It's become an article of faith among certain "serious" people in Washington that any agreement to rein in deficits must include cuts to Social Security. I couldn't disagree more strongly. After all, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2033, by law it is not allowed to add to the deficit or debt, and is not driving our long-term debt. So we need to ask ourselves, what's really going on here?
Unfortunately, it's clear to me that this is just one more misguided pretext for putting Social Security on the chopping block. In fact, if you look closely at the changes under discussion, you'll find that they all purport to "save" Social Security by slashing benefits. Here are a few examples of what these "serious" proposals would do:
These ideas are nothing new. And it should come as no surprise that they have been put forward by many of the same people who attempted to privatize Social Security less than a decade ago. Quite simply, this is just one more excuse for opponents of Social Security to undermine the nation's most successful social program.
Those of us who are honestly committed to strengthening Social Security have another approach. First, we will strongly resist any effort to cut Social Security as part of a "grand bargain" at the end of the year or early next year. Second, to demonstrate an approach that will actually strengthen Social Security, I have put forward legislation that would provide seniors with greater economic security in their retirement by increasing benefits.
My proposal does so in three ways:
Importantly, my legislation also extends the solvency of the Trust Fund beyond 2050, demonstrating that you can save Social Security in a way that doesn't undermine the retirement security of those who rely on the program.
These are the kind of changes we should consider as part of any effort to reform Social Security. Regrettably, I don't hear those who want to put Social Security on the table as part of a debt reduction package calling for these types of reforms. On the contrary, their proposals would simply make it harder for Americans to enjoy their golden years.
Social Security provides a modest benefit, on average $14,000 per year, to over 37 million retired Americans and their dependents. The long-term issue facing Social Security is certainly not that this benefit is too generous.
I stand ready to work with any of my Senate colleagues to reduce our deficit and debt. But I am not willing to do so at the expense of the hardworking middle class families who rely on Social Security to retire with dignity.
Dan Froomkin: How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign
Previewing Your Comment.
This comment has not yet been posted1. Name the Plan. It helps if we have short hand name we can talk about. For now call it the Harkin Plan. The name may change after step two.
2. Get a co-sponsor, preferably in the House of Representatives. The plan could be called the Harkin-Pelosi Plan or something.
3. Vet the Plan. Get some knowledgeable people to assess and possibly endorse the plan. Robert Reich was a trustee of Social Security. See what Reich has to say and some other Economists as well, Krugman et al.
4. Build support for the plan. Instead of getting people one at a time to look at the plan, go for organizations like the AARP it is one of the biggest lobbying organizations around. Getting the AARP, AFL-CIO, etc. on board would go a long way towards giving it "serious" status.
5. Create Buzz for the plan. Once the plan has been Named, Co-sponsored and Vetted, start calling people and asking if they support the Harkin Plan. Start with Liberal talk shows and move on from there to C-SPAN. Eventually, move on to Conservative arenas, Fox News, Rush etc.
Do you support the Harkin Plan?
Every single middle class voter should let their voices be heard and support this Harken proposal.
The country is already being torn apart by adding a 3.9% tax on income over $200,000. Can you imagine the fight we would have over increasing the tax 15% on income over $113,700?
A nice ploy Tom, but I don't think you can get away with it. If you want to tax the rich you just have to get the guts to stand up an propose it and not just find a cleaver way to try to hide it.
FWIW
Very easy solution. And, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't even arrive until 2033. Just the fact that we're having conversations about the solvency of Social Security, in 2012, proves how strong the GOP is at manufacturing crises and manipulating the low-information electorate. Sad.
If we were to eliminate the cap, then I would also think it is possible to reduce the overall RATE, as well--finding a lower rate that still allows MORE money overall to be collected for Social Security, but which then allows anyone earning below $110,000 to actually lower their tax burden towards Social Security while those making above $110,000 will then be contributing towards Social Security but at this lower rate. That seems to be a reasonable compromise.
Then cut the DOD/Security Industrial Complex budget as per sequestration & you're doing better.
FWIW
Loading comments…