Now, the Congressional Budget Office has said that is not true. In fact, it shows that they are into the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $17 billion. It says if they wanted to actually get that money down so it was not in the Social Security Trust Fund, rather than a 1 percent cut, it would be almost a 5 percent cut, and that is across the board. Now, that would include wiping out the pay raise that we gave the men and women in our military. It would include wiping out the important additions we have made in veterans health, so that this Nation can continue its health commitment to its veterans. If you take the Defense Department and you take veterans health off the table, you say well, we cannot cut that 4.8 percent, take that off the table, then you are talking almost an 11 percent, 10.8 percent across the board, in order to get Congress out of the Social Security surplus.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of budget cuts on the Social Security Trust Fund and military and veterans' funding.
Share
More from Earl Pomeroy
I respectfully request to submit the following letter to the record from the Bank of North Dakota for the hearing the Education and Labor committee held on May 21, 2009.
I would like to thank Chairman Conyers, Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia, Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado, and others for their leadership in bringing to the floor this important bill aimed at creating greater competition in…
The notion that we are going to allow credit for risk ceded without any looking at whether or not there is a creditworthy partner providing the backstop, to me is just mind-boggling.
I believe that when it is a securitized issue spread around with no remote concept of insurable interest, you raise profound questions about whether or not this tax incentive ought to apply anymore.





