4 ms·

My guess - they'll just gut the benefits to anemic levels for everyone slowly rather than some big easy to point to maneuver like this.

energy123 1y ago
What is the political incentive to do this ever?
- mattnewton 1y ago
  My thinking was, cutting taxes via budget reconciliation (which is the only process the currently paralyzed legislature can do) requires some hand waving deference to the notion of being revenue neutral by the Byrd rule, so cuts to social programs or rollbacks of government spending have been increasingly included as a way to get tax cuts. Tax cuts fund your donors who fund your reelection campaign. But, I just looked it up again for this comment and that same rule says "No changes to social security" in reconciliation. It is specifically called out as forbidden to touch via reconciliation unlike almost every other program. So, maybe you are right, it will just be ignored because it doesn't seem possible to quietly change.
  - yborg 1y ago
    The income part of SS is more or less subsistence level, which arguably was its intention to keep the elderly from begging in the streets. But in the dystopian US healthcare system, Medicare is arguably the more important part of the social net. Without it, you are not going to afford any healthcare in old age. If this budget hits the PAYGO limits, which is basically guaranteed, that will trigger automatic cuts to Medicare, so they can backdoor cut the program without anybody voting for that.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Where is the political incentive not to do this ever? If you reduce spending on social safety nets, you can reduce taxes on the wealthy, and as a bonus the poor die. win/win.
  - energy123 1y ago
    You can reduce taxes on the wealthy without reducing spending, which is what the Republicans just did, kicking the can down the road to a future administration while getting the political benefit of the current spending.
onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
Whoever does that will get voted out. Voters over 62 make up >25% of the midterm vote. By 2030 - that number could easily be >30%.
- patall 1y ago
  Not sure about the US, but from what I have seen in Europe the questionnaires show that older people are actually for these policies more so than young people, especially when they are already retired and thus not affected. In Germany, two thirds of retirees answered for abandoning a public holiday while everyone else was by majority obviously against it.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Trump is priming to con the Republicans into touching the third rail, and they'll all lose their seats. They're already warming up by chopping Medicaid. It's stupid, unnecessary, and cruel.
- mattnewton 1y ago
  that's easily "solved" by setting the cutoff date to benefit the older generation. I believe that kind of ladder kicking is exactly what's happening in the article on Denmark, and how several other European countries squared that circle.

energy123 1y ago

What is the political incentive to do this ever?

mattnewton 1y ago
My thinking was, cutting taxes via budget reconciliation (which is the only process the currently paralyzed legislature can do) requires some hand waving deference to the notion of being revenue neutral by the Byrd rule, so cuts to social programs or rollbacks of government spending have been increasingly included as a way to get tax cuts. Tax cuts fund your donors who fund your reelection campaign. But, I just looked it up again for this comment and that same rule says "No changes to social security" in reconciliation. It is specifically called out as forbidden to touch via reconciliation unlike almost every other program. So, maybe you are right, it will just be ignored because it doesn't seem possible to quietly change.
- yborg 1y ago
  The income part of SS is more or less subsistence level, which arguably was its intention to keep the elderly from begging in the streets. But in the dystopian US healthcare system, Medicare is arguably the more important part of the social net. Without it, you are not going to afford any healthcare in old age. If this budget hits the PAYGO limits, which is basically guaranteed, that will trigger automatic cuts to Medicare, so they can backdoor cut the program without anybody voting for that.
ModernMech 1y ago
Where is the political incentive not to do this ever? If you reduce spending on social safety nets, you can reduce taxes on the wealthy, and as a bonus the poor die. win/win.
- energy123 1y ago
  You can reduce taxes on the wealthy without reducing spending, which is what the Republicans just did, kicking the can down the road to a future administration while getting the political benefit of the current spending.

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago

Whoever does that will get voted out. Voters over 62 make up >25% of the midterm vote. By 2030 - that number could easily be >30%.

patall 1y ago
Not sure about the US, but from what I have seen in Europe the questionnaires show that older people are actually for these policies more so than young people, especially when they are already retired and thus not affected. In Germany, two thirds of retirees answered for abandoning a public holiday while everyone else was by majority obviously against it.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Trump is priming to con the Republicans into touching the third rail, and they'll all lose their seats. They're already warming up by chopping Medicaid. It's stupid, unnecessary, and cruel.
mattnewton 1y ago
that's easily "solved" by setting the cutoff date to benefit the older generation. I believe that kind of ladder kicking is exactly what's happening in the article on Denmark, and how several other European countries squared that circle.