« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

OK, Obama, Repeal the Entire Payroll Tax..But Save Social Security

Let's use Obama's political chicanery on payroll taxes as an opportunity to end the Ponzi scheme

After Labor Day, Obama plans to unveil his highly unanticipated jobs plan.  Much like his first jobs plan, this one will include massive stimulus handouts to special interests, prodigal infrastructure spending (as much as $556 billion), unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefits, and more welfare transfer payments.  Concurrently, he will inveigh against “rich” job creators and offer a healthy dose of vapid rhetoric regarding regulatory reform.  However, there will be something new – something more appealing to the skeptical electorate; extending the one-year cut in payroll taxes.

Obama intuitively knows that his failed Keynesian policies have been checkmated, and will no longer resonate with the public.  Accordingly, he plans to one-up Republicans in their own playbook, by offering a tax cut.  He will request that Congress renew the payroll tax cut for another year, keeping the employee’s share of the tax at 4.2%.

While conservatives support any and every tax cut they can achieve, Obama knows that they are tepid regarding the payroll tax holiday.  Unlike most other broad-based, universal taxes, the payroll tax is used to fund a specific expenditure, and perhaps, the most important one – Social Security.  As Congressman Jeb Hensarling observes, “not all tax relief is created equal.” If we fail to collect such a whopping sum of the tax that purveys the trust fund, won’t we bankrupt Social Security even further?  At a time when Social Security Disability Insurance is already running dry, Obama plans to bankrupt the old age trust fund by another $120 billion.

Oh, whoops, I forgot; there is no trust fund.  It has been run like a Ponzi scheme all along.

Rick Perry once again raised the prominence of this inconvenient truth, when he spoke the truth about what the Democrats have done to Social Security over the years:  “It [Social Security] is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie.  It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.”

While the dummies at the Politico are aghast at such venerable declarations, they would be wise to interpret Obama’s callous disregard for Social Security as vindication of Governor Perry’s accusation.  If Social Security is completely funded by payroll taxes, and doesn’t add one dime to the debt, then how can Obama so blithely void those taxes?

The answer is simple: there is no trust fund.  There are only IOUs.

Aside for bankrupting Social Security – to the extent that it’s not already insolvent – a temporary payroll tax cut is a lousy economic stimulus.  While conservatives cheer any opportunity to separate the federal government from extra revenue, this temporary gimmick is akin to the $600 rebate checks and the stimulus credits.  It is not pro-growth, especially because it fails to cut the employer’s share, which would incentivize job creators to hire workers.

Yet, Obama’s “let’s make a war with aliens” economists have declared the 2% employee payroll deduction to be the best jobs and economic stimulus on the table.  Earlier this year, Obama warned that failure to extend the payroll tax holiday “could mean 1 million fewer jobs and half a percent less growth.”  I guess the fiscal year 2011 economy didn’t receive that memo – the same memo that said that more unemployment welfare and food stamps would have a multiplying effect on job creation.   Then again, promoting recently failed policies, as if they have never been tried, has become a hallmark of this president.

Now that Obama has been exposed for his mendacity regarding Social Security, Republicans should call his bluff on extending the 2% payroll tax holiday.  They should acquiesce to the tax deal, only if Obama agrees to solve the underlying problem and reform Social Security.

Obama wants a temporary 2% deduction in payroll taxes.  How about a permanent 12.4% elimination of the payroll tax – as it is currently constituted?  Instead, every younger worker should be allowed to divert those payroll taxes into private retirement accounts.  These accounts would be tax free, and any cash contributions would be tax-deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  And, most importantly, everyone would maintain property rights over their own account.  To that end, upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

That would epitomize real tax relief for every single worker.  And yes, it would save personal retirement for those who are destined to be robbed by the Ponzi scheme, and it would trim projected deficits by trillions.  You can think of it as a pay-as-you-go system.  For every additional amount of payroll taxes that Obama desires to cut, there should be a commensurate amount that is remanded back to younger workers for their own retirement.  Otherwise, we will wind up with a temporary no-growth rebate for one or two years, and no retirement savings for an entire generation.

Or, would you rather have Bernie Madoff offer you a tax cut?

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • gawken

    Agree with everything you wrote, but it’s basically irrelevant. Obama today could adopt the Ryan plan/Club for Growth agenda, and it wouldn’t do anything to even BEGIN toturn this economy around before the election.

    Oh,. yeah..and it would totally p**s off 99.9% of his base.

    Everything he will say and do, is designed to demonize the GOP and get himself re-elected. Everything MUST be view in that context.

    Shortly after his election, he told GOP leadership, “I WON! ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES!”

    We will see if Republicnas have learned that lesson.

    After next November, unless the “stoopid party” once again somehow manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we will hopefull find ourselves in the following circumstances:

    A conservative ( now likely Perry) in the WH.

    A GOP controlled House ( and we will hold, dor even increase our present majority)

    A GOP controlled Senate ( probably with 55-57 seats) , and much more conservative than the present caucus. The threat of a Democrat filibuster may not be that bad. Why? If you think that Senate Ddems face a tough electoral cycle this time.j…..ust .take a look at the list of who’s up in 2014.

    So, we pretty much have the tools, all the pieces in place. wILL WE HAVE THE GUTS TO USE THEM?

    That means,….

    1. Adopt, and force through the needed entitlement reforms. Fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

    2 Put the country on a stabile fiscal path. Pass the BBA. Adopt a TWO YEAR budget cycle. End baseline budgeting. Cut spending back to 2006 levels. And start closing down BIG chunks of the government..especially the Dept of Education. There are many more..it’s a target rich environment.

    And, oh yeah..my pet peeve. Either reform or abolish the CBO. It’s absolutely worthless if they are required to “score” bills according to whatever parameters the party in power tells them.

    AND LASTLY..BE PREPARED TO FIGHT THE 2104 ELECTIONS AND DEFEND ALL OF THESE NEEDED REFORMS.

    Might as well do everything…do it all….the Dems and the MSM will excoriate the GOP..but you can only get crucified ONCE. Everything else is a freebie!

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      in addition, even in the best case scenario, the Dems would have at least 41 Senators to filibuster.

    • wennejunk

      I know, I know. But I really do hope we’re still around.

      • losmacs

        I realise that if the country goes down the tubes, I go with her. And so does everyone else, even the idiot leftists.

  • earlgrey

    He’s a magic man.

    • rightwingmom52

      from under the Magic Man…like this.

      • earlgrey

        still laughing.

  • Raven

    You could abolish Social Security and increase the limits on IRA contributions to 12.4% of gross income or $5,000, whichever is greater. Or perhaps even more.

    Government still would get taxes on that money (which, if we’re going to have an income tax, is only right), as they do now (twice, actually, Social Security is taxable as normal income when you receive payments, and there is the FICA tax while you are working, whereas IRAs are taxable only upon receipt of the monies from the IRA).

    And that way, you aren’t eliminating an entire section of the investment/insurance industry trying to reform a failed program.

    You suggestion would kill IRAs and annuities completely and severely harm 401 series plans.

  • oldbird77

    . . .and I’ve just sort of decided to assume social security will not be around when I retire. . . whenever that may be. Wish I could opt out and keep my money.

    As for the trust fund you have to be monstrously stupid or intentionally obtuse to the point of criminality to try and argue that Social Security will be financially viable into the future because of the trust fund. It isn’t there. It doesn’t exist. There is no way to pay it back without shutting down the rest of the government.

    • losmacs

      who have nothing but SS benefits behind the eightball, don’t it?

      BTW, doing away with the payroll tax while still paying benefits HAS GOT TO BE the stupidist idea I ever heard. Here we have a village idiot masquerading as president.

  • victrola

    Here’s the thing, I agree with Perry that it is a form of a Ponzi Scheme (but you could say that about all sorts of things like insurance annuities) but it’s REALLY stupid to characterize such a popular program that people have paid their whole lives into and depend on as a fraud. So what’s the next step? If you think it’s a Ponzi scheme, then the next logical conclusion is we shut it down? Will Perry now have the intellectual honesty and bravery to propose we end Social Security? The political ads practically write themselves.

    Of all the government programs out there, Social Security offends me the least and is far and away the most popular program there is, even among Republicans you have large majorities that don’t want to end it. If Republicans want to make this particular battle their Waterloo, they’re going to give Obama a second term on a silver platter. I can think of trillions we can cut before getting anywhere near Social Security. How about we reform/end all of these ridiculous Great Society programs first.

    • westcoastpatriette

      The program can easily be gradually phased out without hurting anyone. What’s stupid is pretending we can ignore the catastrophe that is comin’.

      • victrola

        The problem with labeling Social Security a giant fraud (which is what a Ponzi scheme is) is that implies it’s going to be immediately shut down and that current recipients are essentially stealing. We didn’t gradually wind down Bernie Madoff when the Feds discovered what was going on, it was immediately ended.

        Again, I agree SS has elements of a Ponzi scheme, but this point is best made by the Rush Limbaughs’ and Sean Hannitys’ of the conservative movement, not Presidential candidates who need votes from Senior Citizens and those bear retirement. You never heard something like this come out of Reagan’s mouth, he was far too shrewd a politician, and he knew how easy it was to spook voters with this. Why couldn’t Perry say he would like to see some common sense reforms to the program for younger generations to ensure its solvency?

        The other point is, Social Security is not in dire straits (but Medicare is) the program is fully funded and self-sufficient until 2036 (so almost 6 Presidential elections) before it costs more than the program takes in, and with a few minor tweaks (like raising the retirement, limiting cost of living adjustments, means testing) can be made to last until everyone here is in the ground. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, it would not solve our massive deficit problem.

        Perry is picking a dumb battle here, especially since I can guarantee you he won’t follow through and will retreat on this issue after he has been thoroughly bloodied over it.

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          Victrola,

          That’s not true. SS has already begun to pay out more than it takes in starting in 2010. It will now run deficits until 2036, when it will run dry – not just run a deficit; that is happening now. The SSDI fund will run dry in 2017.

          Moreover, being that there are no tangible assets, just IOU leans on the treasury sitting in West Virginia, those SS annual deficits will continue to add to the debt, even before 2036. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/29/social-security-is-adding-to-the-debt-now/

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            that the gubmint has borrowed every penny of the SS trust fund, which means that it is currently holding part of the 14T in IOU’s that are roaming around out there. Social Security is currently contributing to the deficit and the national debt because we are having to borrow money to pay back the trust for what it is currently dispensing to seniors and the disabled that is not covered by the fund’s current income.

            We are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and while Paul may be happy, Peter is PO’d!

    • sarg01

      The way I express it is that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but that our government has taken money from taxpayers all their lives on a promise, and they have a right to demand that promise be fulfilled. I think it’s important to immediately follow up with that second half of the point. It’s not “small government” to defraud taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we need to make that clear to prospective voters.

      That still leaves privatization, raising age and decreasing COLA on the table. And of course, general debt load decreases.

    • acat

      It’s almost textbook!

      You pay in X dollars. You get out Y dollars. There is no correlation between the two. X doesn’t grow into Y, you just get Y. Y isn’t covered by X in any way, X went to pay off people who are long dead.

      It’s a fraud. It’s .. well … It’s really a hybridized welfare/insurance scheme –

      Welfare because there’s no correlation between X and Y, so Y must be welfare.

      Insurance because even if all the money I put into private retirement accounts and investments and real estate goes away tomorrow, I still get social security.

      Calling a thing what it is shouldn’t hurt Perry with the base, and it’s outlandish enough that it may get people asking “Why did he say that?” … and that’s good!

      Mew

      • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

        It plays well if it is framed in terms of reforming SS so younger voters will be empowered, while promising to preserve the status quo for older workers. If it is framed in a way that appears as if there will be massive cuts to the current system, it will spell trouble.

        • westcoastpatriette

          .

        • acat

          Perhaps this is Perry signalling that he will be reforming it into something that is not a Ponzi scheme…

          Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Me thinks victrola doesn’t wanna hear it.

          • acat

            In a normal year, Victrola may be right. This is not looking like a normal year.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Thanks.

      • victrola

        and it’s an antiquated model that most private organizations have done away with but was normal in the era Social Security was created.

        There is a correlation with what you put in. The more you put in, the more you get back out, and it is capped on how much you can put in so there isn’t gross inequities with the payout. But at the end of the day, it is unfunded system, you don’t have a bank account with the money you’ve put in that is set aside, it depends on younger workers. I really don’t think it’s a big secret though, I’m sure every Republican Presidential candidate feels the same way Perry does, they’re just shrewder about labeling it as such.

        You’re not going to get any argument from me, I would prefer to opt out and simply have a IRA I could fund myself. But I also know that’s not political reality, and I don’t want to lose an election over Social Security when I feel there’s a lot more low-hanging fruit.

        I’m not arguing with the substance of Perry’s argument, but I am calling into question how smart politically it was for Perry to wade into, especially since he hasn’t offered a plan on how to end the Ponzi scheme.

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          still hard to understand the underlying formula for Social Security. I know so many couples retiring now in which the wife, who only worked part-time for many years, is receiving a disproportionate payout relative to the husband. Heck, my father contributed about 5 times more than my mother, who is a part-time teacher, yet, he will only receive about 2 1/2 time more in benefits. It is clearly weighted more towards the low-income, despite the liberal rhetoric that suggests the contrary.

          Regarding the politic, I agree that it is more prudent to discuss empowering the younger generation with SAFE accounts or other IRA-like entities, while preserving the current system for those who relied on it- than simply assailing the system as a ponzi scheme.

          One other point that needs to be made is that under the current system, the beneficiary has no property rights over the account as a means to pass it down in inheritance. This is a point that should be made more often when contrasting some sort of private pension system.

          • victrola

            It’s definitely a flawed system that is biased towards lower income beneficiaries (that’s what happens when politicians control your retirement instead of the actual person who earned it)

            It’s also a great point to make that someone who drops dead before they retire has nothing to show for it. A million dollars just disappears that could have been kept in the family. It’s also how the program stays solvent.

            But it’s very hard to transition out of SS because somebody is going to get screwed. If we let current, younger workers opt out, the system collapses and current Senior Citizens (who always show up to vote) are screwed.

            For all of these reasons, I think it’s much more prudent for conservatives to focus on cutting/reforming programs like MediCaid, Food Stamps, Federal Housing, Fannie Mae, Freddi Mac, and about a thousand other different government programs, agencies, and entitlements that can save trillions and trillions before tackling such a popular and difficult to reform middle class entitlement entitlement like Social Security.

            Sometimes, you have to pick your battles, and I see many other important battles that are much more winnable.

          • acat

            The first step is to admit it’s a Ponzi scheme.

            We can then talk about using the savings from the reforms (or outright shutdowns) that are necessary to keep SS solvent.

            We can then talk about means testing and raising the retirement age to keep SS solvent longer.

            We can also let the younger workers opt out.

            The first step, though, is being honest – the lipstick is not hiding that S.S. is a pit bull.

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            Just wondered if you saw this diary from sdsali.

            here

          • acat

            reasons why this is a complex problem… neither, I think, point out a reason why it could not be tackled.

            Let’s see what happens.

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I suggest that we do what the authorities did to Bernie Madoff: Liquidate his entire estate and holdings and distribute the proceeds to all his victims. When they decide to do this to the Federal Government, I am going to hold out for one of those big fancy printers from the Bureau of Engraving . . .

          • http://thirdrailers.com/ thirdrailers

            to be done. After W made the foray into the Lion’s Day and got his tail handed back to him… I don’t think you will find anyone else likely to do that again.

            Ponzi scheme though is an understatement to the rackett the government is running. They have schemes on top of schemes…and unfortunately, if anything major (like true privatization) is done… then their (both parties) carefully laid mirage is going to vanish and the whole mess will go up in flames.

            Doesn’t seem to matter whether its Republicans or Democrats… both want to do more of the same. Democrats are content to keep the music playing while Republicans are busily re-arranging the deck chairs – all the while the ship is going down. Don’t know which is worse.

            Those who like the Ryan plan want to do in 20 + years what we have to do now. How is that for a plan? Waiting to install sprinklers after your house burns down ain’t going to help you a lot. (working on my metaphors for another article :) )

            Complex is right…. but until Republicans are willing to take the political heat to make real change – and that means getting young people OFF the Social Security hamster wheel by letting them do with their own money what the govt is supposed to be doing in the first place.

            I did want to add one thing though… I’ve heard some people talk about SS like everyone who gets it is a deadbeat or that some people should have their benefits means-tested… I can’t think of a more unconservative position a person could take… after all, the theft of your money into social security isn’t voluntary. you don’t have a choice. The least that we can do is honor our commitments to those that had NO say in the theft in the first place. I dunno.. anyway, there’s my limited two cents worth…

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            plans to punish those who do the right thing (save for retirement), and reward those who do nothing to prepare for their twilight years. If Joe Blow down the street gets his SS check when he retires, I will fight to make sure that Donald Trump gets his as well, even as much as he doesn’t need it. We need to stop rewarding sloth and punishing achievement.

          • acat

            …is that it makes the redistributionist/welfare aspects of the program quite clear.

            Americans – especially in the middle and lower class – tend to be quite generous personally, but quite resentful of forced redistributions. Toggling SS over in the minds of the middle from “benefit” to “welfare” would be helpful, long term, in getting reforms done.

            Mew

  • DerKrieger

    http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/2011/07/31/freedom-of-choice-in-retirement/

  • repubnut

    This is just another “SLICK” Willie plan that will put us into a DEEPER hole ;;; when the borrowed money runs out ,we will be worse off, Still no private market jobs created, just more government jobs and spending…FOOL US ONCE, shame on you —but—FOOL US TWICE shame on us..

  • popster

    will never talk his way out of the mess he and his progressive/socialist minions have created.
    The picture of Pelosi and her underlings will not be soon washed away with all the words he can muster. Let us not forget Turbo Tim, and the reign of the DC czars.

  • Menlo

    I believe the notion of a “retirement age” is wrong both in policy and in principle. “Retirement age” should only be when a person becomes physically unable to work.

    I think social security taxes should remain about at current rates but should exist solely as disability welfare for those unable to work and without other means of survival. However, it should not be based on what, if anything, one paid in. I’m not sure how much it would save, but it has to be better than the status quo. I think that is one legitimate form of “welfare” for which taxpayers should contribute.

  • carolynr

    I’m 66…and I could go back to work. Husband is not well….what do I do…leave him to support our social security checks? I think that it should be phased out and I agree that younger people should have choice. However, with Obama giving a payroll tax every year…what is going to happen to our checks. When I’m 75 do I go back to work because it is bankrupt or go on the government dole