--------------------------------
This letter is a continuation of the back-and-forth previously covered here.
---------------------------------------
Nothing says “Tea Party Talking Points” on Social Security quite like the Supreme Court ruling in Nestor v Fletcher. (Um, Flemming,) Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant, was deported for having been a communist, and petitioned for Social Security benefits. The Supreme Court denied it, and now the tea party claims we have no “constitutional right” to Social Security benefits. (No, the Supreme court RULED that there is no right to SS benefits. And the word "constitutional" has not been used. No one has claimed that there is no "constitutional right" to SS benefits.)
As Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic & Policy Research says, we “don’t have a constitutional right to Social Security … but people do not have a constitutional right to many things that they can reasonably depend on, such as drinkable water, roads they can walk and drive on, not having their income taxed at a 90 percent average rate. (Ms. Seher, having established a false premise, now runs with it.)
“Congress could change laws tomorrow and make it so that we no longer enjoy any of these items, the constitution will not prevent them. But most of us conduct our lives as though Congress will not take such steps, because any Congress that did take away any of these items would likely be voted out of office quickly. Similarly, any Congress that substantially reduced Social Security benefits would likely be looking for new jobs quickly also. So, there is no constitutional right to Social Security benefits; there is just the fact that in a democracy it will be very difficult for Congress to substantially reduce Social Security benefits, since almost everyone either depends on them or expects to depend on them in the future.” (Having hysterically ranted about "constitutional" rights, Ms. Seher continues on to affirm my original point. Congress DOES have the power to change SS benefits, regardless of how difficult it might be.)
Our Social Security system is strong and resilient. (Which is not true. It is bankrupt and inflexible. Ms. Seher just told us it would be very difficult to reduce benefits, so it cannot be resilient. And the whole point of the prior discussion is that there is no cash in the Trust Fund. So rather than actually offer a refutation, Ms. Seher simply restates the debate's original false premise.) We should improve Social Security by pressuring Congress to remove the cap on payroll taxes, now set at $113,700, and tax all wages. (I thought it was "strong and resilient?" Why, then, does it need improving? And how would increasing SS taxes improve the situation, since this would simply provide government with more money to spend in the general fund? But an even more pressing question is if the tax cap on high earnings is removed without a commensurate increase in the amount of benefits, then that means her suggested improvement is a wealth transfer. If it is a wealth transfer, it is no longer an earned benefit, which negates the entire premise of the original debate. Remember, the original objection was that SS was funded. In that letter, Julie Quenemoen wrote, "We paid for it! We earned it!" So if the earnings cap is lifted, this claim is no longer valid.) We should make minimum benefits better and reinstitute (sic) benefits for survivors through college. (In other words, spend more money and make things worse, at the expense of someone else who won't get commensurate benefits for they money they put in.)
As Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic & Policy Research says, we “don’t have a constitutional right to Social Security … but people do not have a constitutional right to many things that they can reasonably depend on, such as drinkable water, roads they can walk and drive on, not having their income taxed at a 90 percent average rate. (Ms. Seher, having established a false premise, now runs with it.)
“Congress could change laws tomorrow and make it so that we no longer enjoy any of these items, the constitution will not prevent them. But most of us conduct our lives as though Congress will not take such steps, because any Congress that did take away any of these items would likely be voted out of office quickly. Similarly, any Congress that substantially reduced Social Security benefits would likely be looking for new jobs quickly also. So, there is no constitutional right to Social Security benefits; there is just the fact that in a democracy it will be very difficult for Congress to substantially reduce Social Security benefits, since almost everyone either depends on them or expects to depend on them in the future.” (Having hysterically ranted about "constitutional" rights, Ms. Seher continues on to affirm my original point. Congress DOES have the power to change SS benefits, regardless of how difficult it might be.)
Our Social Security system is strong and resilient. (Which is not true. It is bankrupt and inflexible. Ms. Seher just told us it would be very difficult to reduce benefits, so it cannot be resilient. And the whole point of the prior discussion is that there is no cash in the Trust Fund. So rather than actually offer a refutation, Ms. Seher simply restates the debate's original false premise.) We should improve Social Security by pressuring Congress to remove the cap on payroll taxes, now set at $113,700, and tax all wages. (I thought it was "strong and resilient?" Why, then, does it need improving? And how would increasing SS taxes improve the situation, since this would simply provide government with more money to spend in the general fund? But an even more pressing question is if the tax cap on high earnings is removed without a commensurate increase in the amount of benefits, then that means her suggested improvement is a wealth transfer. If it is a wealth transfer, it is no longer an earned benefit, which negates the entire premise of the original debate. Remember, the original objection was that SS was funded. In that letter, Julie Quenemoen wrote, "We paid for it! We earned it!" So if the earnings cap is lifted, this claim is no longer valid.) We should make minimum benefits better and reinstitute (sic) benefits for survivors through college. (In other words, spend more money and make things worse, at the expense of someone else who won't get commensurate benefits for they money they put in.)
To the tea party: We’re not falling for your scare tactics. It’s our government, too. (If she's not scared, she's living in fantasyland. That's what the True Believers do, unfortunately, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.)
Lynea Seher
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment