“Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years”

During the recent Presidential Campaign one of the candidates said, “Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years”. 

That sounds like a bad thing and it would be, if it were true, but truth and politics hardly ever get in each other’s way during campaigns for any political office, much less campaigns for President of the United States of America.

This is a fine example of saying the truth and lying at the same time…

Ø It may be true that Congress has not passed a piece of legislation to raise Social Security Income in almost 50 years.

Ø It is not true that Social Security Income has not risen during those almost 50 years because in 1972 Congress passed legislation whereby Social Security Incomes get Automatic Increases Tied To Inflation.

Ø So there is no need for Congress to raise Social Security Income with new legislation because old legislation is doing it automatically.

************

It was a strange campaign season, loaded with enormous promises of government handouts for Health Care, College, Illegal Aliens and even a Guaranteed National Income. 

Maybe I should not have pecked out “strange campaign season” but should have pecked out “usual campaign season”.

Social Security is headed for Certain Bankruptcy and during this campaign this candidate proposed that every current and future Social Security recipient be given an additional $2,400 a year.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." … Alexander Tyler, 1787

(As you may remember I recently found out that Alexander Tyler never said this but that does not mean that he was not correct about what he did not say.)

************

The candidate wanted to finance the $2,400 Vote For Me Proposal (which would cost more than $150 billion annually) with a 14.8% tax on high-income individuals because Social Security Recipients are in deep financial trouble and need help … Or are they? … Or do they?

Ø Only 7% of 46 million senior citizens who receive Social Security live below the poverty line.

Ø So the majority of this proposed Social Security Bonanza would go to middle and upper income seniors.

Ø About $51 billion would go to the 21 million seniors who are in the top half of the U.S. income distribution.

Ø It is estimated that the $2,400 Social Security handout would only lift above the poverty line about 1.6 million seniors who are currently living below it.

Ø Limiting assistance to 1.6 million seniors who are currently living below the poverty line would cost taxpayers far less but that was not proposed.

Ø The plan being proposed would cost taxpayers about $70,000 for each senior citizen lifted out of poverty.

************

This returns the country to an era when elected officials regularly used Social Security as a vote-buying scheme.

From 1935 until the early 1970s, the program’s benefits were not indexed to inflation.

Congress regularly passed bills meant to compensate recipients for the loss of purchasing power due to inflation.

After World War II, Congress began using the perceived need for an inflation adjustment as a way to buy votes.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." … Alexander Tyler, 1787

(As you may remember I recently found out that Alexander Tyler never said this but that does not mean that he was not correct about what he did not say.)

************

Of the 12 Congresses from 1949-73, all but one enacted legislation raising Social Security.

Seven of these expansions took effect during election years.

The vote-buying culminated in 1972 with a bidding war between President Richard Nixon and his Democratic Opponents…

Ø Nixon opened the bidding by proposing a 10% increase in monthly benefits.

Ø Sen. Edmund Muskie raised him with a 15% hike.

Ø Sen. George McGovern and Rep. Wilbur Mills each chipped in with 20% increases.

Ø Sen. Hubert Humphrey capped off the bidding at 25%.

Ø The dust settled in June 1972 when Congress enacted a 20% across-the-board increase in monthly benefits.

Ø The benefit increase appeared in Social Security Checks early that fall just in time for November’s election.

************

Both parties agreed that they needed to stop this craziness.

In 1972 Congress enacted legislation that put in place Automatic Annual Cost-Of-Living Adjustments...

Ø An amendment in 1977 linked the level of initial benefits paid to new retirees to the growth in economy wide wages. 

Ø The average monthly benefit for someone retiring this year is nearly 50% higher than it was nearly 50 years ago.

Ø During these 50 years the median inflation-adjusted income of U.S. families has increased by only 30%.

***************

This Blog Posting has now come back to where it started…

The Presidential Candidate said: “Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years.”

I can see by that Pollyanna Look on the faces of some of you indicating you still do not believe that Presidential Candidates Lie. In deference to those that “think” this way, I will soften my closing statement below…Or will I?

Saying “Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years” is not simply Misleading but it is a Dastardly Attempt to Tell a True Lie to a Gullible Voting Public.

***************

One More Time…

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." … Alexander Tyler, 1787

(As you may remember I recently found out that Alexander Tyler never said this but that does not mean that he was not correct about what he did not say.)

Would I kid u?

Smartfella