Poll: Large Majority of Americans Want Changes to Save Social Security
If nothing is done, benefits will be cut by about 25 percent across the board within the next 10 years or so, according to the Social Security Administration.
Poll: Large Majority of Americans Want Changes to Save Social Security
Jack Phillips
By Jack Phillips
11/1/2023
A significant majority of Americans favor congressional changes to save Medicare and Social Security amid concerns that both entitlement programs will become insolvent in the coming years.
A poll from the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group, found that 87 percent of likely voters believe that members of Congress should work to ensure Social Security's solvency to avoid cuts to recipients' benefits.
Another 89 percent said that similar changes should be made to Medicare, according to the Nov. 1 poll.
The survey found that 90 percent of likely voters believe that 2024 congressional and presidential candidates should discuss making sure Social Security and Medicare are solvent.
"Our polling shows that Americans are seriously worried about the solvency of these entitlement programs," David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said, according to several reports. "Congress can no longer continue to ignore the facts that without action, Social Security and Medicare will face deep and automatic cuts.
"Proactive steps must be taken to reform these fiscally unsound programs or Americans will be faced with the consequences of their representatives’ blatant disregard for the uncomfortable truth," he added.
Major Warning Given on Social Security Checks | Facts Matter
Play Video
Sen. Hawley, Mayorkas in Heated Exchange Over DHS Staffer's 'Pro-Genocidal' Social Media Posts
Play Video
The survey found that voters do not want the federal government to increase the age for eligibility. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said that raising the age by several years to access full Social Security benefits is unacceptable.
Only about 9 percent said that raising the age would be acceptable.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen durng a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council at the U.S. Treasury in Washington, on July 28, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen durng a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council at the U.S. Treasury in Washington, on July 28, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“This poll is a fiscal wake-up call to Congress and all presidential candidates,” Mr. Williams said.
The survey was conducted in August and included approximately 1,000 likely voters, the organization said.
Social Security benefits, which mainly go to retired workers, impact over 50 million people per month, with recipients getting an average payment of about $1,800, according to the Social Security Administration. Without policy changes, the program is headed for insolvency in the early 2030s.
Across-the-Board Cut?
If nothing is done, benefits will be cut by about 25 percent across the board within the next 10 years or so, according to the Social Security Administration's trustees in an estimate earlier this year.
"Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits," the trustees say on the agency's website.
"This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.
"Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future."
A report released earlier this year indicated that the Social Security program is expected to run out of money by around 2033 due to slower-than-predicted economic growth.
But if no significant changes are made before 2034 to shore up its funds, about 66 million Americans could see a benefit reduction between 23 percent and 25 percent.
“The combined trust funds will be insolvent by 2034, when today’s 56-year-olds reach the full retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 73,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said in an analysis released in March.
If no action is taken, it warned, "All retirees regardless of age, income, or need will face a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut, which will grow to 26 percent by the end of the 75-year projection window” upon insolvency of the program.
The U.S. Treasury Department and its secretary, Janet Yellen, have issued a warning that the trust fund’s “reserves will fall below 20 percent of annual cost by the beginning of calendar year 2033 and will become depleted in 2033 in the absence of legislation to address this imbalance between scheduled benefits and revenue.”
More Borrowing Foreseen
However, the closer it gets to 2033, the less likely there will be benefit cuts, according to analysts. Benefit reductions typically are phased in slowly for future beneficiaries, so the impact of any cuts would not be adequate to achieve solvency.
“We’ve delayed so long that there are no plausible benefit reductions that can keep the trust fund from running dry in the 2030s,” said Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in a report this year.
At the point of a 2033 crisis, an emergency injection of new revenue is most likely, said Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
“Congress could allow the program to continue running deficits by changing the law to credit Social Security with additional income—in effect, it would be financing the program through borrowing,” he said.
That solution would avert sharp cuts, but it would further fuel public worries about Social Security. A 2020 AARP poll found that 57 percent of respondents are not confident about the future of Social Security, citing a lack of trust in the government to keep its promises and that “money is running out.”
MOST PUT THE NUMBERS OF JOE'S INVADERS AT TWICE THE BELOW NUMBER
Boots on the ground...Reports of alleged illegal aliens buying ammunition in stores.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUTS OUT $1.5 BILLION IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS. PRIMARILY ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS.
THIS SAME COUNTY HAS A MEX TAX-FREE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2 BILLION YEARLY.
How LA Profits from City-Wide Homeless Crisis | Soledad Ursua
VIDEOS
Landlords Are Losing Their Homes — Here’s Why | Chris Moore
Californians Losing Homes to Eviction Moratorium | Jonathan Madison #californiainsider
OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4guGq6kWxg
CA makes up third of homeless population in U.S., according to study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCZZF3_Yas
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
California approves ‘shocking’ policy giving weekly checks to migrants: Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGCsB3LL1Nw
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”. DANIEL GREENFIELD
Liberal California Emigrants are Toxic
When Arizona, a state that has historically leaned conservative, was won by Joe Biden and now-senator Mark Kelly this week, very few were taken by surprise. Extensive polling indicated Arizona was ripe for swinging liberal and in this instance, at least, the polling was correct.
The question is why? Why has a state that held two elected Republican senators as recently as 2018 and which held a dependable stable of electoral votes for GOP presidential candidates become a purple state on its way to becoming solidly blue? Have Arizona residents suddenly awaked to the idea that liberal policies and doctrines are more sensible than conservative ones? Hardly.
The answer regarding Arizona’s swing lies in its neighbor to the west, California. Since 2012, California has overwhelmingly sent more transplants to Arizona than any other state. When surveyed, escaping Californians cite high taxes, high crime rates, unaffordable housing, out-of-control homelessness, and high unemployment rates as their top reasons for fleeing.
Who is responsible for creating such an alarming living environment within the state? California liberals. A November, 2020 report produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that California has 395,608 regulatory restrictions. The sheer volume and scope of California regulations creates such a compliance nightmare that they kill entire industries, send housing prices to unattainable heights, and restrict even commonplace liberties for which conservative leaning states are known.
Piled onto California’s endless river of regulations are its nonsensical laws and policies. Twenty major metropolitan cities or counties in California have established laws, ordinances, regulations, or other practices that shield illegal immigrants from prosecution after committing a crime. These counties brazenly safeguard illegal immigrant criminals against deportation either through noncompliance or by refusing to hand them over to federal agencies such as ICE. With over $1.5 trillion in state and local government debt, California effectively has little money to spare for conveniences such as criminal incarceration. What do sanctuary cities and counties see as the alternative to handing illegal immigrant criminals over for deportation? Release them back into the general population, of course.
Consider this: Between 2014 and 2017, the FBI reported that 49 states saw an average increase in crime annually of around 3%. After implementing “humane” alternatives to criminal prosecution, California crime increased more than 12% per year over the same time period. With irrational sanctuary policies that send a clear message of little to no consequence for offenses, is it any wonder California’s crime rate is now spiraling out of control?
Arizona is not the only beneficiary of the California exodus. The Colorado State Demography Office has published an active flow map of people moving into the state from 2010 on. Disturbingly, the state sending the most movers to Colorado since then has consistently been California. As recently as 2004, Colorado had the political trifecta of a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled House and Senate. A short ten years later, all three had turned irrevocably Democrat. The subsequent consequence? A drastic increase in state and local regulations, a dramatic increase in violent crimes, a severe shortage of home inventory and affordable housing, and a staggering increase in homelessness. Do these newfound troubles sound familiar to any other state mentioned here? The only safeguard against out-of-control tax hikes in Colorado is the TABOR Amendment passed by voters 1992, prior to the influx of California residents, that requires taxpayer approval for any new tax. Not surprisingly, emboldened liberals in Colorado are vigorously resolute in repealing this tax hike protection. As of the most recent election they are unsuccessful, yet remain undeterred.
What has coincided with Colorado’s decline? The mass inflow of Californians to the state. Californians have brought with them all the very same liberal doctrines and ideologies that forced their flight from California in the first place. Does this dissuade liberal Californians from shaping Colorado into the very image of California? Not in the least.
If there is any hope for Arizona, it is that they might learn from the resulting ruin of Colorado, however unlikely.
In the 2020 election, Texas was startlingly considered in play for liberals. Since 2015, which state has contributed the most emigrants into Texas? Not surprisingly, the state of California. The hope for liberals is that they can turn Texas into the next purple soon-to-be blue state. The coveted prize is Texas’ electoral votes. Even more insidious, if liberals are able to capture Texas as they have done in Colorado and Arizona, they will force the state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. They will then achieve their ultimate goal of a Democrat president reigning over the United States for endless generations until the point our country experiences the same collapse as other great civilizations throughout world history.
The obvious question is this: How can Texas avoid the same fate as states such as Colorado and Arizona? Simple. By being proactive.
It is much easier for liberals to enact new legislation than to argue for the removal of existing laws. With this in mind, Texas should take advantage of their current Republican-controlled Senate, House, and governor’s office by making haste and passing laws that would limit the future incursion of liberal meddling. Texas can presently enact laws that prohibit sanctuary cities, require voter approval to remove the state’s mandated balanced budget, require that any new regulation must necessitate the removal of an existing one, and compel voter approval of each new local or state tax including non-user fees. While such laws may only serve to stem the liberal takeover of the state, they would be roadblocks making it much more difficult for ideological infiltration in areas that affect inhabitant’s liberties and quality of life.
It would be absurd to suppose Californians have malintent. Rather, they are simply following the course with which they are most familiar while being blissfully ignorant of the negative unintended consequences their political ideology brings. To suggest that any act of suppression, aggression, or intimidation towards Californians moving into red states is acceptable would simply be un-American and subject to the same type of hypocrisy liberals practice. If conservatives stoop to their level, we have lost the battle and, perhaps, the war.
However, by taking aggressive legislative action in states that have not yet succumbed to liberal infiltration, Conservatives will effectively be planting our flag in a defiant refusal to hand over our institutions and our liberty.
The Floyd Bennett Bungalows: NYC Democrats Transform Historic Naval Airfield into Migrant Camp
Democrats in New York City are transforming the historic Floyd Bennett Field into a migrant camp where thousands of border crossers and illegal aliens are set to be moved in.
On Monday, city officials began moving about 500 border crossers and illegal aliens to Floyd Bennett Field. Officials eventually want to house some 2,000 border crossers and illegal aliens at the airfield making it likely the largest migrant camp in the United States.
The decision to turn Floyd Bennett Field into a migrant camp is supported by New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D). President Joe Biden also approved the move.
Democrats continue to support the decision even as New Yorkers have deeply opposed the plan. Hundreds showed up to protest at Floyd Bennett Field in August, led by former mayoral candidate and local activist Curtis Sliwa.
Since the spring of last year, more than 130,000 border crossers and illegal aliens have arrived in the sanctuary city of New York City.
In September, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), City Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens), and Assemblywoman Jaime Williams (D-Brooklyn), along with 11 other city council and state Assembly members and 24 residents of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island filed a lawsuit in Staten Island Supreme Couty to block the city from moving border crossers and illegal aliens into Floyd Bennett Field.
Just last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources approved Malliotakis’s legislation that would ban federal funds from being used to turn federal lands into migrant camps.
The historic, federally-owned airfield was used by the United States Coast Guard and Navy during World War II. Before then, the airfield was also used as New York City’s first municipal airport and has had famous guests visit it in prior decades, including Howard Hughes and Howdy Doody.
Today, Floyd Bennett Field serves as one of the largest open spaces in the city, which has made it ideal for biking, fishing, camping, and hiking for New Yorkers. The airfield is managed by the National Park Service and is surrounded by residential communities.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Ron Johnson: Joe Biden Welcomes 6 Million Illegal Aliens into U.S. — Exceeding the Populations of 31 States
President Joe Biden has welcomed six million illegal aliens into the United States, a foreign population that exceeds the populations of 31 states, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) detailed during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing Tuesday.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the committee but gave few answers in regard to the unprecedented volume of illegal immigration to the United States since Biden took office.
Johnson said his latest estimate shows that Biden’s DHS has welcomed about six million illegal aliens into American communities since the start of 2021 — including 1.7 million who are known to have successfully crossed the southern border undeterred by Border Patrol agents.
Also included in that figure are the millions that DHS has released directly into the United States interior via its expansive Catch and Release network, which includes a parole pipeline where new arrivals can secure work permits and public benefits.
“We don’t know who these people are, we just know they’ve come to this country and are residing somewhere. Where are all these people residing? Where did the six million people go?” Johnson asked Mayorkas, who did not directly answer the question.
“We’ve got about 100,000 in New York and New York [City] Mayor Eric Adams says it will ‘destroy’ New York and by the way, that’s less than two percent of the six million people,” Johnson continued. “If 100,000 is going to destroy New York, what’s happening around the country?”
Johnson’s assertion that Biden’s DHS has welcomed six million illegal aliens into the U.S. interior in fewer than three years indicates that the administration has imported a foreign population, many with no valid claims to asylum, that exceeds the populations of 31 states.
Already, American taxpayers are billed $143 billion annually for costs associated with illegal immigration. This estimate does not include any of the social and economic costs — such as higher housing prices, depressed wages, lost jobs, increased crime, and strained public resources at hospitals and schools.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment