Axelrod: “This is not the time” to have a plan to reform Social Security

posted at 10:41 am on September 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

David Axelrod ran into a buzz saw this morning, and on MSNBC, of all places.  Time’s Mark Halperin asks a rather predictable question of Axelrod, noting that Barack Obama never mentioned Social Security reform in his 60 Minutes interview last night (and Steve Kroft apparently never asked about it, either).  Where’s the plan, Halperin asks — and Axelrod makes not one but two huge gaffes in answering:

TIME’s MARK HALPERIN: “David – Social Security came up last night on ‘60 Minutes.’ Let me ask you in a second term, what is the president proposing to do to reform Social Security, save it for future generations, and will it involve lower benefits for anyone or higher taxes for anyone?”

OBAMA ADVISER DAVID AXELROD: “Well I think that there, too, Mark, the approach has to be a balanced one. We’ve had discussions in the past. And the question is, can you raise the cap some? Right now Social Security cuts off at a lower point. Can you raise the cap so people in the upper incomes are paying a little more into the program? And do you adjust the growth of the program. That’s a discussion worth having. But again we have to approach it in a balanced way. We’re not going to cut our way to prosperity. We’re not going to cut our way to more secure entitlement programs – Social Security and Medicare. We have to have a balance.”

HALPERIN: “So what is his proposal?”

AXELROD: “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table — this is not the time. We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at a table and says okay we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this. The reality of Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare. We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal. But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution. But it isn’t as pressing as a Medicare issue.”

First, Axelrod insists that “this is not the time” to have a proposal to address the critical unfunded liabilities of Social Security.  Really?  Isn’t an election a time to discuss plans for the nation’s future, especially on pressing fiscal issues?  Furthermore, Obama has been president for most of four years now, and Axelrod is all but admitting that Obama hasn’t got a plan at all on this issue.  He’s tossing the issue back to Congress, and in his snotty way telling Mark Halperin that he doesn’t have any standing even to ask the question.

Next, Axelrod admits that Medicare is a bigger problem.  That’s true, but that’s not been the position of the Obama administration.  They keep claiming that ObamaCare has fixed the problem in the short term and bent the cost curve downward over the long term.  Now Axelrod admits to reality, which is that ObamaCare didn’t help save Medicare at all — and that it’s on the same decade-long trajectory to collapse as it was when Obama took office.

What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe?  Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Uhhhh Dave, you don’t wait until it’s raining to fix the hole in the roof.

tommyboy on September 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Well, if we can reform healthcare, we can reform social security. End of argument.

unclesmrgol on September 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So you’re saying it is a question of which liberal program will destroy us first Mr. Axelrod?

Don L on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Obama, 2008 debates:

We all know what needs to be done to reform social security.

Obama, 2012:

We have no idea how to reform social security.

Look it up. He said it in 2008, in a reply back to McCain where McCain talked about the need to reform social security before it goes bankrupt. He said the “we all know what needs to be done” line to dismiss McCain’s argument.

lorien1973 on September 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM

He’s right! Everyone knows that the time to reform Social Security is when the whole country is out of money and the streets look like Greece over the last year.

//

Waggoner on September 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Social security is just a “bump in the road”

ConservativePartyNow on September 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

“Our plan to fix Social Security? We don’t have one. But I can tell you this, when we do come up with one it will involve a combination of raising taxes, added layers of bureaucracy and demonizing Republicans.” -Axelrod

Flange on September 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

this is not the time. We’re not going to have that discussion right now

Clearly THEY are not the ones we’ve been waiting for.

rhombus on September 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

WINNING

SmallGovtGuy on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

If not now, when?

Social Security should have been reformed in a major way over a decade or two ago. Instead, SS has been opened up to millions who do not have to be included. Privatization could have taken care of most.

But, here we are, 2012, and Social Security is broke and broken.

Keeping the nanny state alive is what the lib/prog’s demand.

How it is paid for, well, according to Obama, is not really a problem.

coldwarrior on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

according to Harry Reid I think we have another 29 years or so before we need to talk about SS

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/harry-reid-leave-social-security-alone-its

DanMan on September 24, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Axelrod ought to use Pelosi’s retort: “Are you serious? Are you serious? Next question.”

Problem solved!

…but we can still blame George Bush, right?

perroviejo on September 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Poor, poor Axe. He looked pretty rough this morning.

He must have been looking at polls.

Landslide!!!!!

faraway on September 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I see.

So;

- Passing a so-called trillion dollar Stimulus
- Stealing over half a trillion from Medicare for Obamacare (which nobody wanted)
- Bailing our GM and the unions with taxpayer money
- Never passing a budget in four years
- 6 trillion in new debt in four years

Those were all priorities. But saving Social Security and Medicare, the latter which Mr. Obama told us PPACA did, which is apparently now admittedly by Axelrod not true, are not.

Got it.

How dumb do these people think we are?

Marcus Traianus on September 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I agree with him. I say let it keep going the way it is right now. When it fails, leave it dead.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

How dumb do these people think we are?

Marcus Traianus on September 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Reduced withholding tax for general fund enrichment by 2%… 6.2 to 4.2%

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:54 AM

We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal.

Lying arrogant bastard, just like his boss.

TXUS on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Balanced approach, why doesn’t any of these geniuses sitting at the table call him this bs? We all know we could confiscate all the wealth of the people he wants to tax more and it wouldn’t even make a dent in in years worth of deficit spending? Micheal Steel was sitting right there, why don’t they say anything?
Morons.

lowandslow on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

This reminds me of George Bush’s proposal to let us have the CHOICE to partially privatize where our Social Security investments could be directed – or you could choose to keep the remaining plan. Seems like the media/democrat party had a collective hissy fit while grossly distorting the proposal by simply claiming it would destroy or eliminate Social Security.

perroviejo on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Social security is “noise”.

SouthernGent on September 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Axelrod is all but admitting that Obama hasn’t got a plan at all on this issue

That’s been their openly stated position on most economic problems. Remember Geithner’s wonderful line? “We don’t have a plan; we just don’t like yours.” (not sure if I have the quote word for word correct but that is pretty close).

jwolf on September 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Axelrod: “This is not the time to face reality. We have a lot of people to fool in this election first.”

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on September 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Keeping the nanny state alive is what the lib/prog’s demand.

How it is paid for, well, according to Obama, is not really a problem.

coldwarrior on September 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Romney will keep them open for generations, like Ryan will as well.

BIG, VERY BIG reason I am not yet convinced I can vote for him…

It is not just a Democratic problem… It is now the new progressive (R) issue.

If you privatise them now, while they are in the red, then current workers are expected to fully bankroll current and soon to retire individuals as well as their own retirements? Just to cover the people aged 50+ right now until they die will already require massive tax increases, or trillions a year in deficit spending. Then add in the hundreds of billions self financing your own government enforced retirement plan…

Good luck

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The fiscal cliff is just noise, a bump in the road.

Honestly, all the things we think of as “hard decisions”, “enormous risks” or “disasters” are really just cases of inconvenience. The President has a tee time to make, followed by a trip to Vegas, and world war, ongoing economic collapse and the end of personal liberties can’t be allowed to get in the way.

MTF on September 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Axelrod ought to use Pelosi’s retort: “Are you serious? Are you serious? Next question.”

Problem solved!

…but we can still blame George Bush, right?

perroviejo on September 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Or he could take the Debbie Wasserman Schultz/ Harry Reid approach and lie his arse off.

Or he could take the Stephanie Cutter approach and say “Never mind about SS, that Romney guy’s a felon.”

Happy Nomad on September 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

“But again we have to approach it in a balanced way. We’re not going to cut our way to prosperity. We’re not going to cut our way to more secure entitlement programs – Social Security and Medicare. We have to have a balance.”

We’re not going to spend our way there either, Axelgrease.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Liberals claim that Social Security is sacrosanct, a program so loved by the American people that it s unassailable.

I say BS. They claim seniors would descend on DC if it were ever imperiled, which may be true, but not for the false reasons they choose to believe. Seniors get irate over threats to Social Security not because they have any love for the program but rather because they have been forced their entire working lives to “contribute” to it so that now all they want is their money back.

Polls routinely show that younger generations don’t believe they will ever see a dime of SS so I doubt they care much about the program beyond what they are forced to “contribute”.

So my challenge to the Democrats is this; if you believe Americans overwhelmingly support SS, make participation voluntary.

My plan for SS is as follows and should be able to garner bipartisan support:
1. Allow anyone to opt out
2. All contributions made are forfeited by those opting out
3. Employers must still pay their half for all those who have opted out. (A time limit, 20 years maybe, should exist on this provision so that eventually no one pays into SS if they have opted out)

These last two ought to appeal to Democrats while also providing a strong self-selection mechanism. The last provision ensures some continued level of funding.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe? Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.

Uh, actually I knew this back in 2009. Most of us with a brain knew this idiot never had a plan, he just spoke well.

goflyers on September 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The only plan BO has for the next four years is to continue to loot the treasury for his cronies, drive the country further into the ground, degrade our military and leave us in worse condition than we already are.

Just listened to Nikki Haley being interviewed. The plan for her volunteers is the same as mine…. find 5 former BO voters and convert them. She said that she has 200,000 women pledged to do this.

We can all do this, and we must. The trick is to find former BO voters. There aren’t many around here, and those who did aren’t admitting it.

Cody1991 on September 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Wow, Axelrod just fell apart on that one and let the veil slip pretty badly, didn’t he?

Now the question is whether or not the idiot lapdogs in the press will give this the attention it deserves.

You’ll pardon me if I don’t hold my breath?

KMC1 on September 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

“We have no plan, but we don’t like yours”…Timmy&Crew…

hillsoftx on September 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

David Axelrod: Noted intellectual, financial expert and Chicago thug…LOL.

d1carter on September 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Listen to Axeldouche and his softball game here.

Then listen to UH, UH, Cliche – Euphemism in Chief on 60 minutes.

Then, Watch Romney take on the personal assault from that Dan Rather wannabe “journalist” on 60 minutes.

There is no comparison.

Super Mitt outshines these weasely Chicago corruptocrat thugs so easily. Too bad he won’t get a fair shake at the debates with the liberal media fawning over Ocommie. He will need some Newt moments to cut through the liberal shell game.

FlaMurph on September 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Right. We have to have “Balance”, so everything is “Fair”, and everyone pays their “Fair Share”, so that everyone has a “Shot”. The only way to do that is to have “The Rich Pay a Little More”. Because, after all, “They Didn’t Build That”.

Now I’m going to clean the vomit off of my keyboard.

NOMOBO on September 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Obama and Axelrod are reduced to repeating slogans over and over.

faraway on September 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Typical lib reaction: Kick the can down the road and tax someone later.

Philly on September 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Funny–the Dems said the same thing in 1984, when Republicans were warning a fix needs to made well ahead of the crisis all the math showed would inevitably happen.

And liberals are still saying ‘now is not the time’?

That begs the question of when will it be right time to fix the crashing system–after it finally implodes?

Liam on September 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Now that was a Kubucki Stripper Poll tap dance,
and RodAxle,looked a tad p*ssed,at the
question by Halprin!!

canopfor on September 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Axelrod: “This is not the time” to have a plan to reform Social Security

Would 3:30 be better? Okay, 3:30.

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on September 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Remember now–people like Axelrod are considered the brightest among us.

Liam on September 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

AXELROD: “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table — this is not the time

Third gaffe: you don’t get to have a say unless you are in office. Ordinary citizens have no right to question the anointed class.

rbj on September 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I have a bipartisan observation to make after Obama’s interview last night.

Any time a politician starts a statement with “The truth of the matter is….” it is usually followed not by statistics or facts, but by an opinion.

Pat Flynn did this alot during his challenge for the GOP Senate ticket in NE that Deb Fischer won. That is when I really started noticing it.

It is one of the most noticeable bi-partisan BS lines. I can’t help but notice it now and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

It is right up there with “Fair Share”, “Balanced approach” etc.

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

…first off have no budget for three years!…just spend!…kick the can down the road so it’s the next guys problem… instead of Bushes fault…what the heck is wrong with you people?…what is it you don’t understand?

KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

“Balanced approach” = the rich paying the way for everyone else. No longer is your SS benefit to be tied to your contribution. The rich will pay more and receive less. Marxism.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

“Balanced approach” = the rich paying the way for everyone else. No longer is your SS benefit to be tied to your contribution. The rich will pay more and receive less. Marxism.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

“Balanced approach” = 50% of the people pay for it, 50% don’t.

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

“We have no plan, but we don’t like yours”…Timmy&Crew…

hillsoftx on September 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

…and he got away with it!

KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

But it’s always the time for Demorats to demagogue Social Security.

WannabeAnglican on September 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

AXELROD: “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table — this is not the time. We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at a table and says okay we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this. The reality of Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare. We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal. But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution. But it isn’t as pressing as a Medicare issue.”

Axe, you ignorant s**t. This IS the time to discuss SocSecurity. Let me tell you why:

- Neither half of SocSecurity is self-funding anymore, and with current projections, will never be self-funding again.
- Disability Insurance will blow through what’s left of its “trust fund” about the time of the 2016 national conventions, which means whoever is in the Oval Office come January 21, 2013 will have to deal with what would be an immediate over-20% cut in benefits come mid-2016.
- In 12 years, assuming something is done to keep paying out 100% of DI benefits, spending on SocSecurity will be greater on an inflation-adjusted basis than total discretionary federal spending this year. That is, more than what is spent on every tank, every bullet, every bridge, every ambassador, every park,….

Oh, and that 10-year “save” of Medicare? That’s double-counted money.

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM

“Balanced approach” = the rich paying the way for everyone else. No longer is your SS benefit to be tied to your contribution. The rich will pay more and receive less. Marxism.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

And that’s just the Romney plan.

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

“Say, that’s a nice 401k you got sitting there. You don’t need all that money, its not fair.” – This is how they will fix SS.

Ah, the big lie, SS. I have always suspected it won’t be there in 25 years, when I go to collect what I have put in. Yet, I get these bogus account statements every quarter, as if there is an account somewhere with my money sitting in it. Then, we have the fraud of passing a temporary payroll tax reduction, which doesn’t stimulate the economy but definitely hurts SS.

Here’s a proposal – I will sign a document stating that I release any claim to all SS monies I have put into my “account” if you stop taking future earnings out of my paycheck at the point of a gun. That is, let me opt out: I can manage this much better on my own, and I won’t have to worry about some politician stealing it.

cep on September 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

That rat faced idiot really makes my stomach turn. It is incredible that all the people on that side are lying weasels. It is truly breathtaking the absolute evil coming from the demorats.

jistincase on September 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

First, Axelrod insists that “this is not the time” to have a proposal to address the critical unfunded liabilities of Social Security. Really? Isn’t an election a time to discuss plans for the nation’s future, especially on pressing fiscal issues?

Breathtakingly stupid.

Tim_CA on September 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Uhhhh Dave, you don’t wait until it’s raining to fix the hole in the roof.

[tommyboy on September 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM]

You’re talking to a guy who sees the hole in the roof as a feature.

Heck, he probably wants to redistribute it. Call it trickle-up economics.

Dusty on September 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM

“Balanced approach” = the rich paying the way for everyone else. No longer is your SS benefit to be tied to your contribution. The rich will pay more and receive less. Marxism.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Balanced approach is to let those who paid into the system reap from the system. NO ONE ELSE!

skeeterbite on September 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I am still wondering why looters (the retired) are to be rewarded for their less than honest way in which they pay for their retirements.

It is like letting bank robbers keep the money because they worked so hard on the plan to rob the bank.

Sure, many of them erroneously bellieved the government, but should that be a reason to let them off the hook? What kind of precendence does that set for future generations… Just pretend your stupid and you can rob anyone?

Sorry, I am tired for paying for other people’s failures.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Axelrod is right, of course. SS is fundamentally sound for the next two decades and the problems are known an easily addressed, once Republicans stop trying to kill the program outright. Medicare is by far the more important issue and the more politically contentious.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Memorandum
To: Ed Morrissey
Subj: Hot Air column

Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.

Ed, lets get something clear, eh? HE NEVER INTENDED TO. Anyone who thinks that the state of the economy under Obama is due to incompetence or accident is mistaken. There is nothing accidental or unplanned about anything that has happened. Obama has had a lifelong plan, inherited from his communist father, his communist grandparents, his ditzy mother and all of his Marxist friends, for the destruction of America. He is working that plan and has actually been d*mned successful.

Sincerely,

me

clippermiami on September 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

“Say, that’s a nice 401k you got sitting there. You don’t need all that money, its not fair.” – This is how they will fix SS.

Isn’t this essentially Romney’s plan too though?

He won’t steal the money directly from your 401k, but wouldn’t means testing then have SS payout less to people who have invested wisely over the years in their 401k?

So instead of the government dipping into individual 401k’s, they simply require citzens to pull more out of their own 401k to cover for the lack of SS benefits?

I am only pointing out 401k accounts here, but it could go the same as any other retirement savings account.

Why would do we want to incentivize people to NOT save on their own for retirement. I just don’t get Romney’s plan.

Under Romney’s plan, I can put less into my 401k now in order to receive MORE from SS later. I wouldn’t do that since I like being in control of my own destiny, but look at how many moochers game the Federal system every chance they get already.

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

My plan for SS is as follows and should be able to garner bipartisan support:
1. Allow anyone to opt out
2. All contributions made are forfeited by those opting out
3. Employers must still pay their half for all those who have opted out. (A time limit, 20 years maybe, should exist on this provision so that eventually no one pays into SS if they have opted out)

These last two ought to appeal to Democrats while also providing a strong self-selection mechanism. The last provision ensures some continued level of funding.

Charlemagne on September 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

As long as the tax treatment of that retirement income is the same as SocSecurity income (i.e., anywhere between 15% and 100% of it depending on how successful I am remains untaxed),….

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Axelrod is right, of course. SS is fundamentally sound for the next two decades and the problems are known an easily addressed, once Republicans stop trying to kill the program outright. Medicare is by far the more important issue and the more politically contentious.

#1: that is not what Axelrod said.
#2: Obamacare supposedly fixed Medicare. Why is it still a more important issue?

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Just Imagine The Mess Obama Will Inherit If He’s Reelected!

Wade on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

#3: if Medicare is more politically contentious, then why the fear to show a plan for SS?

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I dunno, I did the retirement calculator thing recently. If I plan to live to be 120 years old, and I invest 10% of my income and get a measely 2% return year after year, it says I can retire at age 77.

I am trying to figure out why this is so hard for everyone to be expected to do…

Means testing will just mean people will hide assets in the long run…

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Stand up and salute the Tailor that makes the empty suits for the Failed President.

Brushjumper on September 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM

“So what is his proposal?”

For all of Axelturf’s BS……THERE IS NO PLAN!
Other than to kick the can down the road and ignore it.
See? NO PROBLEM!

As for ObamaCare – it was designed to fail. And we’ll roll right into socialized medicine. Which is where Barry wanted to go in the first place.

Remember the comment ‘Trojan horse? There is no Trojan horse. It’s right there!’

GarandFan on September 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM

“Say, that’s a nice 401k you got sitting there. You don’t need all that money, its not fair.” – This is how they will fix SS.

cep on September 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Nancy Pelosi stated as much a few years ago. Go to page 20 and try to grasp the concept of converting your 401(k) to a “secured” government annuity.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf

DanMan on September 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM

What he said:
“This is not the time” to have a plan to reform Social Security.
What he means:
“Besides, I’ll never have to be on it. And neither will anyone I know.”

mrt721 on September 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Just Imagine The Mess Obama Will Inherit If He’s Reelected!

Wade on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

+1000! man if he thought Bush left him in bad shape wait til he discovers what he left himself!

DanMan on September 24, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Axelrod is right, of course. SS is fundamentally sound for the next two decades and the problems are known an easily addressed, once Republicans stop trying to kill the program outright. Medicare is by far the more important issue and the more politically contentious.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Really? Here is what will be required (in current dollars) each year through 2032, the last full year of the combined “trust funds”, not including the effects of the payroll tax holiday:

2012 – $53 billion
2013 – $67 billion
2014 – $66 billion
2015 – $68 billion
2016 – $68 billion
2017 – $68 billion
2018 – $74 billion
2019 – $91 billion
2020 – $115 billion
2021 – $143 billion
2022 – $117 billion
2023 – $215 billion
2024 – $254 billion
2025 – $295 billion
2026 – $336 billion
2027 – $380 billion
2028 – $422 billion
2029 – $464 billion
2030 – $506 billion
2031 – $547 billion
2032 – $586 billion

Do you have the $5,000 billion in money that doesn’t exist in the federal coffers it’s going to take to get SocSecurity through the next 2 decades?

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Axelrod is right, of course. SS is fundamentally sound for the next two decades and the problems are known an easily addressed, once Republicans stop trying to kill the program outright. Medicare is by far the more important issue and the more politically contentious.

#1: that is not what Axelrod said.

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Yeah it is:

“The reality of Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare… But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution. But it isn’t as pressing as a Medicare issue.”

#2: Obamacare supposedly fixed Medicare. Why is it still a more important issue?

Obama never claimed that Obamacare “fixed” Medicare. Take it again, Axe:

“We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal.”

#3: if Medicare is more politically contentious, then why the fear to show a plan for SS?

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Because there’s no political profit in laying out a strategy until the Republicans will come to the table. May as well ask what tax loopholes Romney’s going to close.

“We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at a table and says okay we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this.”

If you’d just read past the headline and your own projections,you wouldn’t have ask these silly questions.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Are those constant dollars, or inflation adjusted. They seem kind of low to me.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Gee, does Axwholerod mean this isn’t the time to have a plan like the past 4 years haven’t been the time to have a plan for anything? Yeah, we don’t know what we’re doin’, we’re just makin’ this up as we go along.

stukinIL4now on September 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Obama promisied in 2008 to reform Social Security if elected. Obviously that was just one more broken promise by President #EmptyChair.

eyedoc on September 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

You need to calm down. Here–have a drink on me…~passes you a shot of Massengil with a vinegar-and-water chaser~

You know, liblet: If Democrats had any good ideas and genuine fixes to America’s problems, they wouldn’t need to demand that Republicans sit down with them and ‘compromise’ or ‘hammer out an agreement’. The Pubs would be on board, naturally and instinctively, without any prodding or Dem posturing.

Face it–the entire Dem idea of governance is, “We don’t have any ideas, but we sure as heck don’t like yours.”

Liam on September 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Are those constant dollars, or inflation adjusted. They seem kind of low to me.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Current (non-adjusted) dollars, off the single-year version of Table VI.F9, intermediate assumption. The constant 2012 dollar (inflation-adjusted to the value of the 2012 dollar) amount of cumulative shortfall is roughly $3.5 trillion.

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM

SSA is a tax as judged in Helvering v. Davis (1937) and thus it can be used as Congress wishes on a year to year basis.

You have no assets in the federal government, no investment, no account of value as was judged in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the case in which a man tried to sue the federal government for the assets in his SSA ‘account’.

From this it can be said:
- The money you paid into SSA is not held by the federal government as taxes and has been paid out.

- You have no assets nor guarantee of payment from the federal government for SSA.

- Any statements of what you paid in and what you can ‘expect’ on ‘retirement’ is worth exactly the paper it is printed on.

Get rid of FICA.

Abolish the retirement age.

Bar new entrants and abolish the SSN for children and anyone who has fully opted out of the system.

Put in a flat tax that everyone pays, with no exemptions. Do not tax anything that comes from savings and investments, nor at major life points like death. Allow people to opt out of the system entirely and end all of their contributions to SSA.

Be honest and say that SSA is a spending program and can be treated like any other spending and that you have no expectations of it continuing forever because you have no assets in it. Put it on the line and ask: do you actually trust the federal government to fund your retirement out of current receipts when you retire?

Doing this allows the slow pull-down of the program, allows those in it CURRENTLY receiving funds to ask if they really want to continue on this life course or seek to become productive once more and remove their dependency of the government. The program will be dead in 25-30 years and will become a declining wound to the federal government as the American people step away from socializing ANYTHING as it plain just does not work for the long haul.

ajacksonian on September 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM

If you’d just read past the headline and your own projections,you wouldn’t have ask these silly questions.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I have been critical of Romney’s SS plan and think it is the wrong approach. I have been critical of Obama’s lack of a plan and believe doing nothing is the wrong approach. Project that.

weaselyone on September 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM

What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe? Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.

That’s not fair – Carrousel and Renewal deal with it all because most of us won’t live long enough to collect.

Steve Eggleston on September 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM

No time is a good time for these big spending Marxists.

rplat on September 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Wait, so you mean “We’re NOT the ones we were waiting for”?

Just another lying sack of sh*t Chicago thug politician with some good old fashioned Marxism thrown in for good measure?

But what about “the crease in his pants”?

The receding oceans?

The “plan” has been “no plan” all along?

Say it ain’t so, AxelFraud!

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on September 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Balanced approach, why doesn’t any of these geniuses sitting at the table call him this bs? We all know we could confiscate all the wealth of the people he wants to tax more and it wouldn’t even make a dent in in years worth of deficit spending? Micheal Steel was sitting right there, why don’t they say anything?
Morons.

lowandslow on September 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Maybe we should be pushing to have Univision do more interviews. I know that they mostly lean left, but at least they still act like journalists instead of journolists and actually ask real questions.

Wow, Bush was right, even Univision does the job American journalists won’t do.

AZfederalist on September 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Isn’t an election a time to discuss plans for the nation’s future, especially on pressing fiscal issues?

Not if you’re a leftist coward, only offering up leftist solutions.

MNHawk on September 24, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Pic of the Day: Don’t Run Down The Economy

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/pic-of-day-dont-run-down-economy.html

M2RB: Linkin Park

Resist We Much on September 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Never let a crisis go to waste. Unless you can wait and make the crisis much worse.

Scrappy on September 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Not if you’re a leftist coward, only offering up leftist solutions.

MNHawk on September 24, 2012 at 12:07 PM

That is why we do not hear much from Romney… I was wondering.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Never let a crisis go to waste. Unless you can wait and make the crisis much worse.

Scrappy on September 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Bush used that one… TARP

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM

“Shut up, ” Axelrod explained.

PackerBronco on September 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Remember Al Gore’s “lockbox” ?

Well, there is no money to put in the “lockbox” any more (and hasn’t been for at least two years now). Between the recession lower the number of employed, people retiring early because they lost their jobs and the cut to the payroll taxes, there is no excess of revenue over at the Social Security Administration any more. Payments are now more than revenues.

J_Crater on September 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Because there’s no political profit in laying out a strategy until the Republicans will come to the table.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Uh, except it’s your G**D*** job!!!

It’s called leadership you twit.

Where’s the leadership in saying: “We don’t have a plan, we just know that we don’t like yours.”

For a treasury secretary to have turned his back on HIS JOB in that fashion, his next words should have been: “I resign”.

Failing that, the next words out of the president should have been: “You’re fired”

And since Obama failed THAT, the next words out of the American people should be: “YOU’RE FIRED”.

I guess people being responsible is just a bridge to far for you libs.

PackerBronco on September 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Man, those bumps are sure noisy…

Wyznowski on September 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM

PackerBronco on September 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So much expectation out of the other side from you… I remember when our side had the football and it took a mere couple days/weeks to make them stand down because the other side was calling them mean and heartless…

Once elected, how much political capital do you think the Republicans will bring to bear on this problem? If you imagine anything larger than a totken we tried followed by another kicking of the can down the road. Have you thought about investing in Venezuela lately?

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Because there’s no political profit in laying out a strategy until the Republicans will come to the table.

urban elitist on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, we knew you democrats weren’t serious about actually trying to solve any problems beyond trying to make “political profit”. Great thing that the adults are in charge, huh?

Scrappy on September 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I call this the surreal presidency. Each day another moronic statement or action is done by this administration and is ignored by the MSM and those who still will pull the lever for Obama. It’s surreal.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

They only need these to be crises until they can secure total power.

Then their majority can go be worked to death on “green farms”.

To quote the Khmer Rouge, “We only need 1-2million people for an agrarian utopia.”

Axelrod needs to have his head lopped off at the neck. Along with all his pals. Its the only way really.

orbitalair on September 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe? Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.

Sure he does.

Bankrupt America.

Destroy everything good in America.

That way he gets to become “President for Life” just like Castro. Well not just like. He will be a Sharia President.

Steveangell on September 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Really? Isn’t an election a time to discuss plans for the nation’s future, especially on pressing fiscal issues?

Yet, the left arm of the Obama campaign (MSM) has been prodding Romney all along to get the specifics of his proposals out…

…in his snotty way telling Mark Halperin that he doesn’t have any standing even to ask the question.

Axey is getting snarky with the lap dog media… heh, the MSM looked pretty lame with Univision going after The Boy King during the Florida infomercial.

socalcon on September 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Steveangell on September 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Senators popularly elected,
Income tax authority
Social Security
Poor Education
Poor reporting
War on religion

These are the foundations upon which the communist/socialist take over of America rest upon.

I think it is time to let Social Security die and be the first pillar to fall. I think after that, it will not be so hard to get well educated kids who follow religious teachings to care for their family, since everyone will want to have productive children to help them in their old age.

Well educated and god beleiving children will be less swayed by, and thus will not support with ad dollars the progressive media.

Well educated and go believing children will also know their personal charity is far superior to that of government’s and no longer desire to fund it. They will have the personal desire to be charitable.

Income tax can be thwarted with a cap on spending and balanced budget constitutional amendments.

States rights. I think allowing states the power to fire supreme court justices would fix much of that. Another constitutional Amendment.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I’d rather listen to Obama every night for two hours than Axelrod once every election season for 10 minutes. Seriously, this oily Chicago manufacturer of Chauncey Gardiners deserves a special place in a lunar penal colony.

rasqual on September 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM

States rights. I think allowing states the power to fire supreme court justices would fix much of that. Another constitutional Amendment.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I agree.

But no one running is proposing that. At least not enough to have any chance what so ever.

Todd Akin was one. But we saw the attack Priebus and Romney hit him with.

For now I am in favor of neither the Republicans or Democrats. Though I do hope the Republican Party can be taken back by Conservatives. For now the Republican Party is the number 2 enemy the Democrat Party the number 1 enemy.

Romney is proposing nothing to fix America and is actively working against those that actually want to fix America. He is little better than Obama. But worse in that he would make it darn near impossible for the Conservative Majority in the Republican Party to retake the Party.

Steveangell on September 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Steveangell on September 24, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Follows closely my view of things.

astonerii on September 24, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2