But Astrue said he is optimistic that Congress will address the issue, perhaps after the 2008 presidential election. President Bush had proposed changes in Social Security to create private accounts, but the proposal went nowhere in Congress.
Last week, Bush's budget director called the growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a "fiscal train wreck." The three entitlement programs make up nearly half of all federal spending, a share that is expected to grow.
A report issued last month by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the Social Security shortfall. But White House officials stressed that Bush remains opposed to raising taxes.
full: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security *********************
There are a lot of ruling class media outlets sending out the news that the "sky is falling" when it comes to Social Security. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that U.S. Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits for the next 39 years, even if nothing is done to change the program.
Has the way the government funds Social Security ever been changed?
Yes. From the 1950s through the 1980s minor changes were made. If similar changes were made in the coming years, Social Security would be solvent until almost the end of the century.
The way Social Security is financed is through taxes on wages and employer income/profits. The worker pays half and the employer pays half. This money is used by the Social Security Administration to buy government bonds. The bonds pay interest and accumulate themselves, by buying more bonds. The Social Security trust fund will hold $2.4 trillion in government bonds and will be accumulating more than $200 billion a year in 2009. This is YOUR money, especially as you slaved your ass off working for wages while your employer took the product of your labour to the bank. The wealthiest 1% of Americans (landlords and capitalists) appropriated 21.2% of all income in 2005. The bottom 50%--worker-producers--got 12.8% of all income. "WSJ" 10/13/07. Your employer's share is just a part of the income s/he derived from employing you in the first place. You produced the wealth! Besides, your employer is eligible for Social Security too. Still, there are many, many members of the employing class who treasure the notion of killing the Social Security program and keeping the wealth they plow into it for themselves. The employing class is sending their public mouthpieces out now to convince you that you don't want Social Security anymore and besides, the "country" (meaning your rulers), don't want to see "their wealth" put into your pockets when you retire from wage-slavery.
Now, if the ruling class pundits who blab on the big corporate and PBS news shows, usually in bi-partisan harmony with Major Party polytricksters...if these blubber-kings and queens want a REAL issue to play reform politics with, they might focus on healthcare. Here's a question to put to them: Why is healthcare spending in the USA twice that of other industrially developed countries?
Bingo! Because in the USA, healthcare is treated as a commodity. Don't you just love it; I mean the 'free market'. For instance, doctors are able to charge more because their guild, the AMA, keeps their supply in the labour market low. Low supply of something, say oil, drives the price of the commodity up, UP, UP!! Doctors are able to obtain much larger incomes in the USA than in other countries. That's why so many foreign doctors worldwide want to come and practice medicine in the USA. But the AMA lobby pressures Congress to keep these hordes out. In Britain, for instance, a doctor who works for the National Health Service might only get $200,00 a year in wages. Don't believe me? See the comments on IMDb from those who have seen the movie "SiCKO".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/usercomments
Where you don't have to support numerous profit making stock holders and their HMOs by denying healthcare on the basis of legal technicalities, you can actually lower healthcare costs. Also, where the government employs doctors and has the ability to overcome the AMA or similar medical lobby/guild so that more doctors can be trained domestically to increase their supply in the market, costs are lower.
End rant, Mike B)
Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." - W. C. Fields http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml
Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail