Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

March 29, 2011

FYI

Ellen

Ellen Garber Bronfeld

egskb@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

stevegoldada@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

Information Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

regular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

current attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

time they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

instill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

retiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

take the offense and fight back.

One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

Medicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

are simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

climate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

programs.

But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

" Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

of our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

and are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

Insurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

and Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

percent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

funds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

disability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

private insurance program is supposed to work.

Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

it's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

and are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

difficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

thrown out to frighten us.

The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

Medicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

billion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

for Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

Part B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

earlier.

Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

outlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

will exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

the Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

economy. "

What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

Rather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

discussion regarding how we might address this problem.

Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

Security concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

(1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

apply to earnings above $108,800.

Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

payments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

but people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

amount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

does will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

ensure that we all pay our fair share.

A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

different Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

the earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

close nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

proposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

In 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

which proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

security. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

into different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

215-627-7100.

--

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com

----------------------------------------------------------------

Visit

http://chance.unh.edu

for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

It consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

Since this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

directly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

relevant, please send it to:

drv@ unh.edu

If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

March 29, 2011

I'm not doubting their stats. I'll just add one more: SS, Medicare, & Medicaid

all together make up over 60 percent of the federal budget.

Starting in 2010, Social Security was expected to pay out more than it takes in

through payroll taxes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1 & hp

I don't have a solution, but I think the next budget will have cuts and that

those with DD and their families are not a big enough constituency to be the

squeakiest wheel.

-Gail

________________________________

From: ELLEN BRONFELD <egskb@...>

IPADDUnite

Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 9:33:26 PM

Subject: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

FYI

Ellen

Ellen Garber Bronfeld

egskb@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

stevegoldada@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

Information Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

regular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

current attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

time they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

instill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

retiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

take the offense and fight back.

One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

Medicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

are simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

climate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

programs.

But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

" Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

of our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

and are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

Insurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

and Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

percent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

funds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

disability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

private insurance program is supposed to work.

Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

it's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

and are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

difficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

thrown out to frighten us.

The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

Medicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

billion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

for Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

Part B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

earlier.

Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

outlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

will exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

the Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

economy. "

What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

Rather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

discussion regarding how we might address this problem.

Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

Security concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

(1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

apply to earnings above $108,800.

Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

payments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

but people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

amount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

does will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

ensure that we all pay our fair share.

A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

different Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

the earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

close nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

proposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

In 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

which proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

security. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

into different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

215-627-7100.

--

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com

----------------------------------------------------------

Visit

http://chance.unh.edu

for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

It consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

Since this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

directly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

relevant, please send it to:

drv@ unh.edu

If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

March 29, 2011

Food for thought..Although, IÂ wish the most basic of facts were more accurate.

It would allow the entire article to have more credibility.

Taxable wage base for Social Security is $106,800 (not $108,800)

Social security withholdingÂ is taxed this year at a 4.2% rate (not the 6.5%

indicated).Â Previous years it was 6.2%.

Medicare tax is 1.45% of income.Â

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

stevegoldada@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

Information Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

regular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

current attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

time they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

instill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

retiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

take the offense and fight back.

One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

Medicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

are simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

climate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

programs.

But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

" Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

of our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

and are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

Insurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

and Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

percent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

funds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

disability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

private insurance program is supposed to work.

Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

it's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

and are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

difficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

thrown out to frighten us.

The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

Medicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

billion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

for Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

Part B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

earlier.

Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

outlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

will exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

the Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

economy. "

What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

Rather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

discussion regarding how we might address this problem.

Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

Security concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

(1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

apply to earnings above $108,800.

Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

payments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

but people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

amount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

does will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

ensure that we all pay our fair share.

A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

different Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

the earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

close nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

proposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

In 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

which proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

security. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

into different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

215-627-7100.

--

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

http://www.stevegoldada.com

----------------------------------------------------------

Visit

http://chance.unh.edu

for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

It consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

Since this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

directly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

relevant, please send it to:

drv@ unh.edu

If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

March 30, 2011

Donna, why did they drop the percentage withheld, do you know?

Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

Food for thought..Although, I wish the most basic of facts were more accurate.

t would allow the entire article to have more credibility.

Taxable wage base for Social Security is $106,800 (not $108,800)

Social security withholding is taxed this year at a 4.2% rate (not the 6.5%

ndicated). Previous years it was 6.2%.

Medicare tax is 1.45% of income.

---- Original Message -----

rom: " G Mrozak " <mrsovaltine@...>

o: IPADDUnite

ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:53:35 PM

ubject: Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

'm not doubting their stats. I'll just add one more: SS, Medicare, & Medicaid

ll together make up over 60 percent of the federal budget.

Starting in 2010, Social Security was expected to pay out more than it takes in

hrough payroll taxes:

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1 & hp

I don't have a solution, but I think the next budget will have cuts and that

hose with DD and their families are not a big enough constituency to be the

queakiest wheel.

-Gail

________________________________

rom: ELLEN BRONFELD < egskb@... >

o: IPADDUnite

ent: Tue, March 29, 2011 9:33:26 PM

ubject: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

FYI

llen

llen Garber Bronfeld

gskb@...

---- Original Message -----

rom: Listmaster

o: Housing & Disability Issues

ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:55 PM

ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

From: SteveGoldADA@...

ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

o: stevegoldada@...

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

nformation Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

egular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

urrent attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

ime they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

nstill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

etiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

ake the offense and fight back.

One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

edicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

re simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

limate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

rograms.

But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

f our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

nd are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

nsurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

nd Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

ercent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

unds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

isability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

rivate insurance program is supposed to work.

Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

t's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

nd are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

ifficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

hrown out to frighten us.

The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

edicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

illion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

or Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

emain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

art B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

arlier.

Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

utlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

ill exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

he Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

eturn to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

conomy. "

What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

ather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

iscussion regarding how we might address this problem.

Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

ecurity concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

pply to earnings above $108,800.

Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

ayments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

ut people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

mount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

oes will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

nsure that we all pay our fair share.

A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

esponsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

ifferent Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

he earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

lose nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

roposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

n 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

hich proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

ecurity. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

ttp://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

nto different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

log located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

15-627-7100.

--

teve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

ttp://www.stevegoldada.com

----------------------------------------------------------

isit

http://chance.unh.edu

for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

t consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

ince this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

irectly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

elevant, please send it to:

drv@ unh.edu

If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

March 30, 2011

The drop is for 2011 only. It's a political ploy. Since Social Security is in

horrible shape, IMO, they shouldn't have done it.

>

> Donna, why did they drop the percentage withheld, do you know?

>

> Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>

> Food for thought..Although, I wish the most basic of facts were more accurate.

> t would allow the entire article to have more credibility.

>

> Taxable wage base for Social Security is $106,800 (not $108,800)

> Social security withholding is taxed this year at a 4.2% rate (not the 6.5%

> ndicated). Previous years it was 6.2%.

> Medicare tax is 1.45% of income.

>

> ---- Original Message -----

> rom: " G Mrozak " <mrsovaltine@...>

> o: IPADDUnite

> ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:53:35 PM

> ubject: Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>

> 'm not doubting their stats. I'll just add one more: SS, Medicare, & Medicaid

> ll together make up over 60 percent of the federal budget.

> Starting in 2010, Social Security was expected to pay out more than it takes

in

> hrough payroll taxes:

> ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1 & hp

> I don't have a solution, but I think the next budget will have cuts and that

> hose with DD and their families are not a big enough constituency to be the

> queakiest wheel.

> -Gail

> ________________________________

> rom: ELLEN BRONFELD < egskb@... >

> o: IPADDUnite

> ent: Tue, March 29, 2011 9:33:26 PM

> ubject: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> FYI

> llen

> llen Garber Bronfeld

> gskb@...

> ---- Original Message -----

> rom: Listmaster

> o: Housing & Disability Issues

> ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:55 PM

> ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> From: SteveGoldADA@...

> ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> o: stevegoldada@...

> Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> nformation Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

> Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

> egular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

> urrent attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

> ime they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

> nstill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

> etiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

> ake the offense and fight back.

> One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

> edicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

> re simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

> limate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

> rograms.

> But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

> Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

> f our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

> nd are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

> nsurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

> nd Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

> Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

> ercent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

> unds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

> isability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

> rivate insurance program is supposed to work.

> Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

> t's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

> A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

> nd are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

> ifficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

> hrown out to frighten us.

> The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

> edicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

> illion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

> or Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

> emain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

> art B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

> arlier.

> Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

> utlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

> ill exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

> he Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

> eturn to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

> conomy. "

> What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

> ather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

> iscussion regarding how we might address this problem.

> Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

> ecurity concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

> 1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

> pply to earnings above $108,800.

> Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

> ayments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

> ut people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

> mount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

> oes will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

> nsure that we all pay our fair share.

> A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

> esponsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

> ifferent Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

> he earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

> lose nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

> An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

> roposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

> n 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

> hich proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

> ecurity. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

> Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

> ttp://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

> nto different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

> log located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

> To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

> 15-627-7100.

> --

> teve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

> ttp://www.stevegoldada.com

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> isit

> http://chance.unh.edu

> for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

> Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

> t consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

> ince this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

> irectly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

> elevant, please send it to:

> drv@ unh.edu

> If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

> To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

> HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

> with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

>

March 30, 2011

Thats why I wondered.......

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:51 AM, " cmfinato " <cmfinato@...> wrote:

> The drop is for 2011 only. It's a political ploy. Since Social Security is

in horrible shape, IMO, they shouldn't have done it.

>

>>

>> Donna, why did they drop the percentage withheld, do you know?

>>

>> Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>>

>> Food for thought..Although, I wish the most basic of facts were more

accurate.

>> t would allow the entire article to have more credibility.

>>

>> Taxable wage base for Social Security is $106,800 (not $108,800)

>> Social security withholding is taxed this year at a 4.2% rate (not the 6.5%

>> ndicated). Previous years it was 6.2%.

>> Medicare tax is 1.45% of income.

>>

>> ---- Original Message -----

>> rom: " G Mrozak " <mrsovaltine@...>

>> o: IPADDUnite

>> ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:53:35 PM

>> ubject: Re: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>>

>> 'm not doubting their stats. I'll just add one more: SS, Medicare, & Medicaid

>> ll together make up over 60 percent of the federal budget.

>> Starting in 2010, Social Security was expected to pay out more than it takes

in

>> hrough payroll taxes:

>> ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1 & hp

>> I don't have a solution, but I think the next budget will have cuts and that

>> hose with DD and their families are not a big enough constituency to be the

>> queakiest wheel.

>> -Gail

>> ________________________________

>> rom: ELLEN BRONFELD < egskb@... >

>> o: IPADDUnite

>> ent: Tue, March 29, 2011 9:33:26 PM

>> ubject: Fw: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>> FYI

>> llen

>> llen Garber Bronfeld

>> gskb@...

>> ---- Original Message -----

>> rom: Listmaster

>> o: Housing & Disability Issues

>> ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:55 PM

>> ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>> From: SteveGoldADA@...

>> ubject: Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>> o: stevegoldada@...

>> Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

>> nformation Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

>> Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

>> egular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

>> urrent attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

>> ime they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

>> nstill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

>> etiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

>> ake the offense and fight back.

>> One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

>> edicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

>> re simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

>> limate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

>> rograms.

>> But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

>> Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

>> f our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

>> nd are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

>> nsurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

>> nd Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

>> Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

>> ercent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

>> unds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

>> isability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

>> rivate insurance program is supposed to work.

>> Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

>> t's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

>> A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

>> nd are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

>> ifficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

>> hrown out to frighten us.

>> The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

>> edicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

>> illion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

>> or Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

>> emain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

>> art B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

>> arlier.

>> Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

>> utlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

>> ill exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

>> he Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

>> eturn to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

>> conomy. "

>> What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

>> ather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

>> iscussion regarding how we might address this problem.

>> Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

>> ecurity concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

>> 1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

>> pply to earnings above $108,800.

>> Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

>> ayments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

>> ut people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

>> mount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

>> oes will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

>> nsure that we all pay our fair share.

>> A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

>> esponsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

>> ifferent Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

>> he earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

>> lose nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

>> An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

>> roposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

>> n 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

>> hich proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

>> ecurity. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

>> Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

>> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

>> ttp://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

>> nto different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

>> log located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

>> To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

>> 15-627-7100.

>> --

>> teve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

>> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

>> ttp://www.stevegoldada.com

>> ----------------------------------------------------------

>> isit

>> http://chance.unh.edu

>> for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

>> Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

>> t consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

>> ince this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

>> irectly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

>> elevant, please send it to:

>> drv@ unh.edu

>> If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

>> To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

>> HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

>> with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

>>

March 30, 2011

Someone was pointing out the other day where politicians has transfer the fund

from Social Security to pay for the other department.

If that is the case, it would be robbing to pay and evict for

not having the money after being robbed.

>

> FYI

> Ellen

> Ellen Garber Bronfeld

> egskb@...

> Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> stevegoldada@...

>

> Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths

> Information Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

>

> Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a

> regular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The

> current attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each

> time they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to

> instill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be

> retiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must

> take the offense and fight back.

>

> One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and

> Medicare are " Entitlements. " This short-hand label suggests the programs

> are simply government largesse, " welfare, " and charity. In our current

> climate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these

> programs.

>

> But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an

> " Entitlement. " Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out

> of our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA,

> and are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors

> Insurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare);

> and Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part .

>

> Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or " premiums " (a

> percent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust

> funds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or

> disability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any

> private insurance program is supposed to work.

>

> Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block;

> it's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

>

> A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble

> and are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest

> difficulties we face is to know which " facts " are accurate and which are

> thrown out to frighten us.

>

> The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and

> Medicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8

> billion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that " the outlook

> for Medicare has improved substantially. " Part A " is now expected to

> remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year. "

> Part B's program costs are " down 23 percent relative to costs projected "

> earlier.

>

> Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term

> outlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures

> will exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so,

> the Trustees expect the deficits to " shrink substantially for 2011 and to

> return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving

> economy. "

>

> What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume?

> Rather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public

> discussion regarding how we might address this problem.

>

> Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social

> Security concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes

> (1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes do not

> apply to earnings above $108,800.

>

> Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security

> payments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings

> but people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable

> amount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare

> does will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will

> ensure that we all pay our fair share.

>

> A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal

> Responsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay

> different Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on

> the earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would

> close nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

>

> An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to

> proposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs.

> In 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission

> which proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of

> security. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

>

> Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

>

> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

> http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided

> into different subjects. Information Bulletins are also be posted on my

> blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

>

> To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@... or call

> 215-627-7100.

>

> --

> Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

>

> Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at

> http://www.stevegoldada.com

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

> Visit

>

> http://chance.unh.edu

>

> for information on home ownership for people with disabilities.

>

> Housing & Disability Issues is a moderated informational listserv.

> It consists of disability issues concerning but not limited to housing.

> Since this is not a discussion list, you will not be able to send content

directly to the list. However, if you have information that you feel is

relevant, please send it to:

>

> drv@ unh.edu

>

> If appropriate, we will post it to the list.

>

> To subscribe to this list, send an email to:

>

> HOUSING.DISABILITY.ISSUES-request@...

>

> with the word " subscribe " in the subject line.

>

March 30, 2011

We are of the same opinion .Â Â Here in Illinois the 2% just went to the

Illinois State tax anyway.Â Â No extra funds in any of our pockets

Seems like a practical solution would be to remove, or at least increase, the

taxable wage limit for Social Security.Â Â Â In other words, the wealthy would

pay more.Â Â Guess we know why that won't ever be approved - right?

Donna