

The Supreme Court endorses marriage equality, so you know what that means, don't you? Yes, it means Social Security must be cut. Of course. It's Fox Business.



Varney: [...] We're not going to pass judgement on same-sex marriage. That's not for us to do. Absolutely not for us to do. We're a financial program, so I think it's our duty to point out the financial angle here. Let's suppose that same-sex marriage goes through fully at the federal level. That opens up, I'm told, 1,100 federal benefits that could flow to same-sex married couples. In particular, in Social Security, the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage would get Social Security benefits. That would be an unfunded liability that adds to the liability of Social Security tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street guy Charles Payne: [...] The real argument gets back to these programs in the first place, the way they were designed. They weren't designed for us to live to 85 years old, so it adds another layer of cost to them. There's absolutely no doubt. It also probably might add a sense of urgency to fix these things so that everyone, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, that everyone who is eligible for them will have them, that they'll be there for them. Because right now there's a tremendous strain on them anyway.

We're absolutely not going to pass judgement on same-sex marriageSome people celebrate equality, and some people see just another opportunity to gut social insurance programs.