Social Security

Sen. Claire McCaskill: Against Social Security Cuts. For a Big Tax Increase?

|

Happy to object to proposals that probably won't be made.

No serious plans to modify Social Security benefits appear up for discussion, but that isn't stopping Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill from declaring preemptive opposition just in case anyone is interested in reforming the program. In a letter to supporters published yesterday by TPM, she writes: "I don't think anyone is going to propose cutting Social Security benefits—if they do, I'll vote against those cuts."

OK! Good to know. I take it, then, that she's for a big tax increase.

How's that? Right now, the federally funded entitlement program is facing $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities—meaning that eventually it won't be able to cover its full payments. As Charles Blahaus, one of Social Security's public trustees, explained recently, the current mismatch of projected revenues and payment obligations mean that eventually some sort of change will be necessary: "You're either for changes to the benefit formula, or you're for big tax increases on the next generation. If you oppose benefit formula changes on the grounds that they are 'cuts,' then you are for big tax increases. Period." Always helpful to be clear on where our elected leaders stand.

NEXT: Florida Rejects High-Speed Rail Money - Again, So LaHood Will Just Spend Elsewhere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Vote for me old people or you’ll be eating Alpo!

    1. Heeeey, I eat Alpo! Nothing wrong with it! Stoopid Senator… I’ll leave a present on your front porch!

      1. I’ll leave a present on your front porch!

        Are you acquainted with Sandi? I also suggest pyrotechnics for extra flair.

        1. Be careful – we might consider that a “terrorist” act, requiring forced entry at night on our part, with the usual potential [bad] consequences for Fido.

  2. Ugliest woman in congress?

    1. No, she’s not as bad as Nancy “Jokerface” Pelsoi.

    2. I’d like a word with you.

      1. Mikulski is at least somewhat grandmotherly.

        1. Mikulski is at least somewhat grandmotherly.

          In a “I live in a house made of cake and candy” sort of way.

          1. Her husband’s name is Gimli.

            1. Son of Gloin?

            2. Dwarves marry balrogs?

        2. Yeah, maybe your grandmother looks/looked like that.

        1. You beat my Mikulski reference. Hands down.

        2. When you have a face like that you always want to be sure to get the ugliest fucking glasses on the planet to complement and call attention to it.

          1. It’s like somebody stretched an elephant scrotum over a skull and accessorized it with leftover props from Toy Story.

    3. Carolyn McCarthy is up there.

  3. She is totally wrong about Social Security, but I really can’t dislike her as a person. Especially after watching this clip.

  4. Check out page 247.

    SS is 7.9T unfunded. Big whoop. Medicare is 22.8T unfunded.

    1. SS is the low hanging fruit, though, so it should be addressed sooner rather than later.

  5. Why should she give a shit about running up a huge tab and sticking future generations with it? After all the geezers keep sending her to Washington because of it, and from the looks of her photo, she will be long gone before the bill comes due.

    1. I’m beginning to think the most substantive constitutional reform we could make would be changing the age restrictions for POTUS, Senator, and Congressperson from “must be over 35/30/25” to “must be under 35/30/25.”

      1. If you’re old enough to be eligible for SocSec, you cannot be a member of Congress.

  6. Let us assume the senior Senator from Missouri is in favor of ending the wars, cutting DoD outlays by half. Further, let us assume she would not raise Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. To close just the 2011 deficit, she would need to increase revenue from the remaining sources by 86%.

  7. There are billions of tax dollars that the rich could be paying today to offset the difference.

    But instead, you’d rather have the poor dying in the streets.

    1. Isn’t this guy’s regular posts inane enough? We don’t need bonus fake Tony posts.

      1. I’d rather have the non-government-employed middle class dying in the streets.

    2. Go suck a diseased cock, Tony.

    3. C+ spoofing – come on guys, you can do better than that?

      1. I can’t go higher than D – that was a really bad Tony

      2. Yeah i missed that it was a spoof.

        I think Tony not so long ago made the argument that SS was always sustainable because congress could always modify the benefits like they have done in the past.

        That argument conflicts a bit the the spoofed Tony above.

        But it did trick me as my lower comment shows…so I have to give it a “B”.

    4. Much of the “wealth” of the rich is tied up in stocks and other investments. But I suppose we could take their money, and in turn they charge consumers more money for products and services, raising market prices, and causing the poor to still be unable to make it on their own… and at the same time causing those who were already struggling, but managing to stay afloat to suddenly find themselves out on the street as well. All for what? So you can think your statist interventionism is actually making a difference? I guess if it helps you sleep at night.

      How about this, instead of dictating what OTHER people do with their money, put your own money into helping the poor. If you do, do more and STFU about forcing others to.

    5. But instead, you’d rather have the poor dying in the streets.

      The poor already die in the streets before they reach the age to receive SS benefits.

      As stated a million times before SS is not a welfare program. It is a regressive tax that transfers wealth from the short lived poor to the long lived rich.

      Poor poeple do not live long enough to get benefits. It is only the rich that do yet it is the poor who pay the tax…rich people after paying SS taxes on their first $100,000 or so of income do not pay any more….yet they live longer.

      If you were even remotely honest you would propose modifying SS so the top 50% to 75% income earners would stop receiving benefits and only the bottom 50 to 25% would get benefits.

      The only way for SS to be a true blue welfare program the stops “the poor dying in the streets” requires it to be modified.

    6. Re: Tony,

      There are billions of tax dollars that the rich could be paying today to offset the difference.

      And then what?

      [Let the real Tony answer that one!]

      1. Let the real Tony answer that one!

        You still believe in a “real” Tony?
        That’s so cute! Have a marshmallow peep.

        1. We just keep on spending on new, “moore” expensive, absolutely necessary, Progressive-Obama-Era programs. Education, Homeland Security, Mass-Transit, Alternate energy and even Drones-for-Defense. The taxpayers are a bottomless pit of resources and they get a really good deal on all of this because of economy-of-scale.

    7. No not really. We need an extra 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars a year. If you don’t cut the social programs you are going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. No other way around it.

  8. If you oppose benefit formula changes on the grounds that they are ‘cuts,’ then you are for big tax increases. Period.

    Or DEATH PANELS.

    1. Soylent Green!!

      1. Biofuel, Pablo. Oldsters have too much Viagra in their blood stream for consumption by the hungry young.

        Anyway, the gov could just bump the SS eligibility age up a couple of years. Starting today.

  9. Caption Contest!

    “These three fingers have given me more pleasure than my six husbands put together…wanna sniff ’em?”

    1. The caption contest is now closed.

      1. …and the contents of my stomach now emptied.

    2. “You’re getting all three. Whether you get lube or not depends on your answers here today.”

      1. “Trust me–you want the lube.”

    3. Stop! Look to the right of my fingers. See how big that is? Now, I want whoever is behind me to remove whatever they’re putting in my ass, please.

  10. Why would the AARP care if the retirement age was raised to 69 over the next fifty years?

    I got my s.s. statement yesterday. Anyone know a site where I could input my s.s. tax for each year of my career,and see what it would be worth at age 65 if invested in the S&P Index
    each year at that year’s mid-point in the range? I think the invested amount would provide a much larger annuity than I’m scheduled to receive from S.S.

    1. No, but take 14% of your gross, estimate your average annual change in salary. Multiply gross salary by both of these and you’ll have your SS tax burden over your career. Excel will have a compound interest template sheet.

    2. also have to factor in your index fund could be passed on in case you don’t make it retirement. a lesson i’m sorry to say some of my family learned the hard way when my mother-in-law died at 55. Zero from social security as she was single her children were older than 18. suddenly that 401k my wife and her sister inherited wasn’t so risky

  11. McCaskill is a prime example of what I’ve mentioned before. Democrats are still in denial that there is any fiscal problem at all. No matter how much you may dislike the GOP, at least they are past the denial stage.

    1. Problem is the oldsters vote for them. They can’t go after these programs.

      We’re screwed. The party that acknowledges a problem would be voted out for trying to fix it, and the party that created the problem gets to skate away crying “Our intentions were good”

      1. I’m not sure that’s true anymore. To be sure, there are still the “Keep your hands off my Social Security” crowd, but the tide is starting to change. Part of it has to do with the fact that if we do keep our hands off SS, it won’t be around for much longer.

        1. I disagree. The Boomers are the single largest generational voting bloc. All they have to do is vote themselves SS benefits until they die off. They don’t care about what happens after they’re dead, as long as they get theirs. They’ll be able to freeze any kind of motion to fix this, and by the time they’ve left the mortal coil the public treasury will be even further down the rabbit hole.

          1. I’m a boomer, and that certainly is my intention.

            1. The Funkadelics. “I Call My Baby Pussy — P-U-S-S-Y”

              If You Don’t Like The Effects, Don’t Produce The Cause.

  12. Dig around as much as possible and you find she has multiple positions on everything. Which position she espouses depends on who her audience is. She’s been caught doing that locally a lot lately.

    1. A politician with their finger (or three) in the wind. Imagine that.

  13. The various governments in the US are not broke and are liars. These governments hold TRILLIONS in investments. The proof is easily found it’s called a CAFR look it up.

    http://www.examiner.com/la-cou…..t-deficits

  14. Claire McCaskill couldn’t run a fucking bake sale without pissing everyone off AND losing money while disappointing a bunch of Cub Scouts that don’t get to go on their field trip. So someone thinks it’s a good idea she’s got a say in running the country? Goddamned insanity.

  15. When someone can tell me why after paying and working 1=2 jobs at a time for 48 years, paying taxes, anyone can resent me getting $1200 per month to pay all my bills, food, gas, mortgage, and etc, I’d like to know where they came from and how they got their money. My family weathered the War II and lived on rations and fed and clothed 4 childen and a grandfather and believed everyone should work for what they got, not inherit rich inheritances, would understand why we have kept this country going on our taxes, not the RICH, they have loopholes to get out of paying, we barely have enough to pay a light bill, and have to eat lunch from the nutrition center. If our furnace goes out, we don’t have rich friends to kick in for a favor,we have to borrow the money and pay it back $25 month, that is if you can find a bank to finance it. These people in Wash. DC have no idea what it is like to live like this and be 66 and 70, nothing to look forward to, but too sick and poor to work anymore. This country is selvish with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I can’t even pay on a buriel if I die. I hate rich people, they’ve either cheated someone or had it handed to them. Golden years, yeah, poverty years!!!!!! I do vote though, and this is what I’ll base it on if things don’t get better. My son has to work for a farmer, 10-16 hrs a day, I had no money to send hime for an education to do better. We tried student loans, the college SEMO got the money, he couldn’t get there for the classes, and told them, but instead they ignored him 5 years ago and they have taken his tax refund and been trying to sue him ever since. Guess he’ll end up in jail for tax evation, and got nothing out of it. They bill him monthly for collection agency, he has no money to pay, the college got the money not him!! I’ve written to you before about this, no answers. Guess who I am going to vote for next. time!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.