« After the Public Education Forum | Main | Cook Political Report Declares 12th District Race a "Toss-up," Highlights Vulnerbilities of Burns and Barrow »
May 14, 2004
Open Thread: May 14th
Today is the 200th anniversary of the departure of Lewis and Clark on their famous journey across the country to the Pacific. We're down to just over ten weeks until the primary election, so lets see what's on your mind in today's open thread.May 14, 2004 in Open Thread | Permalink
Comments
---I recieved the letter at the bottom of this post from my grandfather and scratched out a quick reply--what do you think?---
As a matter of fact--Republicans do want to take your SS away. Democrats are the new fiscal conservatives---the neoconservative wave that has hit the republican party is that of "tax breaks to please the people, spend into deficit to damn the future."
How can I say that Democrats are the new fiscal conservatives? Look at our current administration. The Bush camp has given a reckless tax cut that has not only crippled our national budget, but also inequitably redistributed our tax structure. Yes--people who earn more money should pay a proportionally higher rate of taxes--ask my why if you want me to elaborate that point, I'm not sure if we're on the same page as to my reasoning for that. The Bush tax cut has put more of the burden of financing our debt-ridden government on the working poor and the lower middle class than ever before--while failing to close tax loopholes that let corporations off the hook. Ask for more on that if you want.
As to your allegation that the Democrats want to take Social Security away--that is completely inaccurate. Democrats are interested in a balanced budget that doesnt spend our government into such great debt that we must dip into Social Security reserves to pay for reckless wars or corporate welfare.
You can call me a "tax and spend" liberal--but I'm not--and neither is the Democratic Party. We're not about tax and spend--we're about invest and grow. We realize that if we invest now into things like education and other social programs, our economy will grow in the future as a result of the proper apportionment of tax dollars today. Essentially--Republicans like to s y that they'll cut taxes--and do it--because it increases popular support for the candidate who is positing lower taxes. But, when we get the tax cut from them, its horribly done, giving more breaks to the rich and less to the poor, and they cut taxes irresponsibly. Its as if they never learned the concept of spending only what you make--because as we're going into a time when we most need a strong tax base, we're crippling our ability to get the things done that we need to do in government.
Democrats recognize that the short term annoyance of a higher tax burden results in properity for all down the road--as the children whose educations we funded, and the people who we helped move out of poverty, move into the workforce and begin making America even more of an economic power than it already is.
What people dont realize is that a drastic tax cut is followed by a small upswing in the economy (in GDP, not in jobs,) and then future generations are left to deal with the fallout of a crippling deficit.
What does this all have to do with social security? If we keep going down the road we're on, republicans' reckless spending will bankrupt our nation--Social Security included.
--Marcus
> [The author of this piece] grew up with FDR and remember the enactment well. It seems the democrats we knew then have done a 180º turn and so have I.. I was once a democrat until Korea when they stabbed all of us serving there.
>
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
>
> Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
>
> 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
>
> 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
>
> 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax
> purposes each year,
>
> 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund,
> and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,
> and,
>
> 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
>
> Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then
> finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be
> interested in the following:
>
> Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that
> Congress could spend it?
>
> A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
>
> Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
>
> A: The Democratic Party.
>
> Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
>
> A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was
> Vice President of the U.S.
>
> Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
>
> A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to
> receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never
> paid a dime into it!
>
> Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and
> tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
>
> And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
>
> Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!
>
> If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
>
> How many people can YOU send this to?
>
Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!! We need to be heard!
Posted by: Marcus at May 18, 2004 11:13:23 AM
This is typical of the "whisper campaign" that the Bush administration is trying to use to bolster their sagging approval ratings. I get emails like this every week or two, consisting of the typical misleading information, half-truths, and outright falsehoods that the Bush administration has become famous for.
Here are the real facts. Social Security is a great program. It keeps millions of senior citizens out of poverty. Coming soon - a point-by-point rebuttal by our very own policy guru, Billy Merck.
Posted by: Martin Matheny at May 18, 2004 1:16:19 PM
SOCIAL SECURITY:
>
> Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
>
> 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
The Program was never meant to be voluntary, but rather was meant to be a mechanism to realize the “right and duty of a community to protect its members”. (See Why Social Security?, Social Security Board (1937), available at http://www.ssa.gov/history/whybook.html). It is clear that the Program was established because the community could not “rely wholly upon the willingness of people to help each other”. Id. If participation were voluntary, the objectives of the Program of providing family security and social security could not be realized. From the beginning, in FDR’s 1935 Economic Security Bill (his proposal that was a precursor to the SSA), the social insurance program was compulsory, not voluntary. (See http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrbill.html).
> 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
Workers were actually told the following when the SSA was first introduced:
Taxes would be 1% for three years (1937-1940), 1.5% for the next three years (1940-1943), 2% for the next three years (1943-1946), 2.5% for the next three years (1946-1949), and 3% indefinitely after that. (See To Employees of Industrial and Business Establishments, Social Security Board (1936), available at http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html). Some of these increases were postponed during WWII. (See February 25, 1944, http://www.ssa.gov/history/1940.html). A Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, froze the rate at 1% in 1947. Id. at August 10, 1946). Under Republican President Eisenhower, the rate rose to 2% in 1954, 2.5% in 1959, and 3% in 1960. Id. at January 1, 1954, January 1, 1959, and January 1, 1960. In fact, the FICA rate has risen steadily to its current level of 7.65% under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. The last increase occurred under the first President Bush. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a3.pdf).
> 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund,
> and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,
> and,
It is President Bush who is raiding the Trust Fund in order to give tax breaks to millionaires and to pay for a unnecessary war, despite pledges to the contrary.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Taxes on Social Security benefits began under President Reagan.
> Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that
> Congress could spend it?
>
> A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Despite pledging shortly after taking office to “keep all Social Security money in the Social Security System, where it belongs,” it is Bush who has looted the Social Security Trust Fund. To cover the costs of his tax cuts, Bush will have to spend the entire projected Social Security surplus of $2.4 trillion from 2005 through 2014.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
>
> A: The Democratic Party.
Unlike the other claims presented here, no specific President was mentioned as eliminating the FICA income tax deduction. After much research, I was unable to find any historical record of who eliminated it. It would be nice, if Republicans insist on making ridiculous, baseless claims, that they include at least a kernel of fact so that they can be investigated.
> Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
>
> A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was
> Vice President of the U.S.
Social Security benefits actually became subject to federal income taxes as part of the 1983 Amendments under President Reagan.
> Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
>
> A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to
> receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never
> paid a dime into it!
Unless the immigrants immigrated the day before they turned 65, they presumably worked for some period of time, during which they were in fact contributing many “dimes” into the system. The monthly level of benefits are always determined by one’s lifetime contribution to the system, immigrant or not, so if any immigrant never “paid a dime” then he would never receive a dime. The only change with these amendments was that immigrants were eligible on the same terms as citizens.
> Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and
> tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
FICA, first of all, is not the original “contract”. It is what the tax provisions of the SSA were called when they were moved into the Internal Revenue Code. Second, when Republicans insist on gambling our future away on risky privatization schemes and raiding the SS Trust Fund, the only logical conclusion is that they do in fact want to take our Social Security away.
> And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
No, the worst part is that citizens believe that Bush’s economic policies and foreign policy do anything to contribute to our security.
> Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!
Indeed.
Posted by: Billy Merck at May 18, 2004 4:36:41 PM
::Bows down to Billy Merck::
Wow.
Posted by: Marcus at May 18, 2004 10:56:58 PM