Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:35 PM Apr 2013

Social Security's peculiar partisan problem

Reposting this because facts are good.

Social Security's peculiar partisan problem

By Steve Benen

The Huffington Post's estimable Ryan Grim reported the other day that President Obama was the "first" Democratic president to propose cuts to Social Security. Later in the day, he ran a brief correction.

An earlier version of this story said that Obama was the first Democratic president to propose cuts to Social Security. A proposal from President Jimmy Carter in 1977 proposed indexing changes that effectively cut benefits for future retirees.

Right. Carter not only changed the index, he proposed doing so in a way that reduced benefits more than chained-CPI would. Carter also scaled back eligibility rules for Social Security's disability insurance...in 1993, President Clinton taxed benefits for higher-income Social Security beneficiaries, which had the practical effect of cutting benefits for quite a few retirees. Clinton later said he wanted to cut Social Security even more, reducing benefits by about 1% per year, though Congress wouldn't go for it.

Taken together, the last Democratic president who didn't try to make at least some kind of Social Security cuts was President Johnson, who left office more than 44 years ago.

This is not to say Democrats are somehow hostile to Social Security. In fact, that's arguably ridiculous -- Democrats created Social Security and have been its champions for nearly a century, successfully combating efforts from George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans who've fought to privatize it out of existence.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708056-social-securitys-peculiar-partisan-problem


<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


<...>

Legislative Changes in 1996 & 1997

Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121).

This bill, signed by the President on March 29, 1996, made a change in the basic philosophy of the disability program. Beginning on that date, new applicants for Social Security or SSI disability benefits could no longer be eligible for benefits if drug addiction or alcoholism is a material factor to their disability. Unless they can qualify on some other medical basis, they cannot receive disability benefits. Individuals in this category already receiving benefits, are to have their benefits terminated as of January 1, 1997. Previous policy has been that if a person has a medical condition that prevents them from working, this qualifies them as disabled for Social Security and SSI purposes--regardless of the cause of the disability. Another significant provision of this law doubled the earnings limit exemption amount for retired Social Security beneficiaries, on a gradual schedule from 1996 to 2002. In 2002, the exempt amount will be $30,000 per year in earnings, compared to $14,760 under previous law.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

This "welfare reform" legislation, signed by the President on 8/22/96, ended the categorical entitlement to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act by implementing time-limited benefits along with a work requirement. The law also terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens. Previously, lawfully admitted aliens could receive SSI if they met the other factors of entitlement. As of the date of enactment, no new non-citizens could be added to the benefit rolls and all existing non-citizen beneficiaries would eventually be removed from the rolls (unless they met one of the exceptions in the law.) Also effective upon enactment were provisions eliminating the "comparable severity standard" and reference to "maladaptive behavior" in the determination of disability for children to receive SSI. Also, children currently receiving benefits under the old standards were to be reviewed and removed from the rolls if they could not qualify under the new standards.

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

Requires that all federal payments (including Social Security and SSI) be made by electronic funds transfer (no more paper checks) effective January 1, 1999, unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997

This massive omnibus spending bill contained SSA's budget as well as numerous legislative changes relating to the SSI program and to issues involved in fighting fraudulent documents in connection with obtaining Social Security numbers. The major SSI provision makes sponsorship agreements legally enforceable for the first time. In the area of identification-related documents, the law requires the establishment of federal standards for state-issued birth certificates and requires SSA to develop a prototype counterfeit-resistant Social Security card.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997

This bill passed the House on 7/30/97 by a vote of 346 to 85, and passed the Senate the next day on a vote of 85 to 15. This law restored SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996. It also extended for up to one year the period for redetermining the eligibility of certain aliens who may ultimately not be eligible for continued benefits.

- more -

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

The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Social Security's peculiar partisan problem (Original Post) ProSense Apr 2013 OP
I really am surprised that your repost hadn't gotten any comments before mine today. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #1

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
1. I really am surprised that your repost hadn't gotten any comments before mine today.
Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:46 PM
Apr 2013

You reposted this post on April 12th, and it's April 26th today, and it hadn't received a single comment! Hm. I guess they're still busy chomping on that crow. However, it's troubling to see that there are still see too many people on DU trying to perpetuate the myth that President Obama is the first Democratic president to "touch" social security.

and rec'd

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Social Security's peculia...