huge debt they ran up. Then they claim that Social Security is too big a responsibility to pay back because of the huge debt RepubliCONS ran up so they insist cuts to the program must be made. See how nicely Obama agreed and offered to cut benefits AND turn the program into a a welfare system that can be cut yet again just like Clinton cut welfare last time a Democrat was president. See how nicely the Democrats play along with the RepubliCONS when it comes to crushing the majority of American citizens.

When will "We The People" realize we no longer have a representative government?

[CountAllVotes]

34. When people start suiciding themselves

It won't be long if they cut SS. The disabled will be hit the hardest already struggling to get by as they cannot work and have no options.

Maybe after a few old folks and disabled folks that cannot makes a go of it any longer (that are already there now), then sadly maybe someone will notice.

Of course few people see the elderly that often don't get out much any more nor the disabled that in many cases live the life of a shut-in, unseen to the outside world.

Sad damn reality IMO and yes it is under your watch Mr. President. Congratulations! Mission accomplished eh?

[woo me with science]

35. Nonprofitable entries on a corporate balance sheet

are inevitably crossed out.

That's just common sense for shareholders.

Welcome to corporate America.

[Capt. Obvious]

38. LOL!

Lying us into war, illegal surveillance, torture - impeachment is off the table.

Proposing cuts to cost of living adjustments in SS - impeach!

[OldDem2012]

40. Delusional. Why?....

Two items in the President's budget PROPOSAL (key point some folks seem to be totally missing) that will make it DOA:

1. The Senate Dems are totally opposed to cutting any of the earned benefit/social programs.

2. The House GOP Tea Nazis are totally opposed to increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Additionally, PROPOSING a budget is not an impeachable offense.

Get serious.

[geek tragedy]

42. In the United States, Congress passes legislation, not the President.

Thus, if SS gets cut, it will be because Congress voted to do so. It is unlikely Obama would be impeached by Congress for signing something Congress voted for.

[HappyMe]

43. Oh ffs, NO.

It's a budget PROPOSAL. It isn't the law of the land. If anything gets cut, it's going to be congress that does it.