GOP may work next on welfare, Medicare, Social Security

[LongTomH]

We knew this would be their next step: GOP may work next on welfare, Medicare, Social Security:

House Speaker Paul Ryan said recently that he wants Republicans to focus in 2018 on reducing spending on government programs. Last month, President Donald Trump said welfare reform will “take place right after taxes, very soon.”

High-ranking Republicans are hinting that, after their tax overhaul, the party intends to look at cutting spending on welfare, entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and other parts of the social safety net.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said recently that he wants Republicans to focus in 2018 on reducing spending on government programs. Last month, President Donald Trump said welfare reform will “take place right after taxes, very soon, very shortly after taxes,” according to The Washington Examiner.

As Republicans advocate spending cuts, they have frequently cited a need to reduce the national deficit while growing the economy.

“You also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn’t the driver of our debt. The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said this week.

............snip

On the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked Rubio and Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., to promise that Republicans would not advance cuts to Medicare and Social Security after their tax bill. Toomey said that there was “no secret plan” to do so, while Rubio said he opposed cuts to either program for current beneficiaries. However, neither closed the door to changing the programs for future beneficiaries.

“I am not going to support any cuts to people who are on the program and need those benefits. But I want this program to survive,” Toomey said. To which Sanders responded: “He just told you he’s going to cut Social Security.”

The idea that "we must fix entitlements" has become part of the 'common wisdom' on the hill and in the media. We can't let them get away with this: Every time they talk about 'Entitlement Reform,' come back with:

"They're Not Entitlements, Goddammit!!! They're Earned Benefits!!!! I Paid Into These Programs All My Working Life!!!!"

[greeny2323]

1. Fighting the press

Sadly, we constantly have to fight the press on these issues. They just repeat Republican propaganda as fact. And not just the likes of Fox News but all of them.

[underpants]

2. Oh Sen. Collins

1954

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ikesocial.asp

[workinclasszero]

3. "Work on" means destroy and give the proceeds to the koch bros

[moriah]

4. The way to start fixing SS/Medicare is to stop the tax breaks for high earners.

The same 6.2% low income earners pay in isn't going to break people who make more than the cutoff on payroll.

A self-employment tax directed to Medicare/SS, even just 3%, on investment income over $120k a year (so retirees who might have to report "investnent income" aren't taxed unless they're withdrawing quite a bit each month, and that's higher than the earnings threshold for having to pay taxes on SS income too), should fix the rest.

The idea for those cutoffs was that people who made that much wouldn't choose to use Social Security or Medicare. But even high-income retirees are applying for their paid-in benefits, especially because of fear of market volatility. Therefore, there IS no rationale for not taxing those earners, unless we're going to say you can't collect benefits you paid for if you have more than a certain amount saved. That wouldn't encourage people not to use SS, but to invest less in private retirement.