Social Security head: Program fraying from neglect

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Outgoing Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has some parting shots for Congress, the White House and advocates for seniors. They have all "really walked away from Social Security," he says, leaving the program "fraying because of inattention to its problems."

Instead of making the hard choices to fix Social Security's financial problems, policymakers "use it as a tool of political rhetoric," Astrue said.

Astrue, 56, has headed the federal government's largest program since 2006 - he was nominated by former President George W. Bush. By law, Social Security commissioners serve six-year terms, so President Barack Obama will now have the opportunity to choose his own nominee, who must be approved by the Senate. Astrue's last day on the job was Wednesday.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say the program's trust funds will run dry in 2033, leaving Social Security with only enough revenue to pay about 75 percent of benefits. Already the program is paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130214/DA4EAGQ00.html

---

In this Aug. 5, 2010, photo, Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael J. Astrue speaks at a news conference on the Social Security and Medicare Trustees report at the Treasury Department in Washington. Astrue has some parting shots for Congress, the White House and advocates for seniors. He says they have all "really walked away from Social Security," leaving the program "fraying because of inattention to its problems." (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

[Progressive dog]

1. In other words "we spent their money and we don't want to pay it back" nt

[PSPS]

2. "Already the program is paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes."

The trustees who oversee Social Security say the program's trust funds will run dry in 2033, leaving Social Security with only enough revenue to pay about 75 percent of benefits. Already the program is paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes.

Um, it's supposed to be paying out more at this time. That's why there's a $2.5 trillion surplus. This guy is a useless Bush toadie.

[NMDemDist2]

4. ^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^ n/t

[pa28]

8. Bush appointee. He doesn't want the trust fund paid back as intended. n/t

[rurallib]

3. Just occurred to me that lower wages will

mean lower SS income - another long term effect of the Saint Ronnie revolution.

[JDPriestly]

5. Precisely. That is why the solution is raising the cap and

Last edited Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

imposing the tax on all capital gains and other investment income.

Or . . . . . . . .

RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

Productivity has risen. Why haven't wages????

[John2]

6. What I would

ask him would he produce the recipients of these benefits? I would need the numbers of recipients for several decades and how much was paid into the program over that period of time.

They use the approaching retirement of baby boomers as a scare tactic. Now supposedly these babyboomers also paid into the system. This system was suppose to pay for itself. That money should also draw interest just like any other retirement pension. Now I'm a babyboomer and have not retired yet or drawn any money. What Congress has done is made it harder to claim disability for early retirement and they have also raised the retirement age. They do not raise the COLA very much either to keep up with the standard of living.

In fact, as I understand it, Congress supposedly raided the Social Security Trust fund to pay for other deficits in the budget. As I otherstand it also, part of the overall debt is actually owed to Social Security and Social Security payments are mandatory. In other words, I interpret that as a Bill Congress owes to retirees that paid into the system and it is not part the problem which cause the Debt. And if they don't pay up, it is Default.

So in essence, is Congress claiming the Debt they actually created is caused by the people they owe the Debt to? The spending that Congress needs to cut back on in order to meet their obligations should be on expensive Wars, huge tax credits to the wealthy and corporations.

Here is a specific example of wasteful spending by Congress: there is a jet on order by the military which costs 400 billion dollars for just one plane. Why would one military jet cost 400 Billion dollars? Who set the price of this item and who profits from it? My suggestion is a few people in the top percent.

Another example are the profits gained by investors of corporate enterprises such as oil companies and the health industry. It applies to education also. Only a few families in this country are accumulating enormous wealth in this country through privatization. They also create monopolies to keep others out of the business. These people also get huge tax windfalls because of this theory of trickle down economics. This theory has been false because of downsizing and outsourcing jobs for cheaper production costs and maximising profits for these few individuals or families. They raise the prices of resources also while keeping labor costs low. The people creating these laws to benefit the few are bought and paid for. That means Congress. In fact you got the Fox guarding the hen house. The problem is not us but Congress. Money needs to be taken out of Elections or running for office needs to be cheaper, because too many good candidates can't raise the money to run for office. The media is also profiting or owned by these corporations.

[madrchsod]

7. how many millions of jobs have been lost ?

how many people have`t had a pay raise or their hours/overtime been cut ?

is there any wonder why the revenue is declining ?

[watoos]

9. The initial report

that SS was paying out more than it was taking in didn't take into account the interest that SS had accrued. The doom and gloom rhetoric is done for a reason.
If the decision is made to not pay back what is owed to SS then we can subtract 4.7 trillion dollars from the deficit. Raise the cap a little bit and problem solved for another 25 years.

[RC]

10. The actual problem is that Social Security was set up to keep the lowest of the low from dieing in

the streets. How dare we waste money on them, when the 1% have yacht and villa payments to make.