A budget by the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 170 GOP lawmakers, highlights how many in the party would seek to govern if Republicans win in November.
A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.
For Social Security, the budget endorses "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy." It calls for lowering benefits for the highest-earning beneficiaries. And it emphasizes that those ideas are not designed to take effect immediately: "The RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement."
Biden has blasted Republican proposals for the retirement programs, promising that he will not cut benefits and instead proposing in his recent White House budget to cover the future shortfall by raising taxes on upper earners.
The Democrats need to immediately trumpet this thing from the rooftops. The GOP wants to take away Social Security and Medicare. 170 of them put their names on this budget, if NBC is to be believed.
The Republicans want you to never be able to retire, and they want you to never have the healthcare that your parents and grandparents had or that they themselves enjoy. They want you to be poor and stay poor, and they want the same for your children.
Republican voters will accept it wholeheartedly simply because a Republican suggested it. Then they'll view themselves as heroes who made a huge sacrifice for the good of the country when really none of this needed to happen and the country's just getting worse. Of course, when they actually get to retirement age they'll be confused and angry as to why THEY can't retire yet; after all, they're heroes!
Honestly this might be the only thing that gets my parents to vote in their best interest. Because theyre slightly over one presidency away from retiring.
"Medicare is projected to become insolvent in 2028, and Social Security will follow in 2033. After that, benefits will be forcibly cut unless more revenues are added."
As of today, payroll tax contributions only apply to the first $168,600 of income.
Except that's a sham way of framing things that most people use.
The US is monetarily sovereign and can always issue enough currency to meet any demands upon it.
Uncle Sam doesn't go around collecting dollars like a beggar to apply to things. It creates money directly through spending, or backstops the creation of demand deposits by private banks via the reserve system. Money has to be created before it can be destroyed through taxation.
The issue isn't, "Where will we get the money?"
The REAL issue is, "Will we have the infrastructure to care for our elderly?"
Warren Mosler goes over this in one of his better short pieces of literature.
And if we take both your comments together, we end up with "should we get rid of the cap so the rich pay a fair share or keep it and collectively pay for things by way of inflation?"
The US is monetarily sovereign and can always issue enough currency to meet any demands upon it.
Yes. When congress appropriates funding and it's signed into law, the effect is that the US Treasury spends that money into existence. The mechanism, of course, is that Treasury directs the fed to issue bonds to create the money, and when you pay taxes that money doesn't go into an account Congress can spend from, it goes back to the fed to zero out the bonds used to create it.
Of course, if we continue cutting taxes the way we have, that will eventually balloon the amount of currency in circulation and that can be problematic if it's untethered to reality
@jordanlund@Socsa You likely would be interested in Michael Hudson's writing on why the US inflates its GDP and why all this stuff is so important to the fed preserving asset inflation to store wealth. Read Killing the Host! https://michael-hudson.com/
Well, this is currently just a dream in the hearts of most Republicans, so there's still time before it might get implemented. We should probably riot that our existing retirement age is already too high though.
Gotta love republicans "the spend and print regime" was bi-partisan and, importantly, initiated under Trump. Further they've continuously held control of the Senate while Biden has been in power and the house since 2022.
Finally the Affordable Care Act was a republican bill that Obama compromised on instead of the Democratic proposal, to get some improvements through. It's always amusing when Republicans now shit all over it...
There is no way on earth that budget passes while Biden is President. But look for it to come back with vengeance if Biden loses.
Millenials (and maybe some younger GenX) will almost certainly be fucked. They will not touch any precious retirees because they know their voter base: "fuck the planet, fuck the youth, I got mine"
WASHINGTON — A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.
Apart from fiscal policy, the budget endorses a series of bills “designed to advance the cause of life,” including the Life at Conception Act, which would aggressively restrict abortion and potentially threaten in vitro fertilization, or IVF, by establishing legal protections for human beings at “the moment of fertilization.” It has recently caused consternation within the GOP following backlash to an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that threatened IVF.
The plan became a flashpoint in the 2012 election, when Ryan was GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's running mate, and President Barack Obama charged that it would "end Medicare as we know it."
Notably, the RSC budget presents three possible options to address the projected insolvency of the retirement programs: raise taxes, transfer money from the general fund or reduce spending to cover the shortfall.
"Raising taxes on people will further punish them and burden the broader economy–something that the spend and print regime has proven to be disastrous and regressive," the budget says, adding that the committee also opposes "a multi-trillion-dollar general fund transfer that worsens our fiscal situation."
The RSC budget launches blistering criticism at "Obamacare," or the Affordable Care Act, and calls for rolling back its subsidies and regulations that were aimed at extending insurance coverage.
The original article contains 619 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!