Dick Durbin Insults Everyone Else’s Intelligence About Social Security

By Joe Firestone

Yesterday on Fox, Senator Dick Durbin said:

WALLACE: I’m going to talk about ObamaCare on a second, but you’re not answering my question. Why does taxes — why do taxes have to be on the table? Why can’t you just make a deal, short-term spending for long-term entitlement reform — which, Senator, you support and President Obama support. You have supported the idea of some entitlement reform.

DURBIN: That’s right. I do, and I’ll tell you why — because Social Security is going to run out of money in 20 years. I want to fix it now, before we reach that cliff.

Medicare may run out of money in 10 years, let’s fix it now. And that means addressing the skyrocketing cost of health care. That’s what ObamaCare is focused on, and yet, the Republicans want nothing to do with it.

If we don’t focus on the health care and dealing with the entitlements, the baby boom generation is going to blow away our future. We don’t want to see that happen. We want to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are solid.

The “. . . may run out of money. . . . ” and “. . . dealing with entitlements. . . “ memes, in reply to Chris Wallace’s question together suggest that a deal trading increased revenues for Social Security and other entitlement cuts is acceptable to him. So, Durbin’s argument is that because Social Security Trustee and CBO projections, based on very pessimistic economic growth projections for the whole period, show a shortfall in the Social Security “Trust Fund” in 20 years, it is acceptable to make entitlement cuts now if the Democrats can get increased revenue from higher taxes, as if entitlement “reform” were the only way to meet the perceived Social Security solvency problem. But who would it be acceptable to?

What the American People Clearly Want

According toa 2010 Lake Research Partners Poll 82 percent of Americans oppose cuts to Social Security to reduce the deficit. That breaks down by Party: Democrats — 83%; Republicans – 82%; Independents – 78%; and Tea Partiers – 74%. Those numbers are overwhelming, as polling data goes. It’s pretty clear that making cuts to Social Security would not be acceptable to the American people, generally, and probably even less acceptable to Senator Durbin’s heavily Democratic constituency in Illinois.

One wonders, what kind of Senator puts forth a proposal that more than 80% of his constituents oppose? It can only be one who has decided to fit himself for a duncecap; or one who’s convinced that “the banks run the place,” or one who doesn’t think that the rest of us have the intelligence to understand that there are other alternative to handling any such problem apart from “reforming,” meaning cutting entitlements. But it can’t be one who cares about whether his political party can hold the Senate after 2014.

But that’s not all, when asked about a proposal to require employee and employer FICA taxes on wages above $106,800 annually in order to make Social Security more solvent, 66% of Americans were in favor of that proposal. And that breaks down by Party: Democrats — 73%; Republicans — 59%; Independents — 66%; and Tea Partiers — 60%. That is very solid support for this proposal for solving any perceived Social Security solvency problem, particularly among the Democratic base. Also, the Tea Party support for raising the payroll tax cap is greater than the Republican Party’s for that, an indication that Tea Partiers, like the rest of us, value their Social Security highly.

So, the Lake Research Partners survey, with which Durbin is surely familiar, not only shows that people are heavily opposed to Social Security cuts in the first place, but also shows that Americans, and more than likely many more among Durbin’s constituents, are also heavily in favor of raising the payroll tax cap as a solution to any perceived solvency problem. Not only do they oppose cuts but they favor a particular solution to “the solvency problem,” which Senator Durbin saw fit not even to mention in his Fox News interview.

So, Durbin is doubly culpable as a poor representative of his constituents in his answers to Fox News. He neither mentions their overwhelming opposition to entitlement cuts; nor does he mention their heavy support for getting rid of the payroll tax cap. It’s as if these facts never existed, and were certainly not worth mentioning in the same breath as his and the President’s widely hated solution of cutting Social Security.

What the American People Might Want If They Knew About It

But, even worse, Senator Durbin, and other Democrats like him who claim to represent the Democratic base, also never mention other perspectives on the perceived solvency problem that might be far less unpopular with his base; but far more unpalatable to Wall Street. Those are solutions that avoid austerity altogether, either in entitlement cuts or tax increases on anyone.

Let’s begin getting to that solution by noting that Social Security solvency is a faux “money” problem because the Federal Government can never involuntarily run out of money to pay Social Security and Medicare obligations, as long as Congress is willing to provide the authority to meet those obligations. Yes, the problem is a political one, not an economic one.

The austerians, like Dick Durbin, want to solve this political problem by cutting back on entitlement benefits. “Progressives,” and most of the population want to solve it by eliminating the income cap on FICA taxation. Both of these solutions, in spite of the popularity of the “progressive” one, will subtract net financial assets from the private economy, and, other things being equal, make the private sector poorer. That’s why I call them “austerian” solutions. But the following solution doesn’t have that problem.

That solution is for the Executive Branch to use its Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PCS) authority under 31 USC 5112(k) and 31 USC 5136 to mint a single proof platinum coin each year to cover any shortfall between FICA revenues and spending on Social Security and Medicare. If that were done annually in advance, based on short-term projections, then there would be no further depletion of the “trust fund” credits, and no further political issue of Social Security and Medicare insolvency.

This solution also has at least the following other advantages.

– It requires no Congressional action to implement. The necessary authority is there already;

– It will not increase spending, beyond that already scheduled for Social Security and Medicare, so it won’t add any inflation beyond that already built into the system;

– It will not increase the public debt subject to the limit, so that worry needn’t trouble people;

– It will educate people about the fact that the Government can spend without having to tax or borrow if it needs to do that;

– It will educate people about PCS as an alternative to taxing and borrowing;

– It will educate people to the idea that neither the Treasury nor the Government can become insolvent because it can always mint coins;

– It will educate people about the fact that the US Government need not ever borrow back its own previously issued currency from anyone else, unless it wants to;

– It will educate people to the idea that their grandchildren won’t have a burden of public debt that they can’t always easily pay back by using PCS;

– It requires neither an increase in taxes nor cuts in Social Security or Medicare benefits.

– Also, if benefits were increased in the future there wouldn’t need to be any tax increases to “fund” them.

– It would be a great political success for any President who did this, because it would have the effect of safeguarding the major components of the safety net for good, and that President would be remembered by a grateful populace for having done that.

There are, of course, some disadvantages to this third solution, too.

– The opposition to the President will attack she or he for using PCS, claiming that it is the dreaded “printing money,” practiced, so infamously, by the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. This may be an effective attack in holding down the President’s approval rating for a limited period of time; but once people observe that no inflation results from using PCS, this attack will fade away; it’s effectiveness destroyed by experience and reality;

– To make PCS effective, the President may have to force the Federal Reserve Chairman to create reserves in exchange for Treasury’s platinum coins. This may create a firestorm politically if the Fed Chairman resigns in protest. However, eventually, the President will find a successor who will credit the Mint’s Public Enterprise Fund (PEF) account for platinum coins with very high face value, because the law is clear that in cases of disagreement between the Fed and the Secretary on matters of interpretation, the opinion of the Secretary is to prevail.

– The opposition may attack the President for “grabbing more power.” This may make a few headlines; but since the President’s action would halt any further depletion of the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” it is hard to see the public either disapproving of the action, or getting motivated by any perceived power grab.

– The opposition to the President in Congress may become enraged by the loss of leverage against entitlement spending they experience as a result of the Administration using PCS to stop depletion of the “trust funds.” However, I can’t see this anger going anywhere unless it somehow gets extended to the country at large. But, then again, the only reason why most people would get angry at this is if inflation were somehow triggered using PCS. Since this is a very unlikely prospect, the anger in Congress will just go to ground in the sweep of events.

Two weeks after the minting each year, there will be other issues to fight about. After a few years of use, PCS will be institutionalized as the way to ensure the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare regardless of fluctuations in the economy and in tax revenues.

So, that’s it. Using PCS to cover the shortfall between entitlement spending and FICA revenues is a quick and relatively easy solution to the political problem of ensuring that the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” are sustainable, provided that a president will use it.

When will progressive organizations like the Campaign for the American Future, Social Security Works, and many others forsake their austerity proposals and propose an option like this that doesn’t automatically evoke a fight to the death from those opposed to tax increases? There are many good reasons to increase taxes on people who have higher incomes and accumulations of wealth. But raising funds to meet a perceived, but not very real, Social Security solvency problem is not one of them. So, when will progressives stop making obeisance to the balanced budget Gods that condemn us to austerity, and propose to fund their economic initiatives for lifting the U.S. out of stagnation in other ways than by increasing taxes.

And when will this, or the next, or the next president make this happen and really kill “austerity” politics targeting the entitlements that most Americans love so well? When will this, or some future president hear the voice of the people?

20 Responses to Dick Durbin Insults Everyone Else’s Intelligence About Social Security

  1. Because this BiPeterson scheiss-stonewalling worked so well against single-payer option on DEM PPCACA “health” DEFORM! And, Because OBAMA.

  2. Excellent post Joe. Here are a couple of additional suggestions that could be tacked on at a later date or even at the beginning. Use HVPCS to not only make up SS funding shortfalls, but to also increase SS benefits above COL increases. This could gradually be phased in, or made a feature from the start, which would also stimulate the overall economy. The second would be to use HVPCS to reduce FICA taxes on employees and, yes, even on employers. Again this would stimulated the economy if done right away, and might even garner some Republican support since cutting taxes is the Holey Grail for Republicans.

    • Joe Firestone

      Good proposals, sun. My generalized $60 T proposal in my e-book goes along with various policy proposals including suspension of FICA, and increasing SS benefit payments (locations 3218 and 3261).

  3. “because Social Security Trustee and CBO projections, based on very pessimistic economic growth projections for the whole period”

    but there will be very low growth, the incomes of the 90% are falling, therefore their ability to buy much else apart from basic necessities will diminish with each passing year so there won’t be any money in the pot for social security. The 1% know this and all of their policies are designed to impoverish the majority while increasing their own wealth.

    One cannot but conclude that the very top of the pile are deliberately setting this path in preparation for a new economic empire to arise in the Middle East

    • Joe Firestone

      Low growth is entirely dependent on policies remaining the same. It is not an inevitability, but a self-fulfilling prophecy. Follow MMT policies and CBO projections get knocked into the proverbial cocked hat. They’re just nonsense, and need substantial revision even after 4 months, much less 20 – 30 years. Check this years’ projections. First, the one in January, then those in May. Big changes, estimates of deficits much too large, unfortunately.

  4. I live in Illinois and would happily support a primary challenge to Durbin.

  5. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
    From Chart A, disbursements from social security and medicare have grown from 3.93% of gdp in 1970 to 8.5% in 2010. 3.19% to 4.91% for social security alone, a 54% increase, and 0.74% to 3.59% for medicare, a 385% increase.
    From aoa.gov, the proportion of 65+ has grown from 9.9% of the population in 1970 to 13% in 2010, a 31% increase. Life expectancy has grown from 70.8 to 78.7, an 11% increase.
    This indicates that payments to the elderly have grown more rapidly than the elderly population itself. Direct payments (SS) have grown 20% per elderly (faster even than life expectancy) while indirect payments (medicare) have grown 268%.
    Other interesting data might be to consider the proportions of wealth held by the elderly both in 2010 and 1970, which I’ve yet to find.

    • I don’t know about as recently as 1970, but when SS was started the elderly were the poorest of demographic segments, and today they are the wealthiest. I would suspect they have more skew in their individual wealth than the general population, though, so that may not be important. It is silly, though, to give money to people just for being old. If it were not coupled with a tax, so that higher earners paid in more tax, it would never have been enacted.

    • Joe Firestone

      So, what? Why should anyone care? Is there a real inability to support seniors given the real resources and real wealth in the US. No!

      • It is always the argument that we hear. Somebody in the lower echelons of society is getting a better deal than someone else in the lower echelons of society. Why isn’t the argument and anger pointed at the upper echelons instead of a fellow low echelon?

  6. For a while, recently, the FICA tax rate was reduced by 2 percentage points, but the Trust Fund was credited anyway, with the amount that would have been collected.

    We could “fix” the trust fund by crediting it with the amount that would be collected if the rate were raised 2 points. Or if the cap were lifted. Or if we were at full employment.

    Any of these solutions exposes the true nature of the Trust Fund – it is the Emperor’s New Clothes. The problem, if one exists, is not the level of funds in the Trust Fund, it is the ability of the economy to produce when the ratio of workers to retirees falls. It is not a problem of money, it is a problem of real production.

    Fortunately, the problem is framed incorrectly. The crucial ratio is that of workers to dependents, including not only retirees but also children. That ratio is not rapidly falling, is currently higher than it was in the 1960′s and will never go lower than it was back then.

    • The crucial ratio is that of workers to dependents, including not only retirees but also children.

      But that required ratio is shrinking because of increased worker productivity from automation and from cheaper labor costs due to outsourcing.

      It’s too bad our money system does not automatically share those benefits but little in the way of fairness can be expected from a money system based on usury for stolen purchasing power.

    • Joe Firestone

      Or if we dropped platinum coins in the fountain. Also, very good comment.

  7. There is a kind of man whose teeth are like swords
    And his jaw teeth like knives,
    To devour the afflicted from the earth
    And the needy from among men.
    Proverbs 30:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

  8. Pingback: MEETING RIMINI 2014

  9. Pingback: Let The Revolution Begin! | Guillotine mediocrity in all its forms!

  10. How can any society that is willing to aggrandize the wealthy while letting children, the poor and the elderly go cold and hungry, hold itself up as any kind of moral or ethical standard?

    Social Security was created for the best of reasons and needs to be fostered and supported by everyone, so at the end of our days, none of us end up in the streets cold, sick and starving. And all it takes is one reversal of fortune, one blow of fate and anyone can end up facing those conditions.

    In the meantime, I think maybe the commenters on this page might find the following information interesting: http://www.utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/