Today via Twitter:

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Today is Social Security’s 80th birthday. Congrats on reaching what some Republicans think should be the retirement age. H 7:03 AM – 14 Aug 2015

The responses by right wingnut Hillary haters not in the 1% are interesting…

Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Slightly nutty and seriously dim denizen of the lands on the far right shores of dominionist Christian extremism? Now that she no longer has a legislative outlet, she shares her very special political views by means of an internet talk show. Via the Turner Report, we  now have her considered opinion about why same-sex couples want to get married, and, trust me, it has nothing to do with any rationale for same-sex marriage that we’ve ever heard before.

No, same-sex marriage is, according to Davis, a ruse to “drain” the Social Security fund. Seems she “was doing research” on the Social Security Administration Website and found that now that same-sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian partners are eligible for Social Security and Social Security Disability benefits in the same way that married heterosexual couples are. And, goosed by mental incoherence, revelation suddenly blazed forth:

So there you have it. The purpose of changing the definition of marriage was intended to drain the Social Security fund more quickly. When we allow people who are not actually married to receive marital benefits, the end result is that people will “get married” based upon what kind of monetary bonus is available.

It works the other way as well. When people discover they can extract more money from being in a divorced status, they divorce.

This is fraud. Yet, you can’t blame the people for being smart. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Congress who are charged with the duty of controlling their own created bureaucracies.

How could anyone ever think fornication is promotable or merits financial reward? If the Supreme Court jurists, who are supposed to be legally brilliant, are that blind, what can we expect out of our normal citizens?

The part about folks who are “not actually married” must, I think, refer to a statement on the Webpage that indicates benefits may be available to a surviving partner in a non-marital, legal same sex relationship. This refers to state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. These categories of relationship were devised precisely in order to make the legal system fairer for committed same-sex couples without offending folks like Davis who wanted to keep “marriage” exclusively for heterosexuals. At any rate, the provision now makes even more sense since these are folks who would have been married if they had not been denied their constitutional rights.

The provision for divorced spouses is of fairly long standing and is designed to take care of women or men who stayed at  home and provided support for their spouses during their marriages, only to be left with no or minimal Social Security earnings after their divorces. They may, if they wish, calculate their social security income based on their spouses’ work record and receive the equivalent of 50% of what their spouses would receive. Seems only fair to me.

Although Davis might not like extending benefits to same-sex couples – or to anyone – it’s hard to figure where the “fraud”  that has her all riled up can be found. Perhaps she should have done a little more research or asked someone capable of parsing English – and following links on the Social Security Webpages – to explain how these benefits work.

It is a mystery how she  managed to construe anything in the text she cites as promoting “fornication.” There have been people who fornicate for money since the beginning of recorded history, but I don’t think that fact has anything to do with same-sex marriage or the rules for paying out Social Security benefits. Perhaps it’s Davis whose mind is just a little too much “dans la boue,” as one of my French teachers used to say when she heard ideas or language that struck her as crude.

As for draining social security, don’t you think it might have occurred to Davis that these same-sex partners have been paying into the Social Security fund just like the rest of us, but haven’t been able to tap into the same range of benefits? Is it possible that Davis likes having a class of individuals denied the same rights as others for strictly financial reasons?  

Just for funsies, Davis might also think about what would happen if all same-sex marriage partners were magically to become straight overnight. After she yelled “hallelujah,” would she start worrying about the Social Security fund? Wouldn’t these new heterosexuals likely “drain” just as much from the fund through the opposite-sex marriages they might contract?

Perhaps Davis thinks that marriage itself is designed to drain the Social Security fund? Which would explain why she has claimed in the past that marriage is the cure for poverty. It must be all that Social Security fraud that is enriching married heterosexuals.

It had to happen. The disaster unfolding in Greece is just too susceptible to over-simplification not to be seized upon by Republicans looking to go after Medicare and Social Security. First up in Missouri? Why none other than that astute economic thinker, Rep. Billy Long (R-7), who had this to say on the topic:

… . With the events in Greece this week, it is hard not to think about our own debt crisis.

Currently, the U.S. national debt stands near $18.3 trillion. To put that in context, the total size of the U.S. economy is $17.7 trillion. It is frightening to think our nation’s debt outpaces our economic activity; and, even worse, China holds 30 percent of our debt and counting. As the interest we pay on our debt continues to increase, I am concerned we may be on a similar path as Greece, which has debt close to double the size of its economy. That is why my colleagues and I are committed to sound fiscal solutions to curb America’s rising debt.

[…]

Reducing our spending, creating a balanced budget and responsibly continuing deficit reduction are the steps to take to reduce our debt, and I believe we are getting off on the right foot. Our next move should be concerning reforms must focus on Medicare, Social Security and entitlement programs. [Emphasis added.]

This refrain has been sporadically played on the right since 2010 – and none of the predictions of debt-related disaster have been realized. There are a number of reasons why the U.S. is not nor never will be like Greece (for instance, see here, here, or here).

While Long is right about the fact that the ratio of debt to GDP in the U.S. is very high, he, like many other Republican fear-mongers making the same claim, are wrong about the conclusions to be drawn from that fact. Many are still citing past research purporting to show that a high debt-to-GDP ratio damages economic growth. This research has been shown to be incorrect, and, in addition, there are many examples of countries that have a high debt level while enjoying respectable economic growth. One need look no farther than our own economy which in spite of our high debt-to-GDP ratio has also been enjoying sound economic growth.

Of course, one should also bear in mind that high as our debt is, it has shown little increase relative to other developed countries over the past eight years. The debt represents the sum of each yearly deficit and the $18 trillion debt Long cites includes the deficits from the period 2000-2007, when the debt was growing at its fastest rate ever. It includes the cost of the Bush war and the Bush financial implosion in 2008. In the past few years, deficits have been shrinking which helps to constrain the growth of the debt.

But more importantly, if Long seriously wants to cut the deficit and, hence, the debt, he is taking the wrong lesson from Greece and the European Union. Cutting spending hurts; it doesn’t help. As Daniel W. Drezner notes in the Washington Post:

As 2015 unfolds, the U.S. economy continues to rebound and the Eurozone economy continues to… not do that. So you would think that the debate over the merits of austerity would have been settled. After all the United States deployed expansionary fiscal and monetary policies for a longer time than Europe, with a more modest switch back to austerity after 2010. The Eurozone abandoned fiscal stimulus pretty early, the European Central Bank prematurely raised interest rates, and the result is an an economy that is underperforming the Great Depression.

Why in the face of the evidence would any one sincerely interested in the public good want to impose more austerity on the U.S? We seen how the actual austerian experiments have played out and, in spite of European persistence, the picture is not pretty – except, perhaps, for Germany where exports have been enhanced by the currency controls imposed on the rest of Europe.

Finally, Long’s insertion of the Chinese spectre into the argument can only be intended to spike the same fear of national decline and loss of dominance as the Greek comparison, neither of which is justified by the facts. Long is dead wrong about Chinese influence and the imagined threat it poses. He can’t even get the numbers right. China does not hold 30% of our debt. It is the largest foreign investor in U.S. debt, but, overall, only 34% of U.S. debt is held by all international investors together. In fact, a similar amount, 28%, is held by the U.S. government itself.

All of which is to say, Long, like his GOP confrères, is full of it. His spiel represents just one more dishonest way to go after government programs that Republicans have always loathed. Take a complex subject, make it simple, add a few few buzzwords, spin it according to ideology, and presto-bingo, you’ve created a curtain behind which to go after government that works for all its citizens, not just the wealthy big spenders who call the shots for Republicans. Billy Long is, as usual, just regurgitating predigested talking points, but don’t doubt that we’ll be hearing lots of the same type of talk during the coming weeks as GOPers seek to make their vendetta against Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare, sound respectable.

Current and future Social Security beneficiaries, which is to say almost all of us, owe Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill our thanks – and that fact comes as a big surprise. In the past, McCaskill’s support for the program, measured by her actions at least, has been iffy. Her overweening desire to impress the boobwazie with her fiduciary chops has led her in directions that could have had disastrous consequences. She used to be one of the most vocal Democrats voicing support for the Republican ruse to “reform” entitlements such as Social Security- positions that she now seems to eschew, at least officially. Her ill-considered effort to enact a federal spending cap would  have had disastrous results for Social Security and Medicare, forcing what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described as “draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs while making it harder for the nation to recover from recession.”

Which is why my mouth dropped open when I heard that McCaskill was one of the senators who put pen to paper and signed a letter opposing the the first volley that the newly resurgent GOP has fired in the War on Social Security that has raged both covertly and overtly since the program was enacted:

After Republicans in the U.S. House voted to allow drastic cuts to Social Security benefits for millions of Americans with disabilities, including veterans and children, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill and several Senate colleagues have appealed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues in the Republican leadership, urging that they not pursue the measure.

The cuts, which could be as high as 20 percent, would impact nearly 250,000 Missourians with disabilities, their children, and their spouses.

“We are deeply concerned that the rule change in the House will impact millions of Social Security beneficiaries,” McCaskill and her colleagues wrote in the letter. “According to its actuaries, the Social Security Disability Trust Fund will be unable to pay full disability benefits starting as early as 2016, meaning that legislative action will be necessary to protect the benefits of nearly 11 million Americans. Instead of taking responsible action to address this issue, House Republicans acted according to their extreme ideology and put these benefits at risk by adopting a legislative rule change that creates a point of order against simple bipartisan technical corrections (called reallocations) to adjust the financing of the Social Security Disability Trust Fund.”

Joan McCarter at DailyKos succinctly describes the rule change that McCaskill refers to in the excerpt above as the first step in a ploy to decimate the program:

The 114th Congress has begun with a Republican party that is emboldened and as determined to cripple Social Security as they have been since President George W. Bush’s disastrous 2005 effort to privatize it. Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price has taken over the House Budget Committee from Rep. Paul Ryan, and has even bigger ambitions to destroy the program than his predecessor, now even talking about privatization, something Ryan would only extend to Medicare. Price told the Heritage Action for America “Conservative Policy Summit” on Monday that he wants to “begin to normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security.” By “normalize, he means cut it:

“[W]hether it’s means testing, whether it’s increasing the age of eligibility […] whether it’s providing much greater choices for individuals to voluntarily select the kind of manner in which they believe they ought to be able to invest their working dollars as they go through their lifetime.”

Price and his fellow Republicans in leadership have set the stage to begin this effort, and as usual did it with some hostage taking. This time the hostages are about 11 million people who receive Social Security disability benefits. That program is expected to hit a shortfall next year, and benefits will be automatically cut unless the program gets an influx of cash. This has happened in the past, in both the retirement and the disability programs. What has always happened in the past-with no big controversy-is that Congress has authorized the transfer of funds from one of the programs to the other. But last week the House passed a new rule that says Congress can’t do that any more unless they also take some action to “fix” (read slash) the Social Security system.

What this could mean, if folks like Claire McCaskill don’t stay firm, is disaster for many if not most older Americans. In 2010, The New York Times reported that Americans over 65 got 40% of their income from Social Security. Subsequent studies showed that our Social Security system sustains our elderlly and provides “the one income stream that is secure and does not fluctuate with the marketplace.”

And, discounting efforts to manufacture crises, and claims previously made by folks like Claire McCaskill, Social Security will be fully solvent until 2033, at which time it will still be able to meet 77% of its obligations. That’s eighteen years, plenty of time to fix what is essentially a revenue problem – it could be fixed right now by raising the cap on FICA slightly. No need for means-testing, raising the eligibility age or, God forbid, throwing seniors on the mercy of a wildly fluctuating private investment market.

That Social Security is a vital program that protects the prosperity of the American middle class is not, however, an important consideration for members of the Republican party. There are, to be sure, many varieties of ideology and personal interest that underly the hostility that animates efforts to weaken and destroy such successful government programs, but at the deepest level, the mindset reflects an ugly, every-man-for-himself ideology. The dominant strain of conservative thought, which has captured the GOP almost entirely, is expressed in such retrograde books as Rooseveltcare: How Social Security is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance, which Amazon.com summarizes as follows:

Today we are at a crossroads. America’s entitlement state is threatening to bankrupt us, and new schemes such as ObamaCare are hastening the collapse. What should we do? In this provocative look at America before and after Social Security, Don Watkins argues that the answer is as simple as it is controversial: Abolish the entitlement state, starting with the retirement program that created it. This is not another book for policy wonks about the financial trouble the entitlement state is in. This is the story of the role that Social Security has played in eroding the eagerness, energy and optimism that once defined America. And it is a guide for fighting back.

WhooHoo! Battle lines have been drawn and we’ve got to hope that Claire McCaskill has seen the error of her past ways and will help hold the line. It is not reassuring that she is widely viewed as part of the wedge that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will wield to destroy progressive Democratic resistance:

For now, the grouping of senators deserving the most attention is the “centrist seven,” the cluster of Democrats who stand out as the likeliest to get behind aspects of the new Republican majority’s legislative program. And they may be joined once in a while by as many as five others in their party who’ve shown flashes of moderation in the recent past, yielding a universe of potential aisle-crossers who could be dubbed the “dispositive dozen” of the 114th Congress. They are the centrist Democrats most essential to Mitch McConnell in his debut as majority leader.

[…]

Operatives in both parties identify the senators in the current secondary circle of centrists as Michael Bennet, who will be pressed to move toward the middle ahead of his 2016 campaign for a second full term in swing-state Colorado; Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, and three others who have until 2018 before running again in potential tossup states: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who announced Monday that she planned to continue her political career in the Senate rather than run for governor next year.

No matter what, though, we’ve got to thank her for standing up for Social Security this week and helping expose the GOP stealth attack. But what’s the story going forward? Can we count on Claire – especially in the light of her past history? Do we believe that she’s turned a corner and is beginning to understand that no matter how politically palatable her “moderation” may be, as Barry Goldwater put it, “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”?

Cutting Social Security, eh?

On the front page today at Daily Kos:

Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 12:30 PM PST

Daily Kos will not enable those who enable Third Way

….They apparently prefer Third Way keep operating in secret, with their Social Security-cutting agenda off the front pages…..

….So who else is enabling Third Way’s destructive agenda? Why, let’s name names!

House members

James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)

John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit’s western suburbs, Michigan)

Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)

Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)

Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)

Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)

Senators

Thomas Carper (Delaware)

Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

Mark Udall (Colorado)

Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)

Kay Hagan (North Carolina)

Chris Coons (Delaware)

When considering candidate endorsements and whether we engage in a race (primary or general), we’ve long considered membership (or potential membership) in the Blue Dog Caucus. As of today, we’re adding Third Way to our exclusionary list on our candidate questionnaire.

These electeds undoubtedly appreciate the open spigot to Wall Street campaign cash. Our job is to make sure they pay a price for their cozy arrangement….

[emphasis added]

Senator McCaskill is an honorary co-chair for Third Way.

A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Third Way:

Cowan and Kessler: Economic Populism Is a Dead End for Democrats

The de Blasio-Warren agenda won’t travel. Colorado is the real political harbinger.

By Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler

Dec. 2, 2013 6:57 p.m. ET

….Social Security is exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy. A growing cascade of baby boomers will be retiring in the coming years, and the Social Security formula increases their initial benefits faster than inflation. The problem is that since 2010 Social Security payouts to seniors have exceeded payroll taxes collected from workers. This imbalance widens inexorably until it devours the entire Social Security Trust Fund in 2031, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, benefits would have to be slashed by about 23%….

Mr. Cowan is president of the think tank Third Way, where Mr. Kessler is senior vice president for policy.

Oh, really?

Elizabeth Warren Calls Third Way ‘Flatly Wrong’ In Social Security Fight

Posted: 12/05/2013 2:45 pm EST  |  Updated: 12/05/2013 4:37 pm EST

WASHINGTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took aim at the corporate-backed think tank Third Way on Thursday, deepening her feud with the group that attacked her Social Security plan in the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ op-ed said that Warren was ignoring Social Security’s “undebatable solvency crisis.”

“It’s just flatly wrong,” Warren said of Third Way’s critique. “We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it … The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind….”

….Warren responded to Third Way earlier this week by challenging Wall Street banks to be transparent about donations they have made to think tanks.

The Massachusetts Democrat said that Wall Street’s push to cut Social Security is part of a broader agenda. “It’s part of the larger issue about a rigged playing field. They don’t wanna pay more, they don’t wanna pay a fair share. I believe everybody should pay a fair share,” she said. “That’s how we make sure people can retire with dignity. That’s not what Wall Street wants to do.”

Third Way’s spokesman responded by saying that under Warren’s plan, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, would be entitled to a higher Social Security payout.

“Oh please. I’m out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment,” Warren said….

Well, Senator McCaskill, which side are you on? People who rely on Social Security to get by, or Wall Street movers and shakers?

I know which side I’m on.

Today, via Twitter, an account of a 4th Congressional District constituent meeting with Steve Walsh, Communications Director for Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):

Taunia ‏@Taunia_Adams

.@RepHartzler’s staffer Steve says Hartzler’s signature on Oct 8 Social Security Cuts was forged. 5:34 PM – 14 Nov 13

Apparently, Representative Hartzler (r) signed one letter and that was attached to a cover letter that was substantively different from the original letter.

Misrepresentation might be a better word in describing what transpired.

We understand there’s video of the constituent meeting.

Via Facebook, from an activist manning the Democratic Party tent at the Missouri State Fair in Sedalia today:

“I’m on Social Security Disability. I will NEVER vote Democrat!!” wtf?!? (Yelled at me by woman w/ a cane at MO Dem Party state fair tent.)

Think about that for a second.

Here we go again.

From the AFL-CIO:

Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka On Speaker Boehner’s Proposal

December 18, 2012

“Republicans are once again demanding benefit cuts to pay for tax cuts”

Republicans are once again demanding benefit cuts to pay for tax cuts, and threatening to harm the economy unless they get their way.  House Speaker John Boehner’s recent “Plan B” proposal would extend tax cuts for people earning between $250,000 and $1 million, at a cost of $400 billion. At the same time, Republicans are demanding to cut Social Security COLAs through the so-called “Chained CPI.” We call on Congress to reject House Speaker Boehner’s proposal to extend tax cuts for people earning up to $1 million and support President Obama’s demand for at least $1.2 trillion in additional tax revenues. We further call on Congress to reject Republican hostage-taking and reject any cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare benefits, regardless of who proposes them.

Via Ezra Klein:

“….This fight is not going to be won by the president taking a step towards Boehner, Boehner taking a step toward the president, the president taking a step toward Boehner, Boehner taking a step toward the president and so forth until they meet in the middle,” says Damon Silvers, policy director at the AFL-CIO. “That hasn’t worked before. Boehner doesn’t take the steps. It will be won by the president clearly siding with the American people on tax fairness and preserving the safety net from benefit cuts.”

They also feel that the White House is weakening their hand if the negotiations fall apart and the president needs to win a battle for public support. “They ought to be in a position where they say to Boehner, ‘You’re the guy demanding benefit cuts and you’re using them to fund tax cuts on the rich,'” Silvers says. Cutting Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment by chaining CPI, he says, “muddies that position. It shouldn’t be muddied. It should be clear.”

Worse, the pushback from congressional Democrats over chained CPI is stronger than the administration expected – note the outspoken opposition from Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama ally who’s often considered a barometer for pragmatic liberals….

A rough twenty-four hours for the White House? Giving the republicans the key to the store, backing up their truck to the loading dock for them, opening the door, loading the truck for them, and waving as they drive away with everything will make it a really rough four years for the White House.

Negotiating with political hostage takers isn’t supposed to be about handing them the club you beat them with in the last election.

A new ad from Teresa Hensley’s (D) campaign:

Announcer: People are turning to Cass County Prosecutor Teresa Hensley for Congress. The Star said, Prosecutor Hensley far outclasses Congresswoman Hartzler. The Tribune says, Hensley’s a moderate law and order type with eminent good sense.

Hensley will do what’s right, protect Medicare, create jobs, put Missouri’s middle class first.  

Teresa Hensley (D): I’ll fight for Missouri priorities in Washington, like I have in the Prosecutor’s Office. Our seniors can count on me to protect Medicare and Social Security.

I am Teresa Hensley and I approve this message.

Previously:

Not something you see in the paper every day (October 30, 2012)

Teresa Hensley (D) in the 4th Congressional District: endorsement by the Kansas City Star (October 19, 2012)

Teresa Hensley (D) in the 4th Congressional District: endorsement by the Columbia Daily Tribune (October 12, 2012)