In your recent front-page article, "Why congressmen voted no," you quoted Jan Schakowsky as saying "the Bush tax cuts were always viewed as a short-term tax break, and the money was coming right out of the Social Security Trust Fund, which needed to be protected."
This is so wrong that either Congresswoman Schakowsky is truly ignorant or she is blatantly misleading the public.
Contact information ( * required )
There is a separate tax that funds Social Security (FICA) that was cut temporarily by 2 percent and was truly affecting the Social Security Trust Fund and which was restored with the fiscal cliff deal. This cut was supported by the Democrats, and the Republicans were the ones that wouldn't let this shorting of Social Security continue. Is this the Bush tax cuts she is denigrating that the Democrats have suddenly discovered is benefiting the middle class (since President Obama made a campaign issue out of it) and can't possibly expire because it is going to really hurt the middle class? The irony of this is unbelievable when for years the Democrats have been allowed to demagogue the issue claiming that the tax cuts only benefited the rich. But for her to state that this money was coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund is comical if it weren't so false and misleading.
The so called "Trust Fund" is nothing more than IOU's from the federal government to pay the fund back the money that Congress has already spent. I suspect Rep. Schakowsky made her statement just because it sounds good and makes people believe she is trying to protect Social Security from the mean old Republicans. What does that say about Rep. Schakowsky's veracity? I guess she really believes that the voters are that ignorant.