01/07/25 - Social Security Fairness Act

 

President Biden recently signed into law a bill known as the Social Security Fairness Act. The White House touted the law as the first expansion of such benefits in 20 years. The Act repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) provision, both of which reduce Social Security benefits for people who received pension benefits from their work but neither they nor their employer had to pay Social Security taxes on their earnings (police officers, firefighters, postal workers, public school teachers, etc.).  According to the President nearly 3 million public workers will get an increase of an average of $360/month. The WEP was enacted in 1983 with bipartisan support.

 As I understand it, 40 years ago legislators didn't think it was fair for someone to shield the bulk of their earnings from Social Security taxes and still qualify for the full benefit if they did a little moonlighting and paid Social Security taxes on the moonlighting income. 10 years of Social Security taxes on $6,000/year of moonlighting income would amount to $3,720. That would earn you a lifetime benefit of $430/month. A lot better deal than Social Security is for most of us.

 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost $196 billion over the next 10 years. You may ask, “Where did those who voted for this additional spending raise taxes to fund it?” The answer is that they didn’t. The CBO estimates that this additional unfunded spending will cause the Social Security Trust fund to be exhausted 6 months sooner, during fiscal year 2033. When the Trust Fund is exhausted Social Security benefits will drop. Prior to the passage of this Act benefits would have dropped to 74.7 percent of current levels. Now they are projected to drop to 74.0 percent of current levels.

 How many more of these vote buying, unfunded handouts can our nation’s economy withstand?  Missouri Senators Hawley and Schmitt and Representative Luetkemeyer voted for this $196 billion in increased spending without providing any way to fund the extra spending. More fiscal lunacy from those we elect.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Out of Control Medicaid Spending

  The Republicans appear ready to cave on Medicaid spending, and leave the spending floodgates wide open. The following is a history of the astronomical growth of federal and state Medicaid spending. A generation ago, in 2000, total federal and state Medicaid spending was $206 billion. Remember the promises of how Obamacare was going to save money? In 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law, total federal and state Medicaid spending was $402 billion. In pre-COVID 2018 total federal and state Medicaid spending was $616 billion. Rather than save taxpayers money it cost us over 50 percent more in just 8 years. In 2024 total state and federal Medicaid spending was $919 billion. Another near 50 percent increase in only 6 years, and over double what it was before Obamacare. There are 133 million households in the US. Of course not all of them pay taxes, but it they did, in 2024 each household would have had to write the government a check for nearly $7,000 just to pay for ...
Read more

NASCAR - Pathetic

Image
 Kathy and I used to watch almost every NASCAR race on TV. Over the years our enthusiasm has waned dramatically. NASCAR's continual tinkering with the rules to make cars equal is a crime against auto racing. Their change from "over the air" TV to pay TV left us outside, since we weren't willing to pay for some of the channels they broadcast on. We did watch last Sunday's race at Daytona. I almost want to vomit when I hear the announcers breathlessly talk about the speeds during the race. It would be funny were it not such a bunch of hogwash. Chase Briscoe won this years poll with an average lap speed of 182.745 mph. This sounds fast, if you have no knowledge of NASCAR. The last time a Daytona 500 NASCAR pole was won with a this slow a lap was in 1971 when A.J. Foyt won the pole with a lap of 182.744 mph. 54 years of improvements in aerodynamics, suspensions, tires and NASCAR is back to the speeds are the same.  Foyt's 1971 pole winning Mercury In 1984, 1985, 1...
Read more

Why Are So Few Men Working?

 Below are some highlights from reports about how lazy US born people have become. At the end of these comments there are links to two articles that contain the data. The share of U.S.-born, working-age (16 to 64) men not in the labor force has increased for six decades. It was 11.3 percent in April 1960, 16.9 percent in April 2000, and 22.1 percent in April 2024. Among “prime-age” U.S.-born men (25 to 54), the group most likely to work, the share not in the labor force was 4 percent in April 1960, 8.5 percent in 2000 and 11.6 percent in 2024. The share not in the labor force for U.S.-born Black, white, and Hispanic men has deteriorated significantly over the decades. The number of U.S.-born men (16 to 64) not in the labor force increased by 13.2 million from 1960 to 2024. At the same time, the number of working-age immigrant men in the labor force increased by 14.1 million. The total number of U.S.-born men and women (16 to 64) not in the labor force was 43 million in April 2024 —...
Read more