Bernie Sanders writes, "Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress and too many Democrats, have been discussing harmful cuts to Social Security as part of an overall scheme to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and working families. That is wrong, it is unconscionable, and it must not happen!"
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders addresses the issue of deficit reduction, 06/28/11. (photo: LA Times)
Strengthen Social Security
25 August 11
ometimes we all tend to take things for granted and we forget that Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. Let's be clear. For more than 75 years, Social Security has, in good times and bad, paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American. Social Security has succeeded in keeping millions of senior citizens, widows and orphans and the disabled out of extreme poverty. Before Social Security was developed, about half of our seniors lived in poverty. Today, fewer than 10 percent live in poverty and all of that is done with minimum administrative costs. In America right now more than 53 million Americans, including over 120,000 Vermonters, receive Social Security benefits. In our state Social Security benefits total over $1.5 billion per year, an amount equivalent to 6 percent of the state's annual GDP.
Today, Social Security is facing an unprecedented attack from those who either want to privatize it completely or who want to make substantial cuts. In the coming months, a so-called super-committee in Congress made up of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats will be making decisions to cut the national debt by some $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Social Security is on the table and could be cut by that committee.
The argument being used to cut Social Security is that because we have a significant deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt, we just can't afford to maintain Social Security benefits. This argument is false. Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the US Treasury, has not contributed on nickel to our deficit. In fact, according to a very recent study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Social Security has a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus and can pay out every penny owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years until 2038. At that point it has enough money to pay over 80% of promised benefits.
Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress and too many Democrats, have been discussing harmful cuts to Social Security as part of an overall scheme to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and working families. That is wrong, it is unconscionable, and it must not happen!
John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, and the President's Fiscal commission have both recommended raising the retirement age to 69 or 70. That, for obvious reasons, would be a disaster. Recently, the attack most discussed would be to reduce the cost of living adjustments (COLA) for Social Security recipients by coming up with a new formulation for COLAs called a "chained CPI."
What would these proposed cuts to COLAs mean in the real world? For average 65 year olds living on about $16,000 a year, it would mean receiving $560 less each and every year when they turn 75 and $1,000 less a year when they reach 85. Imagine that. Taking $1,000 a year away from a frail and sick 85 year old woman who is living on $16,000 a year. In my view that is not what this country is supposed to be about.
At a time when seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities haven't received a COLA in the last two years, and at a time when the price of prescription drugs and medical care has skyrocketed, Republicans and too many Democrats believe that the formula for calculating COLAs is too generous. That is absurd!
Instead of cutting Social Security COLAs or raising the retirement age, there is a much fairer way to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years.
Right now, an American who makes $106,800 a year pays the same amount of money into the Social Security system as a millionaire or a billionaire. That is because today, all income above $106,800 is exempt from the Social Security payroll tax. As a result, 94% of Americans pay Social Security tax on all of their income, but the wealthiest 6% do not. That is wrong and that has got to change.
That's why I will be introducing the Keeping Social Security Promises Act as soon as the Senate gets back into session.
This legislation will strengthen Social Security for the next 75 years by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share into Social Security.
Specifically, my legislation would apply all income over $250,000 a year to the Social Security payroll tax.
The Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration has projected that doing this will ensure that Social Security can pay out all benefits for at least the next 75 years.
In fairness, I can't take credit for this legislation. It is exactly what Barack Obama proposed to do when he campaigned for President back in 2008.
During the presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama said: "What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority ... pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I've said that was not fair." The President's specific campaign proposal was to apply Social Security payroll taxes to all income above $250,000. In other words, the proposal I will be introducing is exactly what the President campaigned on.
Social Security is a promise to Vermonters and all Americans that when they get old, if they become disabled, or if they lose their parents, they will not live in abject poverty. Social Security is a promise that we cannot break. We have got to keep our word. And, that's exactly what this legislation would do.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Sanders is indeed a bold and logical thinker, but, to me, he seems (even more) to be courageous. On behalf of the public majority, he has rejected the code which most successful people must follow in order to prosper. I'm sure it has cost him.
Let’s say you want to retire at 70. That’s 33 years from now.
The rate of inflation over the last 33 years makes things 3.38 times as expensive as they were 33 years ago (1978).
Let’s say the rate of inflation stays the same.
Let’s say the average senior’s yearly income including Social Security is about $30,000.
Let’s say you plan to never get sick and be hit by a bus on your 90th birthday.
You will need to save enough to pay for 20 years of $101,400 per year. That’s $2,028,000. You have 858 paychecks left to save for it, if you get paid every other week.
You will need to start setting aside $2,363.64 PER PAYCHECK starting RIGHT NOW, to meet that goal. Do you even make that much? Of course, if you’re older than 37, you better hurry and put aside MORE.
If you're a conservative or "libertarian" who believes Social Security is unnecessary and unconsitutional , why are you wasting time arguing with liberals about news articles? GET BACK TO WORK!
NOW!
The amount of bankruptcies declared by the future elderly (if that's still legal) after they gut Social Security will end up costing future tax payers a lot more than just funding Social Security.
Said perfectly
Why not raise the cap?
I guess what I think is that the most effective thing would be to act like a left-wing ronnie ray-gun and just confront the thinking of the right directly. You'd take a hit, sure, but you'd get the ball rolling on a serious debate that isn't happening. You'd change the framing of the debate by actually voicing the ideas of the left. Right-wing politicians are much better at the kamikazi approach, as they are willing to sacrifice their personal political careers to further their world view. The left is stuck with "representative s" like reid who never lead with any ideas, but will gladly bend depending on whatever way they feel pushed.
We could follow your strategy, but it would be fought hard - so hard, that another fight would be unlikely. Or we could lead with a bold defense of Social Security and an outright confrontation with the right's principles. The fight would be a little more bloody, but, since it's the only shot we have, we could win the day, by actually fighting the battle we intend to fight, rather than trying to put off the inevitable.
RSS feed for comments to this post