Congress wants a debt commission to cut social security...again

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday December 05, 2023 · 4:56 PM PST

2023/12/05 · 16:56

NPR is beating the drum for a new congressional push to create a “debt commission” to deal with the nation’s national debt, but the only debt they are talking about is social security. Let us be clear. The national debt is a problem but social security has not contributed one cent to it. If congress wants to have a commission to reduce the deficit so that we can eventually start to reduce or at least manage the national debt, social security should be off the table. The budget is in deficit and the debt is rising because we need to raise taxes to pay for the government we want, including a defense that can handle three simultaneous wars, something that looks very likely at this time, improved infrastructure, better educational opportunities, fundamental scientific research, and environmental preservation, including mitigating climate change.

Social security has its own problems which must be dealt with independently of the national debt or deficit. Social security has an independent funding stream that must never be used to subsidize the general fund. Social security taxes are regressive and are paid largely by lower income workers to ensure their wellbeing when they become old or ill. Workers overpaid social security tax since the last debt commission in 1983 and created a surplus in the trust fund to pay future benefits, which it has been paying. Although the social security tax is currently insufficient to pay in perpetuity benefits that are as generous as present benefits, the trust fund is still in surplus. In approximately a decade the surplus will be exhausted, but social security will still receive enough social security tax revenue to pay approximately 80% of benefits due. It is highly desirable to fix the anticipated social security revenue shortfall as possible. There are a number of ways to do that: mostly some combination of raising the tax slightly and gradually over the next decade, raising or removing the income cap, and maybe some reduction of benefits. See https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/pension-brief-social-security-reform-sooner.pdf for more information on the options (hat tip angrybearblog). But do not be deceived. Under no circumstances will a social security fix reduce the budget deficit or the national debt. That can be done only by raising income taxes.

Rule 6 (e) (3) (D) authorizes Mueller Report disclosure to Congress

msusanesq

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 06, 2019 · 7:32 AM PDT

2019/04/06 · 07:32

The Mueller Report is out and Congress wants to see it---all of it. However, it appears that the Department of Justice is going to take the most conservative position possible on the disclosure of Grand Jury information to keep as much of the report secret as possible. Most people have opined that the only provision that would allow disclosure is Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) (3) “preliminary to a judicial proceeding” and question whether a congressional oversight proceeding or even an impeachment inquiry would qualify as a judicial proceeding. But 6 (e) contains a different disclosure provision that is also pertinent.

Rule 6( e) (3) (D) provides in part: “An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.”

I think this provision clearly authorizes disclosure to Congress. The Mueller inquiry concerned Russian hostile acts; congressional oversight is for the purpose of preventing or responding to the subversion; and clearly Congress are “appropriate federal government official(s)”. In all the talk of grand jury matter in the Mueller report I haven’t heard this provision mentioned. I think it ought to be part of the discussion. I think it applies.

Sestak's so-called bribe, part 2

msusanesq

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday June 01, 2010 · 10:26 AM PDT

2010/06/01 · 10:26

The silliness just doesn't go away.

Friday I explained why 18 USC Section 600 did not make it a crime if the administration offered employment to Joe Sestak in exchange for dropping out of the primary for the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania.

Saturday, Peter Baker of the New York Times came up with a new criminal statute, 18 USC Section 595, as the reason an administration job offer to Joe Sestak may be illegal. It isn't. Today I'll explain why.

msusanesq

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday May 28, 2010 · 8:45 AM PDT

2010/05/28 · 08:45

All conservatives, most pundits and even some Democrats seem to assume that it would have been illegal for President Obama offer Joe Sestak a job in his administration in order to clear to decks for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, even though Rove did it, and Reagan did it, and many other Presidents have done it, and no one ever imagined it was a crime before now.

This non-scandal doesn't seem to go away, and I could find no explanation of why it might be a crime that goes beyond an inaccurate paraphrase of the plain language of the statute so I decided to do a little research yesterday when I found myself near a law library. I think a discussion of the law may help people to understand just how phony the clamor over this so-called crime is.

I have a second question about this so-called scandal, if the offer of an administration job to a politician who is running for political office at the time is a crime, and there is no consideration other than acceptance of the job, is the statute constitutional? Doesn't this violate separation of powers? Doesn't the president have the authority as chief executive to offer a competent individual a job in his/her administration without regard to whether that individual is currently running for other political office?

RSS

Congress wants a debt commission to cut social security...again

Rule 6 (e) (3) (D) authorizes Mueller Report disclosure to Congress

Sestak's so-called bribe, part 2

Joe Sestak's so-called bribe