Because they paid their taxes during their working years?
Edit: let’s not forget it’s the governments responsibility to look after their citizens? Not just their frugal ones.
Edit: let’s not forget it’s the governments responsibility to look after their citizens? Not just their frugal ones.
The article itself is a bit rubbishlike. To date Congress has repeatedly stated they are not going to cut ss, Medicaid, Medicare. This article posits that Medicaid must be cut with no citation or logical argument:
> While the depth and scope of potential Medicaid cuts are unknown, House Republicans can’t meet their target of $880 billion in savings to pass President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda without making significant cuts to programs like Medicaid. All states rely on federal matching funds to finance their Medicaid programs.
It seems like the moonshot is for doge to cut enough non ss/medicare/medicaid over the next several months so that end of summer can pass a bill that keeps welfare unchanged with much of the rest of the gov gutted. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I suspect the plan won't work out as the Republicans hope and midterms will put them into a lame duck situation.
The responsibilities of the American government are (presumably) determined by the voting public, Congress and the Constitution. Congress decided in 1965 that the responsibilities of the government would include providing healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare, and the majority of the American people support it.
The same article also creates the foundation for Congress to create spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid as being "proper and necessary" to carry out its enumerated powers, which include providing for the general welfare.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation as far back as 1937 with regards to the Social Security Act, and has not declared these programs unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court alone determines what is and isn't constitutional.
Try again.
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What is the point of drafting enumerated powers that have a catch-all phrase as the first enumeration? Literally anything can be argued to be for the "General Welfare" of the United States, because why would Congress pass something that wasn't? Why later state the gov can establish a Navy when you've already stated that Congress can provide defense? Why would you need that explicit authorization? The preamble sets the precedence for the actual powers. One cannot enumerate a catch-all, as it no longer requires enumeration.
But I do agree: the Supreme Court, being the only such construct with the capacity, declared it Constitutional, just like they blew the Wickard v. Filburn decision. But I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
This is dangerous thinking: 'my proclamations are truth, everyone who disagrees is a traitor'. With that mindset, how do you expect to change your mind when you're wrong?
Republicans have ruled out Medicare cuts. With Medicare off the table Medicare accounts for 93% of the funding that the House Energy and Commerce Committee can cut to reach their $880 billion target. That other 7% is way way below $880 billion meaning that to actually cut $880 billion from programs that committee has jurisdiction over must involve cuts to Medicaid.
As far as SS goes, the current Republican party platform does say it is safe: "FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE" (yelling from the original). (BTW, note that they mention Medicare but not Medicaid).
However there is a good reason to not feel reassured by that. The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House whose membership is around 60+% of House Republicans had repeatedly said that there are three ways to address ~2034 expected insolvency of the SS Trust Fund which are (1) increase revenue to the fund, (2) cover shortfalls from the general budget, and (3) reduce benefits. They also repeatedly say that #1 and #2 are off the table.
If #1 and #2 are off the table, and Congress does not reduce benefits, then there will be a benefit cut when the trust fund runs out. I suppose technically they could argue that letting that happen through inaction rather than passing legislation to cut benefits would mean that they didn't violate their promise not to cut benefits.