The simple fact is that both the Social Security and Medicare trusts need an infusion of cash to remain solvent (or a cut in benefits, but who wants to do that?)
Congress; this and past administrations have been ignoring the problem for decades. They just ignore the urging of the Trustees to address the problem while the ultimate solution becomes more burdensome.
Instead, the left is urging making benefits more generous and they don’t see any conflict in these competing goals.
Why should we be surprised? It’s that type of short-sighted rationalizing and imprudent financial decisions that get American families in fiscal trouble on a regular basis. It seems to be an affliction common with the baby boomer and following generations. “I just want it. We can have it all … if we can just find some way to defer paying or find someone else to do so.”
The prudent course would be to once and for all permanently fix the trusts and to do so under the concept which was the foundation of the program from the start. If Americans want a government run retirement program, then we better well be willing to pay for it … that’s all Americans by the way, not just the other guy.
Such projections (the declining solvency of Social Security and Medicare Trust funds) in years past have prompted leaders in both parties at least to broach the idea of benefit cuts or tax increases for entitlement programs.
By contrast, earlier this month, President Obama told an audience in Elkhart, Ind., that Social Security should be made “more generous,” and that “we could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more.”
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said Wednesday that he saw no contradiction there. The two objectives — ensuring the solvency of Social Security and increasing benefits — are “not at all inconsistent” if they are discussed in the context of “a broader conversation” about taxes and benefits, he said. Source: New York Times 6-22-16