Kerry and Perry

[Mass]

Following his interview with the Boston Globe this week-end, the Worcesrer Telegram publishes this editorial.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110913/NEWS/109139934/1020

Kerry & Perry
They agree entitlements need reform

Of course, it is an easy pun. Of course, Kerry put all the right notes in his BG interview. But the fact is that, because he wanted to sound reasonable, he actually accepted the frame the RW was proposing WITHOUT giving any solutions. I know some are going to come here and defend him, but I was mad sunday and am still mad. While there are solutions for Medicare and Medicaid, not saying what is acceptable or not is problematic. It only helps the RW, When will he learn.

I was already feeling unhappy when this commission was created, but I feel more and more uncomfortable and hope I will not lose all respect for Senator Kerry. I cannot accept an increase of age for Medicare, for example. This would be the end for me.

[karynnj]

1. I saw the BG article and reacted like you

I don't know what the BG "left on the cutting floor". I suspect that it was what you wanted - because they did include other things he has said before. Not to mention, Kerry did speak of raising tax revenue - unlike Perry.

What I do see that I know will create trouble on the left is that Kerry is clearly looking at the how tough the reality is of paying back the IOUs. The fact is that SS has received IOUs for money that was then spent - as if it were part of the general budget since 1986. The surplus/deficit numbers since then have been given on the TOTAL of the expected general funds and the expected social security funds minus their expected outlays. If this were NOT done, the truth is there NEVER was a surplus. Both parties did this when in office.

I remember hearing Alan Greenspan speaking in 2004, where he said "that money was spent" - and then went on to forecast when SS outlays would be higher than what it took in and how that was the point where SS was in trouble. He went on to explain that the general funds, which were then less than the combined total of revenue, could not without curtailing anything the government could do, pay the ious. Why? They were far too big to pay back without having onerous taxes on the future workers.

Apparently, Greenspan had not thought of this in 2000 when he argued for the Bush tax cuts - arguing that it would be bad if the government ran a big surplus greatly lowering the treasury bills in existence. Not to mention, Greenspan was the one who argued that nothing other than US treasuries was safe enough to store the SS money in.

I was furious then - and still am. What is crystal clear to me is that the people who backed "fixing" SS in the 1980s, were actually tricked or agreed to increase the relatively regressive payroll taxes to fund the Reagan tax cuts and the later Bush tax cuts - where the tax cuts disproportionately favored the wealthy. This was a major factor in the wealthy now having a robber baron era proportion of the countries wealth. (In fact, given that the earlier robber barons often created things of value, today's wealthy deserve that moniker more.)

However, the reality is that the result is that we are nearing the point where large amounts of the general funds would have to pay back the money taken out over the last decade and a half. This, in addition to interest on the debt which will increase drastically when the economy finally recovers - as interest rates will not remain near zero. It is sickening to try to understand the mess we are in. It is true that the % of GDP we are spending on interest is actually lower than it has been over the last several decades, but that can change. Ironically, the US economy, like some homeowners, may have bought a variable rate mortgage that will be a problem when rates rise. (The difference is that the principle is in our currency and we can print more.)

To me, what Kerry said in the BG, in terms of defining the problem, is accurate. However, that history makes it even more important that the first step be to close the loopholes and to raise the taxes. The fact is that the wealthy have paid less for the last decade and a half - as their tax cuts ate the funds saved for SS. No one worried that the poorest workers would suffer from the additional taxes they paid starting in 1986 to get the SS they needed and deserved

That said I would hope that Kerry, or one of the other Democrats, would try to explain that the last decades' general taxes were NOT - in any year adequate - even without considering paying back SS. They are still inadequate and even letting the Bush tax cuts expire will not make them adequate. Taxes have to be raised - and likely not just on those making over $250,000. I really do not see how this Congress can be brought to do this. I am furious that our government brought us to this point. All I can think is that they believed the economy would always continue to expand allowing this to continue.

It was not SS that was a Ponzi scheme - especially given the prudent "putting money away so it would be there when the babyboomers retired". Arguing that the Bush and Reagan tax cuts were affordable was a scam and a con - when they knew they were spending those saved monies.

I agree with you that raising the age of either Medicare or Social Security really does not work. One reason is that in many occupations it simply is not possible to effectively work to an older age. In addition, when someone over about 55 loses a job, they have a much harder time finding a new one.

I did not comment on the BG article because I did not know what to say. As Kerry has not spoken in great detail since the committee started, I did not feel comfortable quoting older speeches to suggest that the BG may have distorted his comments through editing. This is especially so because I do not trust Johnson further than I can throw him. He has often distorted coverage of open hearings - where the primary source is available - often in this same direction. (Meanwhile, he helps Brown constantly - so it is kind of easy to see his bias.)

The title alone of the Worcester paper is ridiculous. I may post some of this there - rewriting by adding Kerry's comments to the AARP. A key difference is Kerry is and has advocated for tax increases - and it will take tax increases to preserve SS - not because it was a "ponzi scheme", but because much of the money taken must be paid back.

[karynnj]

2. I did respond

Perry and Kerry do not agree on much on SS.

Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme - something even Romney took exception to. Social Security would have enough money for the next 4 decades if one considered the treasury bills it holds. Social Security Security took in far more than it spent for the last decade and a half since the system was "fixed to have enough money for when the baby boom retired."

Kerry is likely reflecting on how tough it will be for the general funds to pay back the treasury bills it bought since 1986. The surplus/deficit numbers since then have been given on the TOTAL of the expected general funds and the expected social security funds minus their expected outlays. If this were NOT done, the truth is there NEVER was a surplus. Both parties did this when in office.

Alan Greenspan speaking on the radio in 2004, said "that money was spent" - and then went on to forecast when SS outlays would be higher than what it took in and how that was the point where SS was in trouble. He went on to explain that the general funds, which were then less than the combined total of revenue, could not, without curtailing most government functions, pay the ious. Why? They were far too big to pay back without having onerous taxes on the future workers.

Apparently, Greenspan didn't think of this in 2000 when he argued for the Bush tax cuts, which Kerry voted against - arguing that it would be bad if the government ran a big surplus greatly lowering the number of treasury bills in existence. Greenspan was also one who argued that nothing other than US treasuries was safe enough to store the SS money in.

In the BG article and speaking to ARRP, Kerry argued that there is a need to close loopholes and increase revenue to avoid cuts to the entitlement beneficiaries. - This is not something Perry would agree to. If Perry were on the committee, he would likely be fighting to save the Bush tax cuts by cutting even more than the committee needs to cut.

[ObamaKerryDem]

3. I'm sorry, but the generalization going on in this editorial is so irritating!

While I agree that JK and all Democrats--perhaps especially President Obama--have to be careful with how they word their comments when it comes to this, I think to compare JK to Rick Perry in any way (other than the obviously similar nature of their last names, which of course can't be helped :)) is ridiculous and grossly unfair to JK! I think what's ultimately most important is that when JK speaks of 'entitlement reform', he is firm and consistent on reform that does NOT touch peoples' actual benefits. Sure, Perry and other Republicans may claim their 'reforms' would not do that--in today's Super Cmte hearing I attended, Jon Kyl tried to argue that point..--but it's pretty clear that their plans would indeed cut benefits significantly.

This is a very tender issue for Democrats in general for a number of pretty obvious reasons and I agree that Democrats in general, including JK and even Obama, though I feel he did a better job with specifics in regard to this in the Joint Session of Congress speech, need to be careful to be very clear and specific when it comes to these issues, especially given that the media, on both the right and the left, is so quick to take any and every comment and assign all kinds of weight and context to it, even when it is not proper or deserved. But I hardly think it's fair to compare JK with Rick Perry in any way, especially on these issues.

I know you didn't come up with the "Kerry and Perry" thing, so I am not aiming this at you, Mass. But I must confess, I took one look at that title, and thought "HELL no!":)

[Mass]

4. Of course, it is irritating, but this is because Kerry allowed the generalization by being so vague.

The Telegram is very RW, so I am not surprised that their editorial will try to make Perry look good, but as long as Kerry will give interviews like that, this will happen. We need to stop giving help to the other side.

[wisteria]

5. Do you think SS is in need of help? And, if you do, what do you think they should do?

I maybe in the minority here,but I don't mind the age being raised. People are living longer and working longer anyway. To me, raising of the age is acceptable.

[Mass]

6. Not for medicare. There are way too many people between 50 and 65

who wait to be 65 and under Medicare to go see a doctor. Some of them discover they have a medical condition too advanced to cure.

Medicaid needs help too, but unfortunately, less and less doctors accept Medicaid, which means that there is a rwo speed medicine. One for the "middle class" and the rich, and one for the poor.
As for SS, there is an easy way to solve the problem: raise the cap. Anyway, even if the age was raised, it would be important to do that by year of paying through SS, not by age, because those who start paying very early on would be doubly penalized: they tend to have the hardest works, be less paid, and have a shorter life expectancy.No reason to force them to work even longer,