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
