Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

Social Security Cuts Coming Soon?

by on Feb. 21, 2011, under Health

I have read many articles about Republican plans to cut Social Security, but I thought they would happen down the road, if at all.  It turns out that cuts to Social Security are in the works for this year – and they will affect people who are currently on Social Security.

I was reading the Time Goes By blog which is written by a retiree who worked for many years as a journalist.  I think she goes by the name “Crabby Old Lady”.

Here is some of the post:

The House budget for fiscal year 2011, passed in the wee hours of Saturday morning, calls for about a $1.7 billion cut to Social Security. But wait.

If you have been following Time Goes By posts about the program over the years, you know that Social Security is self-funded, including administrative costs. So what gives? How come Congress can cut those administrative costs?

Here is how: Social Security and SSI benefits are mandatory spending, meaning they are authorized by permanent law. They can be changed under certain circumstances, but that is not what is at risk right now.

Administrative costs, which have remained at about one percent of revenue for many years while providing excellent service, are discretionary spending. This means they are subject to the annual appropriations process (the budget) and Congress can change the amount every year affecting the number of employees and therefore, level of service.

Right now, because the government has lacked a budget for FY2011, administrative costs are frozen at 2010 levels – $11.5 billion – and the House budget cut of $1.7 billion, passed over the weekend, would leave only $9.8 billion.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), in a 18 February letter to Congress, pointed out what this cut means to the program:

“It means having to wait longer to get an appointment to file for benefits. It means not receiving a decision in a timely manner. It means getting a busy signal when you call an office or the Agency’s toll-free 800 number telephone service.

“It means not having your change of address or direct deposit information processed in a timely fashion.

“And finally, it means significant employee furloughs or even office closures, resulting in even greater degradations of service to America’s seniors.”
If the federal government shuts down, non-essential employees cannot go to work. Last week, both the president and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Social Security checks would be delayed, and that would almost immediately affect those of us (about half of Social Security recipients) who receive our Social Security direct deposits or checks on the second Wednesday of the month (9 March).

If your monthly budget is as tight as mine, that is a disaster. Sure, I can eat, but some people won’t. And depending on how long a shutdown lasted I, like many others, couldn’t pay some bills on time. The 1995 “Newt Gingrich shutdown” lasted five days and Congress is much more polarized this time.

So in preparation, I’m arranging to transfer some money from elsewhere into my checking account. What about you?



  • EruditeMan

    About 50 years (or longer) ago anyone with a few working brain cells could see that Social in-Security System was a Ponzi scheme foisted upon some of the US citizenry.  I saw that Congress exempted itself & RR unions when I was much younger & immediately knew I’d never collect money equal to what was stolen from my wages each week.  I’ve kept every income tax form I ever filed & have computed FICA contributions I’ve made + those my Employers made.  I could’ve retired long ago on only my contributions had I been able to manage my own funds & gotten a minuscule 2% yield.  Now, however, I expect to see Wiemar Republic-like hyperinflation before I die.  All of my retirement planning will have been for naught because politicians can’t stop spending tax receipts.   Socialism in the USA has destroyed self reliance.  Responsibility for one’s self should never have gone out of style.

    • medicareblogger

      Au contraire, mon ami. Read my last post in which a math whiz did the calculations. Here is the link to that post which contradicts your theory:
      http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2011/02/14/annuities-vs-social-security/

      • medicareblogger

        One more thing, amigo:  What is your definition of socialism? How about major corporations like GE and Bank of America paying no federal tax the last two years? Is that socialism?
        If you have saved money on your own  -as you should have done- you will have plenty of money for retirement, including a nice monthly check from Social Security. Hopefully you will max out your Social Security and collect $2,400 per month.  And then you will be able to participate in that very socialist health insurance program called Medicare.

    • LaTonda Burson

      Isn’t it amazing how our government once again is considering cutting Social Security benefits to recipients, but continues to pay each state incentives up to a dollar for dollar match for collected child support monies. Did you know that the money taken from your check for Social Security benefits was being used for this? I didn’t, and I find it unacceptable that this is occurring. The government taxes me for Medicaid to support mothers and their children and others (which I am ok with) but to turn around and use retirement money to pay an incentive for states to collect child support is completely asinine. Most elderly person receiving Social Security worked and paid into the Social Security Trust for years to only find out that their hard working money is being used to pay state incentive programs for collection of child support. Can someone please tell me why we are paying state taxes to operate these state agencies when they are receiving Federal kick back monies? It appears that we are being taxed by the state for operational expenses for state operated departments that are also receiving Federal incentive money paid from the Social Security Trust. Why would the State Department of Child Support require an incentive to collect? I thought that was their job in the first place. I receive child support, the obligor (father) pays on time every other week. However, there are often times that I do not receive my payments a timely manner and I am also charged a fee for child support to handle my money. Why are the handling fees even necessary when the child support agency is receiving a dollar for dollar match from the Social Security Trust Fund courtesy of the Federal Government? I wonder how many Americans were aware that the Federal Government would answer their cry to crack down on dead beat parents by using monies from the Social Security Trust Fund to turn child support agencies into lucrative fundraising enterprises for each states department of health and human services?

  • tiponeill

    >About 50 years (or longer) ago anyone with a few working brain cells could see that Social in-Security System was a Ponzi scheme foisted upon some of the US citizenry.
    Actually it is a very successful self-funding retirement fund and social safety net.
    It isn’t a Ponzi scheme and it isn’t broke – Repubs just hate it for ideological reasons and have been trying to destroy it from the beginning.

  • hewhoasks

    Ponzi scheme: an investment scheme in which the person committing the fraud uses the investments by later participants to pay falsely high “dividends” to earlier investors.  Typically these early investors are so impressed that they re-invest what they just received.  When the fraudster thinks he has enough money (or thinks he’s about to be found out) he absconds with all he has on hand.  Or he just siphons off most of the money with the result that when he is arrested it is difficult or impossible to recover the money that was fraudulently obtained.  (Bowing here to Madoff, who made these added words necessary.)
    SS has a huge surplus in special US Treasury bonds.  The system was designed to be self-financing: a dedicated tax (FICA) plus earned interest must pay all the benefits.
    The only way this could become anything like a Ponzi scheme (in which the investors don’t get their money back) is if the party that keeps calling it a Ponzi scheme finds a way to stop paying benefits.  They’re the party that would do it.  The ones who issue all the warnings are the ones who would cheat retirees out of their benefits.  They are warning about themselves.

    To those who scream that the bonds are just paper (or the like) and that the money is all spent: just who, exactly, issues bonds and DOESN’T spend the money? All that screaming amounts to just very loud paraphrasing of the definition of “bond.”
     
     
     

    • medicareblogger

      Thanks for the very clear explanation of a “ponzi scheme”.   I had never thought about opponents of Social Security wantingt to turn the program into a Ponzi scheme by de-funding it.

  • Pingback: Our view: Fix Social Security sooner, not later - USA Today | USTaxAid Services

  • http://www.socialsecuritysolution.org pappyg

    One simple thing we should all be able to agree on, and that is 2+2=4. However, when it comes to Social Security there are those who would have us believe 2+2=5, and therein lies the confusion. Beginning with fuzzy math sends the masses into a tailspin in search of their own tails. Whether treasury bonds are as good as gold isn’t the issue at all, to date they always have been. The issue is how those treasury bonds now held by the Social Security trust fund were created. Due to the 1983 Social Security reform legislation, SS tax contributions accelerated significantly. Millions of middle class working Americans began over paying their SS taxes by billions of dollars annually. The PR campaign that justified the additional taxes was the retirement investment dollars would be set aside for the now retiring 78 million baby boomers. The headlines read, “Social Security, fixed for the next 75 years”.One has to ask, If the additional retirement investment dollars weren’t really going to be set aside, then why the additional tax on middle class working Americans? Would this author or anyone else in their right mind agree to an investment plan that created a new dollar of debt for every dollar invested? The answers are obvious, post 1983 Social Security has been used a the weapon of choice to destroy middle class working Americans, their families and the communities they call home. You can’t suck 2.54 trillion dollars out of the communities across America, and expect business expansion and job growth not to suffer. These are the funds that would have been deposited in local financial institutions, and been available to fund growth had the additional SS tax not been levied. Look around your main street, are bankruptcies up, are foreclosures up, unemployment rate up, and how about the length of the soup lines? This is exactly why the people of Egypt drew a line in the sand, and said no more. They were tired of dealing with those in government who renege.Post 1983 Social Security has morphed into a cancer on middle class working Americans, and we document our case with a factual diagnosis: .http://sobreport.com/?p=66 Then create a comprehensive, community based treatment plan that allows middle class working Americans, their families, and the communities they call home to prosper again.: http://sobreport.com/?p=70 Middle class working Americans have kept their end of the 1983 SS reform deal, now it’s time for the other party to “man up & live up” to their end of the bargain. Join in the discussion every weekday morning at 9am eastern: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pappyg

    • medicareblogger

      Of course there are two sides and many opinions for any issue.  But the idea that most Americans would have saved enough money for their retirement so as not to need Social Security is very questionable.  From my experience working with seniors, I can say that about half of my clients have very little savings and rely on their Social Security.  And then there are a few of my clients whose life savings went to medical bills because they had lousy health insurance or none at all.
      Surveys of soon-to-retire baby boomers show that almost half have saved very little for retirement, and they too will be relying on their Social Security checks.  I guess these folks are relying on “the nanny state” to force them to save via Social Security taxes.   Going back to the ponzi scheme idea, what happens if younger workers are no longer paying into Social Security?  What happens to the folks who absolutely rely on their Social Security income?

    • tiponeill

      >Beginning with fuzzy math sends the masses into a tailspin in search of their own tails.
      I’ll take the GAO over your fuzzy math – there is nothing wrong with Social Security, conservatives just hate it when the government does something right. It offends their ideology.