Skip to main content

Teabagger/Republican candidate for Senate in CT, Linda McMahon recently made the following statement on Social Security:

Question: Do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are in financial trouble, and if so, what would you do to strengthen them?

McMahon: Well they clearly are in trouble. We know that they're not sustainable at their current rate. There are a lot of ways that we could look at strengthening Social Security. I do think that we're going to have to do it in a bipartisan way. There are suggestions on the table, you know, that range from raising the retirement age, you know, to other methods, to means testing, to other things. And I think that we're going to have to do that in a bipartisan fashion in Congress. We cannot continue doing things the way we are doing with Social Security. We're just simply going to be bankrupt.

And I do believe that, that there are ways to look at, you know, what we're trying to do when we put Social Security in place? We didn't go back and review it. In other words, I believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation, so that you take a look at it 10, 15 years down the road to make sure that it's still going to fund itself. Social Security will run out of money if we continue to do what we're doing, if we rob the trust fund, if we think that there's any money there -- there's not. But there are, there certainly are (inaudible) securities, banks, backed by the federal government.

However, Medicare is again going to go bankrupt if we don't change it. There've been recommendations of block grants, of our seniors looking at choosing what kinds of plans that they want. But I can tell you one thing I would not do, I would not vote on any rule or law that would take away the benefits that our seniors have today or those that are approaching retirement age. Because they're there, they're counting on those benefits. We have to find another way to pay for it other than impacting our seniors today, and I would not vote for anything that would do that.

Her remarks have something in common with every other Republican's remarks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - the only solution she sees or any Republican sees is to reduce benefits and/or beneficiaries.  That's it.  These programs are in fiscal trouble SOLELY because they pay out too much, therefore, the ONLY solution to the problem is to curtail them, if not end them outright.

These programs are in fiscal trouble, but why is it that NO Republican (and sadly, many Democrats) looks at a solution focused on revenue?  The payroll tax is the most regressive tax in the entire Federal taxation system, perhaps in the country.  There are two very quick fixes which would both increase revenue to these programs and likely make them fiscally sound for a couple of generations.  First, remove the cap on income subject to payroll taxation.  Second, subject all income, earned and unearned, to the tax.  Why do we not hear more discussion about this approach?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weck, TheOrchid, Eric Twocents, CwV, retLT, gfv6800

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:18:32 AM PDT

  •  Two excellend suggestions in your last para. (0+ / 0-)

    I would add that making the Social Security and Medicare taxes progressive would help, as well.

    People should be encouraged to view Social Security (and Medicare, too) as part of a balanced retirement portfolio.  Any investment adviser worth his or her salt will tell you to diversify your portfolio for best results; Social Security is that part of a balanced portfolio that is rock-solid and absolutely trustworthy.

    As long as Republicans are never allowed to fuck with it, that is.

    This is the kind of argument that would resonate with younger voters as well as older; younger voters have already seen one stock market crash, and a real estate crash - they should be encouraged to see Social Security as an investment that won't screw them over like stocks or real estate.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:37:09 AM PDT

  •  Don't eliminate the cap, just raise it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, gfv6800, chicagoblueohio

    to $250 000. That's all that's needed to fix the longterm projected shortfall.
    By eliminating the cap, you get multimillionaires paying in huge money, yes, but they also are, thereafter, entitled to huge pay-outs. And uncapping their pay-in, while capping their pay-out destroys the fairness element that SocSec has always benefited from.
    As for Linda, this is exactly what you'd expect. Party-line TeaBaggerism where it coincides with the age-old Republican antagonism against FDR and his programs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site