Many citizens, including me, seem to be joining an ever increasing crowd of very disgruntled citizens. This soliloquy is in two parts.
PART I.
I do understand that the POTUS is the "leader" of the Democratic Party, but I firmly believe the compromise regarding spending (budget) and raising the national debt limit should be going on solely between congressional members. Of course, democratic congressional members can, and should, consult with the POTUS but the onus is upon Congress (House and Senate) to pass the bills, then send them to the POTUS. It galls me, in a sense, that the POTUS is blamed for not compromising on these bills; the POTUS does not compromise. he either signs or vetoes bills. The POTUS proposes an annual budget, but the Congress then does what it will with the proposal.
I firmly believe 545 congressmen and women should be able to develop spending plans (of whatever description) that work best for the country and is fair for all (It is their responsibility!), more so than one person, even if he is the POTUS. If the POTUS vetoes, the Congress gets to override the veto, or not. If not, Congress goes back to the drawing board and gets a bill back to the POTUS that he either signs or vetoes (and a circle-a-rama ensues). In the end a bill will be "approved;" the POTUS will sign or Congress will override a veto.
PART II
Social Security. The first thing to know about Social Security is that at no time in its history, up to and including today (and for the even the near future), has Social Security contributed to the national debt! Social Security is solvent through 2036 (that's when the trust fund of currently $2.4 trillion is depleted). So, of course some reform needs to take place between now and 2036. Some would argue, like me, that reform should start now; the sooner, the better, and the easier it is ($$$$) on all of us (sic). Here's the thing, with Social Security income decreasing (poor economy/high unemployment) relative to increasing payout (retirement of baby-boomers increasing the number of recipients), the differential between income to payout speeds along from plus to minus in a few short years, therewith beginning to siphon off the trust fund.
This is mathematically a fact. Facts: In 2010 Social Security income was $791 billion; payout was $715 billion--differential was +$76 billion. What will be the differential for 2011?
How do we extend the life of Social Security without impoverishing its recipient? We probably all have suggestions. Here's mine, for what it's worth:
1. Increase the cap on the amount at which Social Security deductions stops--$175,000. I have no idea how much this will positively affect the income-payout differential, but annual reviews will be telling as to when to activate step 2.
2. Reduce annual COLA, if any, by 30% of its amount, e.g., COLA is 3%, reduce to 2.1%. Adjust at five-year reviews.
3. When, and if, steps 1. and 2. "play out," determine mathematically (or however they determine these things) when to either revise the cap upwards as in Step 1, further reduce the COLA as in Step 2, or use a combination of both Steps 1 and 2.
4. Finally (way down the road[?]), as necessary, reduce Social Security payments by a percentage, across the board, that will keep Social Security solvent and where an acceptable payment to recipients can be made for the number of years before reform is again necessary.
All of this IMHO.
