Jake Johnson reports in Common Dreams that Senator Lindsey Graham is using the Republicans’ leverage in Congress to cut Social Security and Medicare. Only if Democrats agree to these cuts would Republicans agree to raise the federal debt ceiling.
Americans pay into Social Security and Medicare throughout their working lives. They earn these benefits. Alex Lawson, Social Security Works, explains that “Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans will stop at nothing to cut the American people’s earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.”
It’s apparently not enough that millions of retirees live in poverty or on the edge of poverty, that they are forced to go without healthcare, that they are dying prematurely. Medicare and Social Security help millions of people stay afloat. But, the Republicans want a commission to cut Social Security and Medicare as the price for raising the debt ceiling.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are working on a plan to raise the debt ceiling. They really should be voting to eliminate it altogether. Either way, Republicans will try to keep the Democrats from getting this done easily and swiftly. But, failure to increase or eliminate the debt ceiling could lead the federal government to default on its payments.
Under President Trump, Congress voted to suspend the debt limit through July 2021. With Trump out of power and a Democratic president in control, Republicans are no longer willing to support this. Senator Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has said that he will not accept the Republicans’ conditions for raising the debt ceiling. “Nobody is going to hold the American economy hostage, period, full stop.”
Democrats could raise or eliminate the debt ceiling without Republican support, through the budget reconciliation process. To do so, they would need every Democratic Senator supporting the debt ceiling increase or its elimination.
Here’s more from Just Care:
- Strengthening Medicare Trust Fund must be a priority
- 2021: Programs that lower your health care costs if you have Medicare
- Raising the minimum wage helps workers and Social Security
- Drugs in the US should be priced on a par with other wealthy countries
- How to get free or low-cost dental care
…the “Rs” will do whatever it takes to protect their wealthy and corporate donor base, but when it comes to serving the best interests of the nations citizens, they turn their backs again and again. This is easily illustrated by the “Rs” recent responses to funding the Infrastructure measure. Originally it called for a rollback of the 2017 tax breaks that primarily benefited the wealthy and corporate sector which they rejected. Next there was a proposal to increase funding for the IRS to specifically go after wealthy and corporate tax cheats who have short changed this nation by trillions over the years. That too was rejected. Finally they “agreed” (by process of elimination, they more like dictated) using unspent pandemic emergency funds (while we are seeing new surges with the Delta Strain and a new strain just discovered in Florida [one of the states with a low vaccination rate] that are forcing a return to restrictions) along with a programme to go after “fraud” in Unemployment.
Again spare those at the top and themselves by sacrificing the average citizen. That’s been the “R” way for a while now.
Some Dems, like Sen . Manchin who claimed that S.1 (The For The People Act) was too “partisan”, but then doesn’t bat an eyelash at the “Rs” decidedly “partisan” agenda and activities, are also at fault. Instead he and other Dem holdouts should be pushing to raise or better yet, abolish the earnings cap. If that happened the trust would be self sustaining for decades even centuries and benefits could be increased to get seniors, the disabled, and survivors out of poverty.
It is getting wearisome that that these two extremely popular programmes are always trotted out like “sacrificial lambs” whenever a issue with the budget comes up.
Social Security is a sustaining trust where benefits are paid for by both employee and employer contributions throughout an individual’s working life, not from the general fund. Same for Medicare. Therefore that part is (or supposed to be) immune to deficit and debt caps. The funding part that does come out of the general budget is for administrative operations (which is tiny in comparison to the what the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex), fossil fuel industry, Pharma, and other special interests receive) and has been already cut to the bone.
The only other time the general fund comes into play is if there is a surplus in funds collected which is converted to treasury bonds that other programmes and expenditures borrow against (and must repay). That has nothing to do with inflation or debt ceilings, though it is using our hard earned contributions as temporary form “collateral”. From their viewpoint it does make sense (in a twisted way) to gut benefits because that makes for a larger treasury “piggy bank” other spending measures can use instead to avoid debt or deficit ceilings. So not only will workers pay income tax all their working lives to support the nation’s budget, but now more of their SS and Medicare contributions as well, which will never benefit them as they should.
It is becoming increasingly infuriating that our elected representatives on “Capital Hill” (not a typo, I call it that because it’s pretty much bought and paid for by special interest PACs and lobbies [in major part thanks to the “Wealth United” ruling that gives corporations person-hood and opened up the floodgates for PACs to dump hundreds of millions into election campaigns]) who put the interests the privileged and corporate sector and their own selfish interests above their job of representing the citizens and nation whom they swore and oath to serve.
Great comment. And Republicans never talk about their plan for after they cut medicaid, medicare and social security. They’ve made no plan. Self serving, non-representative legislators. It’s plain disgusting.
Two groups that will need Social Security benefits are those under age 62 who suffer from long-term Covid symptoms, and the minor children of Covid victims. The latter will receive benefits up to age 18 if a parent dies (but ONLY if that parent has paid enough into the system.)
However, those who’ve been disabled by Covid will have a tough time qualifying for benefits. Symptoms like fatigue and cognitive impairment are considered “subjective” and difficult to prove.
Furthermore, the Social Security Administration will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of new claims. It simply is not set up to deal with so many people becoming disabled as the result of a pandemic. Any “savings” that were realized by older people dying will be more than offset by new claims for disability and survivor benefits.
Bottom line, any politician pushing for cuts in Social Security will find that an extremely unpopular idea.