Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama: Dems don't get enough credit for willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)280. Here is another source, an explanation of (and based on) the above source:
An entitlement by definition legally obligates the United States to make payments to any person
who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute that creates the entitlement. A
provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, however, prevents an agency from paying
more in benefits than the amount available in the source of funds available to pay the benefits, in
this case the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust
Fund.
Section 1341, in relevant part, provides that:
An officer or employee of the United States government or of the District of Columbia
government may not
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an
appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an
appropriation is made unless authorized by law; ....
The Antideficiency Act prohibits making expenditures either in excess of an amount available in a
fund or before an appropriation is made. It would appear to bar paying more money in benefits
than the amount of the balance in the Social Security Trust Funds primarily because, as noted
earlier, disability and old-age and survivor benefit payments shall be made only from the
Disability Insurance Trust Fund and the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,
respectively.56
Violations of the Antideficiency Act are punishable by administrative and criminal penalties. An
officer or employee who violates the acts prohibitions is subject to appropriate administrative
discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal
from office.57
An officer or employee who knowingly and willfully violates the act can be fined
not more than $5000, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.58
If the Social Security Trust Funds should become insolvent (i.e., unable to pay scheduled benefits
in full on a timely basis), it appears that beneficiaries who should file suit to be paid the
difference between the amount that receipts allow paying and the full benefit amount to which
they are entitled would not be likely to succeed in getting the difference. The Supreme Court in
Reeside v. Walker,59 held that no officer of the government is authorized to pay any debt due from
the United States, whether reduced to a court judgment or not, unless an appropriation has been
made for that purpose. To support its holding, the Court cited Article I, § 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution, which states that, No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence
of appropriations made by law. The Court reaffirmed this principle in Office of Personnel
Management v. Richmond.60
Consequently, unless Congress amends applicable laws, it appears
that beneficiaries would have to wait until the Trust Funds receive an amount sufficient to pay full
benefits to receive the difference between the amount that can be paid from the Trust Funds and
the full benefit amount.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss2.pdf
who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute that creates the entitlement. A
provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, however, prevents an agency from paying
more in benefits than the amount available in the source of funds available to pay the benefits, in
this case the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust
Fund.
Section 1341, in relevant part, provides that:
An officer or employee of the United States government or of the District of Columbia
government may not
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an
appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an
appropriation is made unless authorized by law; ....
The Antideficiency Act prohibits making expenditures either in excess of an amount available in a
fund or before an appropriation is made. It would appear to bar paying more money in benefits
than the amount of the balance in the Social Security Trust Funds primarily because, as noted
earlier, disability and old-age and survivor benefit payments shall be made only from the
Disability Insurance Trust Fund and the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,
respectively.56
Violations of the Antideficiency Act are punishable by administrative and criminal penalties. An
officer or employee who violates the acts prohibitions is subject to appropriate administrative
discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal
from office.57
An officer or employee who knowingly and willfully violates the act can be fined
not more than $5000, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.58
If the Social Security Trust Funds should become insolvent (i.e., unable to pay scheduled benefits
in full on a timely basis), it appears that beneficiaries who should file suit to be paid the
difference between the amount that receipts allow paying and the full benefit amount to which
they are entitled would not be likely to succeed in getting the difference. The Supreme Court in
Reeside v. Walker,59 held that no officer of the government is authorized to pay any debt due from
the United States, whether reduced to a court judgment or not, unless an appropriation has been
made for that purpose. To support its holding, the Court cited Article I, § 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution, which states that, No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence
of appropriations made by law. The Court reaffirmed this principle in Office of Personnel
Management v. Richmond.60
Consequently, unless Congress amends applicable laws, it appears
that beneficiaries would have to wait until the Trust Funds receive an amount sufficient to pay full
benefits to receive the difference between the amount that can be paid from the Trust Funds and
the full benefit amount.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss2.pdf
In other words, your premise is incorrect unless something has changed and the above is no longer extant. On the contrary, the benefit amounts of social security are defined independently of funding and are an entitlement owed to the participants whether funds are available or not. In the event that funds are insufficient then the timing of the payments will be delayed but the benefits owed does not change.
This would mean that, contrary to your assertion, a change that decreases the cost-of-living adjustment does represent a cut in benefits.
It would also mean that, contrary to your assertion, legislation that increases the funding of social security is not an increase in benefits since, again, benefits owed are independent of funding levels.
I welcome hearing something back (something definitive and sourced) that supersedes these sources (if such is the case); one of the main reasons I'm here is to learn.
So to summarize, the only way for lower benefits to be owed is for legislation to be enacted by Congress. If funds run short then Congress would have to cut benefits or else Social Security will go into a position of owing people benefits that haven't yet been paid and have to be caught up when funds do become available. To prevent Social Security going into arrears on its payment obligations, Congress will have to either cut benefits or increase funding. The progressive position (and my position) is that Congress should increase funding and not cut benefits. But whichever position you favor (the progressive one or the other one), a cut in benefits by Congress is still a cut in benefits and an increase in funding is not a change in benefits but rather a solution that allows timely payment of the benefit obligations that already exist.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
289 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama: Dems don't get enough credit for willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare [View all]
MannyGoldstein
Aug 2012
OP
No crap from me. I am for truth and facts regardless of how inconvenient. Sticking one's
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#22
You can count on me for support, Manny...I'm an old school FDR Dem all the way.
whathehell
Aug 2012
#97
You are so correct. That is why we have to destroy the faux "Conservatives" and drive their allies
Vincardog
Aug 2012
#253
The right thing to do or "good fight" is not always a matter of political party.
L0oniX
Aug 2012
#267
That asshole is not in power, and even Obma reject the bowel simple mind plan. /nt
still_one
Aug 2012
#68
The end is he didn't pursue that further. But entertain this, let's give him the benefit of the
still_one
Aug 2012
#101
The Bowles-Simpson proposal does not reduce average SS benefits. It increases them.
bornskeptic
Aug 2012
#199
To show he was willing to compromise. That isn't going to happen again I believe if Obama wins
still_one
Aug 2012
#104
He is not naive, but I believe he thought he could compromise with them. He didn't factor in that
still_one
Aug 2012
#117
I am stating opinion. You don't like tough!, maybe it is you who are bullshtting people. You don't
still_one
Aug 2012
#158
Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 is a cut in wasteful spending?
MannyGoldstein
Aug 2012
#8
Thank you! You're absolutely right... and Romney has been trying to paint the cuts that way too!
progressivebydesign
Aug 2012
#80
I completely understand. But w/ GOP obstruction the way it is political theater is all that remains
JaneyVee
Aug 2012
#171
As a lifelong yellow dawg dem I was SHOCKED to hear Obama "offer" cuts in SS and/or Medicare
whathehell
Aug 2012
#112
He is not the attorney general, secondly how many jobs would all those charges create?
julian09
Aug 2012
#283
Prosense, please keep offering facts no matter what....fudrs hate facts big time no matter what the
uponit7771
Aug 2012
#164
Nothing to do with the quality of what's in ProSense's posts. His post construction is awful nt
riderinthestorm
Aug 2012
#185
It would be alot better if we could vote for someone commited to not cutting these programs.
limpyhobbler
Aug 2012
#24
That's hard to believe. You can't seem to forget him. He's always on your mind!
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#151
There have been many attempts by the Republican Controlled House to cut these programs
berni_mccoy
Aug 2012
#38
Don't worry-- I've been assured that offer was just another piece of 8-dimensional chess.
Marr
Aug 2012
#43
Lol, you got it down perfectly. I thought it was just me. That story is so outlandish
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#169
Yep. It really seemed to me like that whole year and a half or so of the "debt crisis"
Marr
Aug 2012
#209
"We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with..."
MannyGoldstein
Aug 2012
#64
Yeah, but you do understand that he's not the same person as the President, right?
ProSense
Aug 2012
#99
Thank you. Traditional Democrats are the only true Democrats, in my opinion,
whathehell
Aug 2012
#106
So in your opinion, someone standing up for Democratic Principles is 'working for the other side'??
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#89
No spin in stating that protecting SS from Republicans is a Democratic principle.
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#126
So asking that Democrats speak out loudly and CLEARLY, (see all the confusion here over
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#215
If you are not in support of Democrats pushing their Party to stick to Democratic Principles
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#223
He started his push with a generational lead in the Senate and a huge advantage in the House
TheKentuckian
Aug 2012
#210
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point. Are you trying to turn us against the President?
progressivebydesign
Aug 2012
#84
Sirota is that you? Are you writing Mitt Romney's speeches these days? He made false....
Tarheel_Dem
Aug 2012
#87
“In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell
DeSwiss
Aug 2012
#96
I still remember Obama's Catfood Commission, and it's sequel (Part II):
blkmusclmachine
Aug 2012
#105
There is no need for lower increases in SS. In fact, the SS fund is large enough that
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#244
I'm not upset with you. I still believe our whole economic system needs to change.
Hoyt
Aug 2012
#247
The problem is you do not need to put any of your SS on the table. This is the big lie.
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#249
Sorry, I don't believe we can continue to segment everything into separate compartments.
Hoyt
Aug 2012
#258
You're quoting an 2-3 hand interpretation as though it were a direct quote, in an article about
patrice
Aug 2012
#133
the op is reporting quotes from legitimate news sources. take it up with them if you think they're
HiPointDem
Aug 2012
#142
It's a quote from the premier news organization in the country, the "paper of record," supposedly
HiPointDem
Aug 2012
#154
there are reporting intelligence types in every major news organization, but it's the only news
HiPointDem
Aug 2012
#157
then let the president deny it & take a firm public stand about cuts. why doesn't he *do* that?
HiPointDem
Aug 2012
#160
hardly. goat-fucking isn't a political action. social security is a very popular program, and the
HiPointDem
Aug 2012
#219
THE. MEDIA. Remember? PRIVATE agendas implemented through public resources, e.g. WAR on Iraq. nt
patrice
Aug 2012
#218
Democratic majority = fudr meme, knowing damn well it wasn't a controlling majority after GOP change
uponit7771
Aug 2012
#167
Couldn't he come up with a different term and still assure us that SS would be off limits?
Bonobo
Aug 2012
#156
True that & He's never REALLY had to look for work. Has worked "with" those who have, but ...
patrice
Aug 2012
#217
So as soon as the election is over, Obama kills Social Security. That's your new prediction.
JoePhilly
Aug 2012
#177
You expect the President to deny whatever some FDR LaRouchie accuses him of on an anonymous website
NNN0LHI
Aug 2012
#184
Those who latch onto such nonsense and promote it as a truthful quote probably are
NNN0LHI
Aug 2012
#188
But, the cuts will be "not as bad" as Romney's. And, will be claimed as a victory.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2012
#205
Do you REALLY believe that the Democratic Party Leadership is going to STEP UP...
bvar22
Aug 2012
#250
I always sucked at blind obedience. The President is nowhere near far enough left for me....
Scuba
Aug 2012
#216
Obama under delusion that he could work with honorable republicans, He found out, he could not.
CarmanK
Aug 2012
#232
Obama would be happy to learn I give him plenty of credit for collaborating with enemies of SS
Dragonfli
Aug 2012
#233
Sorry, I don't watch Fox like you do, my views are liberal and your shows are simply not on my radar
Dragonfli
Aug 2012
#235
So you come to your opinion that cuts to SS etc. are good all on your own? That's special I suppose
Dragonfli
Aug 2012
#261
Nothing? Who appointed known anti-Social Security members to the Cat-Food Commission?
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#255
You refer to 3 points and say that "points one and three are utterly bogus." Is this valid?
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#262
Wrong. If you are arguing that Social Security is tied to the deficit, that is a straw man. That's
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#268