|
Obama and Congress agreed in December to cut the 6.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay on their wages to 4.2 percent in 2011 as part of a deal continuing former President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That cost Social Security $112 billion
-- money the government is making up by putting an equal amount of additional IOUs in the system's trust fund. Now Obama is proposing an even costlier plan for 2012. He would halve workers' payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent
-- about $1,500 a year in savings for a family earning $50,000. He would also cut the matching 6.2 percent Social Security tax that employers pay to 3.1 percent for their first $5 million in payroll next year. And he would eliminate employer-paid Social Security taxes in 2012 for some new workers or on increased pay for current employees. He would reimburse the trust fund with another $240 billion in IOUs. Many analysts say that technically it makes little difference whether money going into Social Security's trust fund comes from the payroll tax or from other government revenue. Either way, the cash purchases special bonds that are banked in the trust fund. "It will in no way weaken the Social Security fund," Robert Reischauer, former head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and one of six trustees who oversees Social Security, said of partially financing the program with general revenues. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said that, under Obama's proposal, "Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise." But for politicians, other questions are involved. Polls show Social Security is hugely popular across party lines, particularly with elderly people who vote in high numbers. There are plentiful recent examples of the program's political potency. When Democrats and Republicans fought over budget surpluses that emerged briefly in the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton headed off large GOP tax cuts by saying the extra money should be used to buttress Social Security. In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore tried capitalizing on that same sentiment with his proposal to keep parts of the surplus in a "lockbox" for Social Security. And in 2005 after his re-election, President Bush saw his plan to let Social Security recipients turn benefits into stock market investments quickly go down in flames. This summer, Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, failed to reach a "grand bargain" for cutting federal debt by $3 trillion or more. Their discussions included curbing how Social Security benefits would grow to reflect inflation
-- a bold proposal that would have posed risks for any politician who backed it. With next year's presidential and congressional elections on the horizon, lawmakers remain eager to demonstrate support for the program. Underscoring that sensitivity, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave an ambivalent response last week when asked if there was concern that Obama's proposal would threaten Social Security's financial soundness. "Let's put it this way," she said. "It doesn't mean that every piece of everything the president said, that everybody was saying,
'Oh, my gosh, I am so glad about that.'"
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor