Perspectives on President Trump’s 2018 Budget Proposal…

The modern fight for fiscal responsibility has been going on for over two decades.  However, after George W. Bush began spending us into oblivion the urgency increased rapidly; culminating in the uprising in 2008/2009 known as the Tea Party.

The past decade brought us: Bank-Bailouts(TARP,) Auto-Bailouts, Stimulus (ARRA) spending, Omnibus spending, Porkulous bills, Debt Ceiling increases, Continuing Resolutions, the FED buying debt (QE1, QE2), and beyond.

Finally, frustratingly, exhaustively… we arrive in 2017 and for the first time in modern presidential history we have a president proposing to curb the size, scope, scale and cost of government.

The Washington DC UniParty will fight back hard against any curtailment, so here’s some perspective for the upcoming battle:

  • The last federal budget was signed into law in September 2007, for fiscal year 2008, by George W. Bush.
  • It has been over a decade since the Federal Government operated with a budgetary law guiding spending.
  • Because of the two previous points – Over two-thirds of Republican representatives, and over 50% of all reps in the House and Senate, have never held office during a year with a federal budget.
  • Let that sink in.

Here’s the top-line overview of President Trump’s budget proposal by department:

(pdf available here)

Staying at the 30,000 ft level because that’s the perspective needed, not fighting in the weeds. Consider the Defense budget request that seems to be highlighted in every article about the current Trump budget.

President Trump is asking for $574 billion for defense. An increase of 10%.  Sounds big right?  Well, it sounds big until you remind yourself what the former level of defense spending was (link).

♦Additional perspective.  President Obama (FY 2011) asked for $744 billion in defense spending, which was a drop of $140 billion over FY 2010.

Yes, you read that correctly.  In 2017 President Trump is asking for$574 billion, which is $180 billion less in defense spending than President Obama asked for in 2011.

I’m using FY 2011 because the comparisons surround a single senate term.  A Democrat Senator in 2011 who supported Obama’s 2011 request to lower defense spending, would, in his/her last year of their term, now be arguing against a Trump request that is $180 billion less than Obama.  That’s perspective.

♦ The Department of Defense
INCREASE: $52.3 billion, 10 percent
The $574 billion defense proposal should go over well with hawks such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who notably advocated for a $640 billion budget. The huge increase restores $52 billion to the Department of Defense and $2 billion more to other defense programs “in a repeal of defense sequestration.” Cyber security is significantly highlighted as a key area to improve as the U.S. builds a “more lethal joint force.” The budget also funds efforts “to strike ISIS targets, support our partners…disrupt ISIS’ external operations, and cut off its financing.” (Yes, the “ISIL” acronym is now officially replaced by “ISIS.”) The defense windfall also addresses warfighting readiness and shortfalls in munitions, personnel and maintenance.

♦ The Department of Veterans Affairs
INCREASE: $4.4 billion, 5.9 percent
Representing a key area where then-presidential candidate Trump promised investment, the budget increases discretionary funding for VA health care by $4.6 billion while also investing in IT advancements to improve efficiency. It also provides monetary support for VA programs that serve homeless and at-risk veterans.

♦ The Department of Homeland Security
INCREASE: $2.8 billion, 6.8 percent
This portion of the budget is almost all about Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” on the Mexican border and other border enforcement priorities. It gives $2.6 billion for “high-priority infrastructure and border security technology” including funding to construct a “physical” border wall. The budget supplies $314 million to recruit, hire and train 500 new Border Patrol Agents and 1,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and support staff. About $1.5 billion is provided for expanded detention and removal of illegal immigrants, while $15 million is set to go to mandatory nationwide implementation of the E-Verify system. Cuts include $667 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency programs that weren’t authorized by Congress and underperforming Transportation Security Administration programs.


♦ The Department of Health and Human Services
DECREASE: $15.1 billion, 17.9 percent
Most of the cuts come from two areas – the National Institute of Health and the Office of Community Services. Eliminating discretionary spending for OCS saves $4.2 billion while NIH spending reduction checks in at $5.8 billion. A major reorganization of NIH, including an elimination of various programs and activities, is also on tap. A Federal Emergency Response Fund is created to quickly respond to health outbreaks, with the Zika virus specifically cited.

♦ The Department of State
DECREASE: $10.9 billion, 28.7 percent
The budget eliminates the Global Climate Change Initiative and ceases payments to United Nations climate change programs. Funding for the U.N. and affiliated agencies is also reduced overall, as is foreign aid. The State Department’s Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs get cuts, as do multilateral development banks, “including the World Bank.” But the budget isn’t all cuts. Citing the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, money is provided to maintain “robust funding levels for embassy security,” and $3.1 billion is provided for security assistance to Israel. Economic development assistance programs are reoriented “to countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.” and resources are provided to fulfill a $1 billion vaccine pledge.

♦ The Department of Education
DECREASE: $9.2 billion, 13.5 percent
The budget eliminates numerous grants and programs, while safeguarding the Pell Grant program. Federal Work-Study is reduced and also reorganized to better be allocated to those undergraduate students most in need. More than 20 categorical programs “that do not address national needs” are reduced or eliminated.

♦ The Department of Housing and Urban Development
DECREASE: $6.2 billion, 13.2 percent
HUD’s rental assistance program is reformed and funding is eliminated for lower priority programs and Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing. Cutting the Home Investment Partnerships Program saves $1.1 billion and wiping out the Community Development Block Grant program saves $3 billion.

♦ The Department of Agriculture
DECREASE: $4.7 billion, 20.7 percent
Numerous loan and grant programs are eliminated, staffing at USDA Service Center Agencies is reduced and funding for USDA statistical capabilities is cut. Rural Business and Cooperative Service discretionary activities are eliminated and major new Federal land acquisitions for the National Forest System get the axe.

♦ The Department of Labor
DECREASE: $2.5 billion, 20.7 percent
The budget reduces funding for ineffective or duplicative job training grants and focuses Bureau of International Labor Affairs on ensuring that “U.S. trade agreements are fair for American workers.”

♦ The Department of Transportation
DECREASE: $2.4 billion, 12.7 percent
A proposal to shift air traffic control from the FAA to a non-governmental organization is initiated while federal funding is capped on the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program. Several grants are eliminated.

♦ The Department of Energy
DECREASE: $1.7 billion, 5.6 percent
A trio of energy research programs are cut in favor of private sector research. The Weatherization and Assistance Program and the State Energy Program are eliminated in attempts to reduce Federal intervention in State-level issues.

♦ The Department of Commerce
DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 15.7 percent
The budget consolidates aspects of the Economics and Statistics Administration within other statistics agencies. It eliminates two agencies: the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. There are also $250 million in cuts to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants.

♦ The Department of The Interior
DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 11.7 percent
Programs such as discretionary Abandoned Mine Land grants are discontinued because they overlap with existing programs. Funding for major acquisitions of Federal land is reduced. Better budgeting is put in place for wild land fire suppression. About $1 billion is invested in “safe, reliable and efficient management of water resources.”

♦ The Department of Justice
DECREASE: $1.1 billion, 3.8 percent
Despite the bottom-line getting cut overall, there are plenty of increases at Justice, including in counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Funds are also provided to target the “worst of the worst criminal organizations and drug traffickers.” To combat illegal immigration, the budget provides for the hiring of 75 additional immigration judges, 60 additional border enforcement prosecutors, 40 deputy U.S. Marshals and 40 attorneys. Bankruptcy filing fees are increased in an effort to produce an additional $150 million.

♦ The Department of Treasury
DECREASE: $519 million, 4.1 percent
The budget eliminates grants, shrinks the Federal workforce and “empowers the Treasury Secretary to end taxpayer bailouts.”

The American people elected me to fight for their priorities in Washington, D.C. and deliver on my promise to protect our Nation.

I fully intend to keep that promise.

~ President Donald Trump

The DC swamp will fight back.  Unfortunately, just like immigration and border enforcement, we are all about to witness elected “conservatives” (having hidden behind a campaign position of reducing the budget) demanding increases in spending.

Watch what happens next.

We are about to see massive numbers of masks dropping, yet again…

For the first time in three decades we have a President actually doing what every politician has campaigned on: reducing the size, scope and reach of government and reducing spending.

The approach is fiscally reasonable and entirely doable.  If anything, President Trump’s budget proposal doesn’t go far enough.  However, just like the claimed Armageddon over the sequestration, do not expect to see any conservative politicians supporting a budget that is in line with their previously espoused public positions.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Budget, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2016, Legislation, media bias, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

274 Responses to Perspectives on President Trump’s 2018 Budget Proposal…

  1. RE Hiring additional 40 US Marshall Deputies:
    President Trump needs to FIRST fill the 1,000 UNFILLED OPENINGS of the 5,000 total in the U.S. Marshall Service, courtesy of Obama!

    Source: In-person information from one of our 84 U.S. Marshalls (each of whom reports directly to the President).

    Liked by 7 people

  2. sundance says:

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Note the Departments-without-Secretaries that got the MASSIVE 21% Cuts:
    No leader, no gravy train for Senator (and associated Representative) donors.



    Liked by 11 people

    • Chris says:

      Note the Departments-without-Secretaries that got the MASSIVE 21% Cuts:
      No leader, no gravy train for Senator (and associated Representative) donors.


      Good eye there BlackKnightRides!! .. no position filled.. no seat at the table
      I agree, more WINNING!

      Liked by 3 people

  4. sunnydaze says:

    Here’s some .gov -sponsored art. 1965, China, during the Cultural Revolution.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. rsanchez1990 says:

    President Trump will be very busy in 2018 campaigning against the senators and representatives opposing this budget.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. CJ says:

    Trump should propose cuts to the 2017 budget. The current budget CR expires April 28 and a new one needs to be adopted for the remainder of the FY. Start now with some cuts. With half of the budget year remaining the various departments should be able to review their budgets against expenditures and make appropriate cuts.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. NJF says:

    Saving for future debates!!!!

    Gotta go back to the previous post bc I evidently missed your points about Meal on Wheels.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • BigMamaTEA says:

      Hey people. You cannot allow yourself to get “caught in the weeds” on any of this!!!
      THAT is the TRAP that will be used by the Uniparty!

      Money that is not being spent by the Federal Government is money that STAYS in YOUR STATES, and in YOUR bank accounts!!!!

      The STATES will be setting up their own “meals on wheels.” The difference is, there will not be this administrative behemoth clipping a percentage off the top, then giving it back to the STATES with conditions!!!!!!!!! If your STATE wants a “meals on wheels” program, that State will start one with that State’s own money. We don’t need directions on how to do it. Churches used to do it!

      That’s FEDERALISM, and what OUR Republic was founded on!!! Keep EVERYTHING closer to the PEOPLE via their STATE. (I promise it’s a lot easier for me to go to my State capitol, than it is for me to make a trip to DC from Oklahoma!)

      Liked by 6 people

      • farmhand1927 says:

        Here’s an unpopular point abt Meals on Wheels but should be made anyway. The federal govt should not be involved.

        As BigMama Tea correctly points out, churches and local organizations used to do this in their communities. Volunteers went to a church basement, cooked and packaged the food and volunteers delivered it. Nowadays, those same churches are too busy giving shelter to refugees and immigrants that are here illegally. In fact, they are making a boatload of money off the federal govt doing it. Meanwhile, elderly in their own neighborhoods, people that in their working days, kept those churches afloat with collection plate offerings, are left to fend for themselves. Seems too many of our churches take the same mentality as socialist regimes–once a person reaches an age where they can no longer contribute financially and cannot work to pay as much in taxes, they are automatically shifted off onto the federal govt as a ‘ward’.

        Where’s our Christian charity toward our forefathers and I don’t mean going back to our founding? It’s not just society in general that has no conscience abt turning backs on the elderly, it’s families, too. It wasn’t too many generations ago when families converted garages into apartments for an elderly parent or made a place for them somewhere in their homes. Now, middle aged people send brochures in the mail to Mom or Dad about long term care insurance, afraid they may have to assume some responsibility. Not every elderly person can live out their lives in their children’s homes, of course, but our societal shift away from taking any responsibility for them is not just a moral issue but a federal debt issue.

        When it comes to Meals on Wheels, let communities, churches and families take the first responsibility before demanding it of the govt. Instead of worrying so much abt building a bigger, more elaborate high school or putting in that new state of the art turf football field, make sure the people in your community that built your town and funded your last school expansion or sports complex have a hot meal once a day. Before you ask for taxpayer money to update the copiers, carpet and office chairs for your city govt building, make sure your elderly still living at home have proper nutrition. Same goes with churches. Before you ask your congregation to pony up money for world relief or to send the youth group on a rafting trip, make sure the older folks that kept your church afloat when you were in diapers have a hot meal once a day.

        If families want the govt involved in Meals on Wheels, then let’s mandate that the children of our elderly submit to means testing and the amount charged for the meals will be assessed accordingly. Would the adult children of someone receiving govt food assistance be willing to have the cost either billed to them monthly or figured into their tax liability? Maybe it’s high time personal responsibility come back into the scenario instead of the automatic assumption that our neighbors should be taxed to feed our elderly family members. If the natural morality that should be present in every heart when it comes to providing for the aged has been lost then if the govt is to be involved, let the involvement include holding family members accountable unless they can prove a reason why they should not step up and provide meals for their loved ones, or at a minimum, contribute to the cost.

        How many of these same families don’t declare Mom or Dad incompetent before they truly are incompetent so control of the estate is handed to the kids? That’s a two-pronged benefit for those adult children–they get the tax benefit and they can declare their parents as indigent and shift them onto Medicaid and other assistance so they themselves are free of responsibility of care. Our cultural mindset has devolved to where we are quite comfortable handing off our elderly to federal assistance and pooling the cost among all taxpayers.

        Priorities. Charity begins at home. Honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Perhaps President Donald Trump may, in his wisdom and compassion for people and resolve toward personal responsibility, prove to be one of our most moral of presidents.

        To condemn this budget cut as cruel or immoral while we ourselves may be guilty of shirking our own duties as family members toward our parents or grandparents, is a hypocrisy we must all address internally and with our God.


  8. Janeka says:

    Thanks for everything you do Sundance.. If it weren’t for you chances are good I would have lost patience two years ago and snatched someone bald..

    Liked by 9 people

  9. Trump’s “Let’s Make a Deal” opportunity for Congress to Fund More 1-Time Pet Projects:

    Authorize President Trump to reduce Federal Government headcount – in areas at his discretion – by an additional 100,000 during FY17 to “pay for” Pet Projects in the FY18 Federal Budget.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. What about the 10’s of thousands of IRS people hired to facilitate Obamacare mandates?

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Kay Elle says:

    Lots of whining tonight on our local news (Seattle) about cuts to local transportation projects such as light rail and about environmental clean ups, as well as sob stories about loss of funding for medical research at colleges.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Keln says:

    Very happy to see a proposed increase for the NNSA. It is much needed.

    And the proposed cut to the EPA made me chuckle. Yuuuge.

    Liked by 2 people

    • bolshevict says:

      I have a high school friend who works at a big EPA facility in Cincinnati. He said that he can’t remember when there wasn’t at least 1 ongoing lawsuit by an employee against the facility for environmental/workplace stuff. The agency is out of control.
      Their #1 goal is attacking private enterprise and private property. Their conniving “working relationship” with OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) is a scandal by itself …..Unions with political pull regularly sic both on employers as a means of pressuring employers in union negotiations.
      There’s corruption at every US Agency, and some Agencies, maybe the majority, are corrupt.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Doug says:

    I dont think Trump would have a problem if they dont deliver a budget he likes and he has to keep vetoing it… he knows the american people are on his side. Most of the programs that affect peoples gravy trains are for people who dont support him anyways… their is no greater issue to expose true conservatives from the rest of the frauds than the budget. If you want to know how people like Mccain and Ryan continually get reelected its the pork they deliver to their constituents. Everyone wants their free crap, they just dont want to pay for it. Another good reason for term limits. We cant be trusted to vote for balanced government spending. Its a drug worse than heroin and their will be a shock to the system when we dont administer more of it!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. testpointwp says:

    Fill in the blank (use a whiny voice if you want to sound like a liberal) – President Trump wants to cut ______ from ______ and that’s only ____% of the total budget. Why is he doing that?

    Why does the MSM always phrase it that way? Because everything is a small percentage of $4 Trillion. The combined, entire wealth of the 100 richest people on earth would not sustain our government for 1 year.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. thesavvyinvester says:

    I know this is the 30,000 feet view and not the micro view, however no word of Fannie & Freddie and AMTRAK Privatization.

    Job training? How about one grant program for real jobs available now like training in pipe-fitting and welding, CNC machining G-Code, CAD experts, etc and they guy Trump needs to bring aboard to make it happen in the PR arena? Mike Roe.

    On FAA / Aircraft ATC privatization, General Aviation has never recovered from lawsuits against manufacturers in the 80’s and various fuel crisis’s. Adding a fee to Gen-Av which is the seed corn of pilot training for the Majors, is another cut they don’t need amongst the thousands they endured. However, a model to potentially emulate is the Canadian model of their version of a 501(c)(3) tax status of the system divorced from the whims of the House of Commons on the regular basis so they could purchase the latest and greatest technology for their Controllers and Control System(s) like you might in the private sector to stay ahead of your competitors, is the model to seriously consider.

    Senator Jim Inhofe, is the goto guy in the House and Senate for all things Gen-Av.. he might be the place to start for truly prudent reforms of the FAA and ATC.


  16. tax2much says:

    Regardless of amount approved in budget, the President does NOT have to spend it all. So the administration can make defacto cuts as it wants.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Congressman don't be afraid to touch the third rail says:

    One agency that could be eliminated is the US Railroad Retirement Board headquartered in Chicago. There’s a building in DC that was to be used by the agency but it was bumped out at start of WWII as was the Social Security Administration which was sent to Baltimore.

    The RRB was first enacted by Roosevelt in 1934 prior to that of SSA. Like SSA, the RRB was ruled unconstitutional, but the Supremes eventually rolled over after FDR threatened to “pack the Court.”

    One difference is the RRB calls the retirees “annuitants versus SSA referring to their recipients as “beneficiaries”. People under SSA are being taxed on wages while the RRB calls it compensation. SSA does not include RR compensation in their benefits unless the retiree lacks the required service to receive a RR annuity and then these earnings can be used towards their SSA benefit.

    The RRB administers annuities to retired and disabled railroad workers and their spouses, divorced spouses, ex-spouses, children, step-children, etc., as SSA does. Railroad workers paid a higher percentage of their earnings into the RRB and expect a better benefit as a result. If the retiree also receives SSA benefits these are paid by the RRB too and are deducted from the annuity payment. (They weren’t originally except for a small offset applied prior to 1974. In fact the original intent was to pay them an annuity that was at least 10% more than what they would receive under SSA, which is why they paid a higher withholding into the system.)

    The 1974 Railroad retirement Act introduced a tier concept to its annuity payments.

    A retiree will receive a tier 1 that includes credit for wages and compensation and an offset for any SSA benefit be paid to that individual. There is also a tier 2 component based solely on compensation (which is intended to be the extra over what SSA would pay). There was also a component called a windfall that was paid to those who were vested at the time of the enactment of the 1974 RR Act The windfall has gradually disappeared as those eligible has passed away.

    That Act allowed retirees to receive an annuity at age 60 if they had at least 30 years of RR employment without a reduction for age. (This change affected male workers as female workers already had this available to themselves as annuitants.)

    The first veto President Gerald Ford ever issued was for this act and of course Congress overrode his veto. He called the Act unworkable and would need a bailout in 7 years , which did happen in 1981.

    A simple example of an annuity is Tier 1 = $1000 and Tier 2 = 500 for an annuity total of $1500 per month. If the person receives a SSA benefit of $1200 his tier 1 component is wiped out. If it’s less than the tier 1, If only a $300 benefit amount, then the Tier 1 is reduced dollar for dollar to $700 and the total paid per month is $1200. Spouses receive half of tier 1 before any SSA benefit is considered for offset., and 45% of tier 2. If retiring before full age then annuitants will have a reduced age annuity is not disabled

    The RRB has field offices around the country, as does SSA, just not as many as that agency.
    It awards disability annuities based on total & permanent and also occupational (no longer capable of RR employment. It also administers Medicare for the annuitants.

    Originally to be eligible to receive a railroad retirement annuity required a minimum of at least 10 years of RR employment. Now it’s 5 years due to the many merger of national RR carriers.
    A spouse has to be married for a year before receiving a spouse annuity. The agency also pays survivor annuitants to those receiving under a deceased RR worker who was “on the rolls” or had died on the job and the spouse, if under age 60 has a minor or disabled child in care.

    In 1974 there were 750,000 RR workers and a million annuitants. Now it would be at most 225.000 working and 700,000 annuitants on the rolls.

    What all this gets too is:
    The agency’s annuitants could easily be transferred to SSA as a division and this RR division would only pay benefits based on RR compensation for the tier 2 amount.

    Let SSA pay the total of the combined RR compensation and SSA covered wages used to calculate tier 1 since it has this information. The RRB has paid SSA benefits to its annuitants since 1975 as part of the 1974 RR Act. As I understand it the Social Security Administration never really liked the loss of paying these people directly but having the RRB pay them did reduce the occurrence of railroad annuity overpayments. The RRB does not handle timely adjustments that occur in SSA payment activity in the manner expected.

    There have been subsequent amendments to the ACT such as reducing the 60 year age / 30 year service annuity for an age reduction which was later eliminated by another amendment.

    When the tier breakdown came into effect under the 1974 Act it was assumed that this merger or something like it would occur. Doing it now would eliminate the duplication of activities and streamline the railroad annuity payment of the tier 2 component as its sole function of the RRB. It would also eliminate the majority of SSA related overpayments that still do occur.

    SSA field offices could accept RR annuity applications and refer the tier 2 payment to the RRB division while SSA pays what is now the tier 1 directly without RRB involvement.

    Now for the third rail:

    In order to rectify the survivability of the Social Security Administration would require a harsh change:

    Only pay wage earners a social security benefit. No longer include persons not paid for into the system – spouses, ex-spouses, children, etc.

    Social Security has had many cuts already. During President Carter’s term in office the first emergency occurred that was addressed. The way benefits were calculated changed and you may recall the term ‘Notch Babies.” They received the first actual effect when their benefit was longer included previous Cost- of – Living percentages. Instead monthly benefits would be based on indexed for inflation calculations of earnings used to determine the rate of monthly payment, It is unlikely but a person could actually have a benefit of zero under this calculation, certainly less than $100.

    An example of the effect of this indexing: In 1960 the maximum earnings amount subject to the SSA tax withholding was $4800. Under indexing that amount has increased to approximately $33,000 when working up the average indexed monthly earnings for a rate amount calculation. (caveat this amount may be different today as my info on 1960 earnings is eight years old) So it now takes about $7 today to equal a 1960 dollar.

    (If your not already always remember to include the effects of inflation when projecting future retirement needs. A gallon of gas is about 10 times what it cost in 1960 and gas stations used to have gas wars when competing against each other and offer as little as a 10 cent price for a gallon of gas.)

    Another aspect was the elimination of student benefits being paid up to age 22. It was gradually cut back to include child benefits “up to the first of the third month following the month age 19 is attained” if the child was still in high school and not disabled.

    A spouse with a minor in her care now loses her benefit when the non-disabled child attains age 16. It used to be when the child turned age 18 a young mother would lose her benefit status.

    Social security benefits now can be reduced for public pensions (which is probably ok) when they previously weren’t.

    The system now has a built in age reduction that can take effect if the beneficiary has not yet attained full retirement age (FRA) which is about age 67 for baby boomers. A full benefit used to begin at age 65.

    So social security benefits have been subjected to previous third rail shocks.

    Were the Social Security system be changed to only pay benefits to the actual wage earner the age 65 full retirement could return .

    Today as you know many households have two income earners when both spouses are working.

    Eliminate cross filing and the wage earner’s spouse would lose the extra if the spouse’s rate is less than half of the wage earners. Still receive their own benefit.

    The term spouse usually brings to mind the wife of a wage earner, which was true prior to 1977. Under Carter male spouse’s no longer had to prove dependency on their wife to receive benefits under her record. Ex-spouses also came in about then and required a 20 year marriage to receive a ex-spouse benefit on the wage earner account. Now it’s ten years and their can be as many as a current spouse and up to 4 ex-spouses on that record. No one paid extra taxes in withholding for these benefits. Also an entitled ex-spouse will be paid before the wage earner is.

    Now for some additional info”

    If you are denied a disability benefit by SSA contact your senator or representative before using an attorney. I understand the need to have a benefit paid in dire situations. But know that when a benefit is actually paid and you used an attorney – SSA will pay the attorney before you.

    Also earnings in 1978 and 1979 may not be properly included on your SSA record. Up to 1977 companies reported earnings to SSA on a quarterly basis. This changed in 1978 to annual reporting and it took SSA 2 years to handle the change. SSA has addressed this problem and if you are affected by this your benefit may have been corrected.

    As always any misunderstandings and misspellings I apologize for. Also sorry it’s this longwinded.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s