Republicans Will Cut Social Security And Medicare After Tax Plan Passes, Says Marco Rubio

Newsweak via Yahoo ^ | December 2nd, 2017 | Nicole Goodkind

[Mariner]

Florida Senator Marco Rubio admits that the Republican tax cut plan to aid corporations and the wealthy will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.

Rubio told reporters this week that in order to address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security. Advocates for the elderly and the poor have warned that entitlement programs would be on the chopping block, but this is the first time a prominent Republican has backed their claims.

“We have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future,” Rubio told a crowd at a Politico conference. Rubio's talk of structural change is vague, but will likely include changing the rate and age of Social Security and Medicare payouts.

[Reily]

You could fire every USG worker and the effect would be minimal. There is very little discretionary spending compared to the overall budget, the majority of federal spending is entitlements and interest on the debt. All must spends, all programs with loud self-interested (with perfectly legitimate reasons to be so!) constituencies.

[Boomer One]

America needs to get real and stop government funding of just about everything. In the meantime, I would like to see a national sales tax coupled with a government spending reduction of like amount. Funds taken in are specifically earmarked for medical care and deficit reduction.

I think many Americans fail to realize that the tax bill is to stimulate private hiring which will help to soften the impact of a reduction in government workers. Want to take things a bit further? Change welfare laws so that able bodied recipients would have to work for their benefits and/or attend training for trades. Where needed, classes in English would be required. It is way beyond time trying to be politically correct and time to address problems.

[Kickass Conservative]

Raise the “full” Retirement Age by one Month every Year for the next 36 Years so it reaches 70 instead of 67 which it is today.

Do the same for the “early” Retirement age of 62 which would make it 65 in 36 Years.

That should help preserve the Bankrupt Program for a Generation. Sooner or Later they will just lift the Salary Cap on the SS Contributions, no doubt about it.

People are living far longer than they did when SS was established. The Official Life Expectancy was only 61 back in 1935, but that number was skewed by the high Infant Mortality Rates of the day. Even taking that into account, people are living at least ten Years longer today if not more.

Of course there is no official Retirement Age in SS. If you wait until you are 70 to collect your Benefit, you get more than if you took it at 67.

[stylin19a]

Even if true, I wonder why a Senator from Florida would even bring it up ?

[Redmen4ever]

The reduction in the corporate tax rate will pay for itself. This is because we will have fewer corporate inversions (that’s where an American company becomes a subsidiary of a foreign company so its overseas earnings aren’t subject to U.S. tax). Instead, corporations will invest here. The reduced tax on greater activity will result in the same revenue, more or less (actually, nobody can tell for sure). The CBO is overly conservative in projecting zero supply-side impact. That’s not a forecast, that’s their rule.

Regarding the other changes, these too will pay for themselves. Basically, the Congress has eliminated or restricted deductions in order to increase the zero bracket and lower rates.

Regarding which income segment wins and which loses: to a small, tiny extent, people who currently pay a small amount in federal income taxes will pay nothing, so they’re ahead. People in the top brackets will pay a little more. But, in both cases, we’re talking of small amounts of money. Mostly, the proposal is neutral with respect to income segments. The real benefit is simplification both for taxpayers and for the IRS.

Our tax code will be simpler and fairer, and our country will be more competitive internationally.

With regard to the deficit, without this tax bill, the deficit is projected to add $10 trillion to the national debt over next the ten-years. This increase is roughly in line with the growth of the economy over the next ten-years. So, it’s not catastrophic. Nor would an additional 1 trillion over ten years. What is important is to restrain the growth of spending so that an expanding economy can generate the revenues needed to balance the budget.

The tax bill, by making the country more competitive internationally, is supposed to enable us to get back to pay raises in excess of inflation, so that the average person is getting ahead instead of slipping against the cost of living. Getting back to real growth will enable us to deal with our budget mess, but it will directly help our families and our children, and also help restore the social fabric of our nation.

[Deo volente]

Funny how the Dems didn’t say a word about Obama raising the debt by $10 trillion in his eight years, but now you’ve got a projection of $1 trillion in ten years and it’s the end of the world as we know it.

[aruanan]

I see Little Marco is trying to hasten his slide into complete irrelevance.

[Himyar]

Everybody I know that is on disability is perfectly able to work. In fact, most of them work under the table or have a small business. SS won’t even consider checking up on them.

[Art in Idaho]

You could fire every USG worker and the effect would be minimal. There is very little discretionary spending compared to the overall budget, the majority of federal spending is entitlements and interest on the debt.

You know, like a bare bones computer, what would a bare bones government look like? Start with 1. The Military, we need that 2. The Mint, we need that 3. . . .

If it was really bare bones, how many numbers would there be. I'm talkin' real bare bones. Would be interesting is someone was really serious about it.

Go Trump! Slash and Burn the Swamp!

[Thank You Rush]

::The government could sell half the billion acres of land they own for starters::

With as many FReepers jotting down their own idea of where cuts could be made, we would soon have the deficit/debt taken care of. It’s disgusting that we have to have this conversation all the time.

Let’s have another Grace Commission for starters. To my knowledge, none of the recommendations were ever implemented but they definitely should have been.

This is outdated but covers the core of the commission’s work.

http://truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=whereTaxesGo

[Rusty0604]

They’ve been saying this all along. He just gave the dems bullets to load with.

[Disestablishmentarian]

When they talk about “Narrative” they really mean “Marxism at work.”

I have come to hate the word.

[JayGalt]

I think that there is a lot of waste and too many layers in these programs.

I think that POTUS will be looking to increase the efficiency & offload to private enterprise to get the benefits of competition. These are big targets because they constition a gigantic % of Federal spending. Considering SS, Medicaid, Medicare, a few lower %points total cost will be huge.

In the case of Medicare/Medicaid POTUS is talking about letting the States do more innovations & direct control which will cut costs and improve service. That could easily lower the cost of improved services 15% IMO.

[Mariner]

“The reduction in the corporate tax rate will pay for itself.”

Easily, and then some.

Which makes it so frustrating for those of us that will suffer a tax hike to “pay for it”.

Most of us never dreamed Republicans would raise our taxes.

Personally, my taxes will go up, net, several thousand dollars per year. And the same is true for the bulk of my neighbors.

Those who think this change comes without political cost, or who think it’s a net political benefit may be right.

In 5-8 years.

In the interim Congressional Republicans will be at risk.

[Reily]

And since the real problem is not addressed, the “bare bones” computer would then catch fire and burn the house down!

[Architect of Avalon]

Raising the age of eligibility means that everyone who was told that they would have eligibility at a particular age was lied to.

[WildHighlander57]

What happens if someone starts collecting Social Security before 65 and at 65 doesn’t enroll in Medicare?

How do they force him/her to enroll?

[i_robot73]

Good. They should not only be cut but ELIMINATED.

[JayGalt]

Since the public had no choice over whether to participate or not the lie had no consequences.

I think the bigger lie was the black box where the monies collected were supposed to be kept & invested. That is the can kicked down the road. I guess its a type of obligatory insurance. You are forced to pay in and then if you haven’t saved enough to live on you will get the minimum survival $.

I don’t like Nanny State laws and in some ways I would prefer to see the elderly destitute covered directly. The overall cost would be less to the American people and there would be more incentive to invest.

Something like HSA plans for retirement would make it easier for a large % of the population to save for retirement. If we can carry through the people in their 50’s with the old system while transitioning we would be able to craft a better way of dealing with retirement. The Feds could put money into HSA of younger people who have paid in under the old system.

[Sooth2222]

"“We have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future,” Rubio told a crowd at a Politico conference. Rubio's talk of structural change is vague, but will likely include changing the rate and age of Social Security and Medicare payouts.

So the headline isn't what Rubio said. The headline is the editor's interpretation of what Rubio said.

The gov't could spend more effort investigating Social Security fraud. The government could decline to pay for treatments and procedures that can't be shown to work, and might actually harmful. There are many options other than throwing grandma over a cliff.