Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 9/12/19

Want to Fix Social Security? Push Democratcs to Do the Right Thing and Vote for Democrats

Author 29167
Message Frank Stricker

Want to Fix Social Security? Your Best Bet Is to Push Democrats to Do the Right Thing and Vote for Democratic Control of Congress and the White House

Many readers know the background to this statement, but many voters don't. It is a fact: Republicans are likely to want to cut Social Security. Their willingness to weaken SS, a most effective government anti-poverty program, is not new. Since 1935, there have usually been at least some Republicans who have wanted to cripple SS. Today, it is hard to find a Republican in the House or the Senate who will vote to preserve and enhance benefits.

Admittedly, the history of Republicans and SS is mixed. In the 1950s, Republican President Eisenhower asserted that any politician who attacked SS was suicidal. In the 70s Congress and Republican President Nixon raised taxes and benefits and legislated an automatic cost-of-living escalator. In the 80s Reagan and his followers wanted to undermine Social Security, yet in 1983, a bi-partisan committee came up with a plan to fix SS funding. It wasn't perfect. The agreement created a calendar for the gradual increase by three years of the age for full benefits. Reagan had campaigned against SS when he worked for General Electric as a propagandist, and as President he wanted to undermine SS. But Republicans were taking political heat for a brutal recession and for a plan to slash SS benefits. Reagan was a pragmatic politician and he arranged for a committee that could keep the benefits coming and build a surplus for later years when retirements ballooned. Given Reagan's predilections and the conservative bent of Alan Greenspan, the chair of the committee, the outcome was pretty good.

Recently, George W. Bush has benefitted from media love--hey, he isn't as bad as Trump, right? He never insulted John McCain. But Bush has a history of animus toward SS and as President he was happy to get help from right-wing outfits like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. His campaign was billed as an effort to save Social Security, but it wasn't. The gimmick was to let new workers divert some of what they would normally pay into SS over into individual private retirement accounts. But market ups and downs could leave them without enough for retirement. To sell the program, the Bushies proposed to subsidize and guarantee the account. That raised federal spending, even as the diversion was undermining SS finances.*

The Cato-Bush attack fizzled, but it foreshadowed a new hardening of Republican arteries. Today many Republicans are in hock to Social Darwinians like the Koch brothers. Trump's chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, leads the attack on safety-net programs. Trump's proposed 2020 budget includes cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, and the Social Security Disability program. On most safety-net issues, Republicans in Congress are impossible. As former Republican representative from Florida, David Jolly, argued on MSNBC, Republicans won't get better and there is only one way to deal with them; vote them out.

Social Security cannot be fixed as long as Republicans control the Presidency or even one house of Congress. Indeed, as Nancy Altman points out in the article linked below, Republicans can cut Social Security by making sure that nothing is done. Without a funding fix, sometime around 2035, the trust fund/surplus that has accumulated over the years will be used up and current contributions will cover only 70 to 80% of benefit obligations.

It's true, Democrats, especially party leaders, often don't do the right thing. In the past Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were ready to reduce benefits if Republicans agreed to something in return, such as raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. President Obama supported a new cost-of-living index that would have reduced expected benefits. This Chained Consumer Price Index assumes that people can find cheaper substitutes for items whose price is rising fast. But do they? Many people on SS are poor or nearly poor and they must be substituting all the time. More broadly, SS benefits are pretty low, many people on SS have big medical bills, and we should not be thinking about how to cut them. The Chained CPI is flawed. And it's sleazy. Here is how it goes: we won't directly attack benefits. We can use a method that looks scientific, is confusing, and cuts benefits gradually. My rule of thumb is that when you see "Chained Consumer Price Index" next to a government benefit program, it's bad news.

Most Democrats today, led by progressives and socialists, are committed to improving rather than cutting SS benefits. But all Democratic candidates need to be asked where they stand on saving and improving SS. And voters need to understand that SS cannot get the right kind of fix if Republicans control even one house of Congress or the presidency.

But if people want to save and improve SS, there are plenty of good ideas. One proposal has been introduced into the House as the Social Security 2100 Act. It has 210 House co-sponsors. It lifts the minimum benefit. It raises payroll taxes for workers and employers from 6.2% to 7.4% by 2043. If we started today, that would be mean an increase of 1/20 of a percentage point a year. Finally, there is the ceiling that currently means that affluent Americans pay no SS taxes on income over $132,900. The new law would impose SS taxes on income over $400,000. (I don't know why people should not pay on earnings from $133,901 to $399,999.)

There might be other ways to go, but this is a practical plan to fix SS and a good start. Republicans won't support it. They want cuts. And if nothing is done, they will get their way.

* Another aspect of the campaign to undermine SS during Bush's presidency is represented in this story: an NPR reporter, looking for the huge SS surplus that existed at the time, traveled to the Federal Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Once there, he could not find the SS surplus. No gold bars, no real money. Just paper. You know, just bonds guaranteed by the United States government. Kinda like other U.S. bonds. This nonsense was a common theme among SS-haters. Surplus? What surplus? It's just paper. Who believes in paper assets?

***************************************************************************

Nancy Altman's article: https://www.timesleader.com/opinion/op-ed/752652/their-view-an-easy-fix-for-social-security. Also very useful is Michael Hiltzik, The Plot Against Social Security: How the Bush Plan is Endangering Our Financial Future (2005).

Frank Stricker is CSUDH emeritus professor of history and labor studies and is on the Board of Directors of NJFAC. His views do not represent either organization. They are wholly his own. His new book, American Unemployment: Past, Present, and Future, will be published next year.

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Frank Stricker Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

ProfessorEmeritus of History, Labor and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills; board member of National Jobs for All Coalition.
Author of Why America Lost the War on Poverty--and How to win it (Univ. of (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Republican Tax Cuts Are Not About Economic Growth or Lifting Working-Class Incomes

The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom

Happy New Year, Sure, But Why Aren't Wages Soaring?

Want to Fix Social Security? Push Democratcs to Do the Right Thing and Vote for Democrats

The Holidays: Arguing about Good Jobs with the Family

Poverty Down, Jobs Up, Everyone Earning More: What's Not to Like? A Father and Son Discuss the News

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
          

Comment Here:   



You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.
Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 
Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

3 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments  Post Comment


Ken Swiatek

Become a Fan
Author 514190

(Member since Sep 12, 2019), 3 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

A Few BEST Social Security Modernization Plan Basics - An Introduction


The U.S. should adopt a comprehensive approach to ensure the solvency of our great nation's most successful economic, domestic program, Social Security.


One of the provisions in the Balanced, Equitable, Solvent, Tested (BEST) Social Security Modernization (Mod) Plan was designed to look at the way modern America works and earns a living in the 21ST century.


It calls for repealing sections 211 (1) (2) and (3) of the 1935 Social Security Act. These are the three sections of the Act which exclude income from real estate rentals, corporate dividends, and stock market capital gains from being subject to paying the Social Security taxes that every other hard working American is required to pay. (Long term gains will be excluded from the revised earnings definition.)


Requiring the recipients of these types of earned income to pay their fair share of taxes will help to insure that the hugely successful Social Security program will remain fully solvent for generations to come.


Exactly what will this Correction to the Social Security Act accomplish?


First, it will require payment of the 15.3% Social Security Self Employment/Medicare tax. (Employees pay a 7.65% Social Security/Medicare tax.) Those who have these types of currently excluded earnings typically have much longer working careers than those who perform hard physical labor. This also means more years of contributions to the Social Security/Medicare trust funds.


Second, once these earnings are properly defined as earned income, not only will they be subject to Social Security taxes, but they will, then be subject to paying federal income taxes at the rates that wages are presently taxed, and the 1.45% Medicare tax which is not subject to the current payroll tax cap. Currently a hedge fund manager may pay a total of only 15% tax on her/his earnings. However, once defined as wages/self employment, these earnings will be subject to 15.3% Social Security tax, the additional 1.45% Medicare tax on all earned income, plus the federal income tax rates of 25-35% that other hard working Americans have long been required to pay.


This is not a tax increase! These are currently existing taxes and tax rates. Why should stock market gamblers and insiders, who are working at earning a living, pay total taxes of 15% while other workers pay 32-50% tax rates? Let's make taxation fair for all.


Submitted on Thursday, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:41:57 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Ken Swiatek

Become a Fan
Author 514190

(Member since Sep 12, 2019), 3 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

More information on The B.E.S.T. Social Security Modernization Plan can be found on the following blog:


tsocialsecuritymodplan.blogspot.com


Start with the earliest posts. Blog format was used in lieu of a published book on the topic or a website.


B.E. S. T. = balanced, equitable, solvent, tested.

Submitted on Thursday, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:48:08 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

kappie

Become a Fan
Author 48333

(Member since May 6, 2010), 2 fans, 633 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

the one thing we can agree on is republicans all and i mean all hate social security.As far as just voting Democratic to protect it that won't do it as the article mentions pelosi's effort to use social security as a bargining tool for other bills.And who can forget barrack o bama who appointed a commission loaded with people who wanted to cut social security.electing Democrats is not enough,you must elect progressive Democrats.moderate Democrats are killing this nation as much as republicans

Submitted on Friday, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:23:13 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Frank Stricker

Become a Fan
Author 29167

(Member since Jan 18, 2009), 1 fan, 23 articles, 38 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to kappie:   New Content

I agree. Vote for Progressive/left Democrats, not centrists. Left/progressives are more likely to protect and improve federal income support programs.

Frank Stricker

Submitted on Friday, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Ken Swiatek

Become a Fan
Author 514190

(Member since Sep 12, 2019), 3 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Neither Clinton nor Obama did anything to strengthen or improve Social Security. In fact, Obama had the opportunity to name a Social Security Commissioner to a 6 year term and he did not. However, the Republicans have always wanted to eliminate Social Security or have it declared unconstitutional. Think Pete Petersen.

www.bestsocialsecuritymodplan.blogspot.com

Submitted on Friday, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:02:54 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Frank Stricker

Become a Fan
Author 29167

(Member since Jan 18, 2009), 1 fan, 23 articles, 38 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Ken Swiatek:   New Content

Yup. Peterson. Terrible person. Bush II not so wonderful either, as mentioned in the article. I probably could have added Ryan.

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:25:27 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment