Posted on 04/12/2017 1:57:34 PM PDT by ColdOne
President Trump scrapped potential reforms to Social Security and Medicare while preparing his first budget request, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.
Mulvaney, a fiscal hawk and former member of the House Freedom Caucus, said Trump quashed potential changes to Social Security, citing his campaign pledge not to touch the program.
“I laid to him the options that Mick Mulvaney would put on a piece of paper,” Mulvaney told CNBC in an interview that aired Tuesday. “And [Trump] looked at one and said, ‘What is that?’ And I said, ‘Well, that's a change to part of Social Security.’ He said, ‘No. No.’ He said, ‘I told people I wouldn't change that when I ran. And I'm not going to change that. Take that off the list.’ ”
Trump released his first budget proposal on March 16. The plan includes steep cuts to domestic programs and an increase in defense spending but doesn't touch Social Security or Medicare.
Trump’s position on Social Security and Medicare during the campaign promised not to “cut” either program, but he hasn’t specified what he’d consider a cut.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who campaigned for Trump, told The Hill in February that he thought Trump would be open to making changes that would affect future beneficiaries, not current ones. He told CSPAN several weeks later that Trump had effectively taken any Social Security or Medicare reforms off the table.
Until conservatives "make a more compelling case, he's not going there,” Meadows said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Those were promises he made so let’s not start the bashing. If you voted for him, you voted for these things.
Just eliminate the fraud and illegals receiving benefits and call it good....
I admire President Trump for keeping his word. Unlike the lying liars of the past from both parties, esp. members of Congress who were elected to change things and simply folded upon arrival in DC.
If it makes sense to change SS for future generations, there will be time later change things after educating the people. Right now, President Trump is showing he deserves our support because he is earning our trust.
It’s still the third rail.
I can’t see ANY politician changing anything for any but the very youngest (>25) future beneficiaries. Too many people are absolutely counting on everything promised. For anyone on the plus side of 40, it is sacrosanct unless that person has been both highly prescient and very fortunate in their investments.
LOL!
“promised not to “cut” either program, but he hasn’t specified what he’d consider a cut”
A cut is a cut. Not hard to understand at all.
Yeah, entitlements HAVE to be addressed. But build public support first, start with the ‘easy’ ones.
Absolutely!
“Meadows (R-N.C.), who campaigned for Trump, told The Hill in February that he thought Trump would be open to making changes that would affect future beneficiaries, not current ones. He told CSPAN several weeks later that Trump had effectively taken any Social Security or Medicare reforms off the table.”
While changes to SS are not popular with seasoned citizens, if it will not affect them if they are 50 and older, they should not be opposed. Of course the Dims lie to the elderly and tell them they will be thrown into the street if Republicans win because Repubs. will “take away your social security.”
However, if changes are not going to be made even for “future beneficiaries”, then we will keep heading for the edge of the cliff with the accelerator all the way to the floor.
Why can’t the law be changed to at least provide those who are 21 and younger will be allowed to put at least one-half of their payments into a retirement fund of their own choosing rather than the SS “non-lockbox”?
Some changes must begin before it collapses.
I voted to keep Hillary Dianne Rodham Benghazi Clinton out of office. That is all. Marking Trump/Pence on my ballot was the most effective way to do that. It absolutely DID NOT and DOES NOT signify approval of everything Trump campaigned on.
Smart. To me those programs are more akin to a contract as opposed to an entitlement. Yes, I know, Dem politicians for years have been doing their best to convert them from the former to the latter, but they’re still more so that way than any other government social program.
Eventually we are going to extend the payroll tax to every penny of income, and put a Tobin Tax on Wall Street transactions to fund it. No other solution is politically viable.
So I take it you’ll be the first to dip your toe into the bashing?
Telling the truth isn’t bashing. Ever. Folks need to get that fact through their thick skulls. The sooner, the better.
It’s both disappointing and frightening that even Trump the Magnificent is afraid to touch the looming financial disaster wrongly called “Social Security”. We’re headed at “Warp Factor 9” straight toward a financial brick wall. Hildebeeste would have accelerated. Trump is afraid to even touch the brakes. We’re going to crash, and it’s going to be ugly. Get used to the idea.
So he kept his word about soc sec and Medicare, but what about all the other backtracking? China currency, NATO obsolete, Syria engagement, the list goes on and (distressingly) on...
They bypassed the CUT before. They changed the age.
What's *ss backwards about the situation is that public employees, most of whom have stable good paying jobs, also get good pensions.
I lived through ‘08, so don’t preach to me, Brother. I also lived through ‘72-’73, so I know a thing or two about crashes, recessions, unemployment and Dollar Trees.
And don’t write back about how much worse this is going to be. I know what you’re going to write before you write it.
Most of Congressional approaches, i.e. increasing FRA, taxing S.S. benefits to “fixing” S.S. are wrong!
S.S. is a flat rate tax on income. If there are to be income taxes, that is right way to do it - NOT the U.S. Progressive Income Tax, i.e. Socialist redistribution of wealth!
S.S. admin claims life expectancy is increasing. However associates who have analyzed their mortality tables state that is NOT true when compare expectancies for those who have reached 1 year old (infant mortality eliminated!).
However, the USA and S.S. tax has several issues that could easily be corrected that would resolve the projected shortfalls.
1) First and foremost is JOBS - there is one of the lowest labor force participation rates since WWII. More workers (Tax-Payers) means more S.S. Taxes paid and reduced shortfalls!
2) Eliminate the income cap limit, above which there are no more S.S. taxes paid! Or aise the taxable wage base top over time. It’s now $118,000. But give credit for the contributions. That’s worth 1.95 percent of taxable payroll.
Note: the revenue gap in the current Trustees report is 2.68 percent of taxable payroll.
For a better explanation, Scott Burns summarizes here (or in book he co-authored):
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/more-social-security-not-less
or here:
http://www.dentonrc.com/business/business/2017/01/14/scott-burns-saving-social-security-requires-real-world-solution
He can go after all the fraud.
I hope he does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.