Gail Collins’ don’t-miss column on Social Security—and on Joni Ernst—today
There was this at the Senate debate in Iowa on Sunday:
“I will fight hard to protect Social Security and Medicare for seniors like my mom and dad because our Greatest Generation has worked so hard for the American dream for our families,” said Republican Joni Ernst.
Like many conservatives, Ernst supports some sort of privatization in the Social Security program. She’s a little hazy on the details. But we do know that the Greatest Generation is the name Tom Brokaw gave to the Americans who came through the Depression and spent their young adulthood fighting World War II. They would actually be Joni Ernst’s grandparents.
There are two possible interpretations to her statement:
A) She wants to portray Social Security and Medicare recipients in the noblest light possible.
B) She is promising to protect benefits for everybody over the age of 85.
…
The Senate race in Iowa is one of the tightest in the country, and the debate drew so much attention that it got a segment on “The Daily Show.” Jon Stewart highlighted the part where Ernst got personal with her Democratic opponent, Representative Bruce Braley. (“You threatened to sue a neighbor over chickens that came onto your property.”)
We are not going to have time to delve deep into the controversy that is known to political junkies as Chickengate. We are focusing on Social Security! We haven’t talked about this issue for a long time, and it ought to be part of our election-year repertoire.
Conservative Republicans still tend to hew to the theory that the system is “going bankrupt” and needs to be turned into some kind of private retirement investment account. They also generally promise to protect people 55 or over from any change.
…
“I’m not going to take away your Social Security. Don’t worry about it. Anybody over 55 doesn’t have to worry about any reform measure,” said Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas in a recent debate. He added: “You don’t have to worry about doing anything with Social Security in the next part of this session. Harry Reid will block that real quick.”
Mentioning the mendacity of Majority Leader Harry Reid in every other sentence is a verbal tic Roberts has acquired. However, if you break that statement down, what he seems to be saying is that if you’re, say, 52 and want to make sure Social Security stays the way it is, you will have no problem as long as Democrats control the U.S. Senate.
…
By the way, Social Security is not going bankrupt. In 2033, incoming payroll taxes will no longer be enough to pay for all the benefits. But they’ll still cover about 75 percent of the payments and we could take care of the rest of the problem with a few tweaks — like getting rid of the cap on Social Security taxes. (Currently, all income over $117,000 is exempt from the payroll tax.)
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also helpfully points out that “by coincidence,” the amount Social Security would need to stay completely in balance over the next 75 years is almost exactly the same as the amount the government lost when Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year.
…
If you happen upon a congressional debate in the next few weeks, feel free to ask the candidates what they’re going to do to protect Social Security. Bring along a 54-year-old friend who might helpfully burst into tears when anyone starts promising to protect the 55-year-olds.
Indeed, but just be sure that the 54-year-old doesn’t confuse a Homeowners Association president with a court clerk. At least not a Homeowners Association president who’s also a Republican operative.
Beverly
when you can “fix” Social Security by increasing the payroll tax on the workers who will get the benefits… that is increase the amount of money they save protected by “pay as you go financing” from inflation and market losses as well as personal bad luck… why would you want to play into Peter Petersons hands by calling for a huge new “tax on the rich”?
FDR had to take extraordinary measures to keep Social Security “worker paid” because even his own committee to create Social Security couldn’t get past the “government pays” mental block.
The increase in the payroll tax that would be needed amounts to eighty cents per week each year while wages are going up eight dollars per week per year. Except that the wages will keep going up while the “tax” will not.
Pardon my French, but it seems pretty stupid to destroy Social Security to save it. Which makes me wonder what the difference is between the Republican liars and the Progressives?
Turning Social Security into welfare as we knew it has always been a Republican strategy. Maybe you should ask them why they think it’s such a good idea.
The “cap” was put on Social Security exactly so that it would NOT be welfare. It is insurance. You pay for what you get. Raising the cap will mean that “the rich” will not get what they are paying for… or will be paying for what they are not getting.
I have nothing against taxing the rich in general… but taxing them to pay for Social Security is the surest shortest way to kill it. Even calling for the tax will make it more likely they can kill it in the name of saving it.
Well, just goes to show, Social Security is under assault by wingers left and right.
Let’s not make it into a Welfare program, and let’s not turn it over to Wall Street.
Worst case it eeks out a low positive rate of return for nearly all participants even after 2035 or so, so let’s just let it be.
I generally agree with Dale’s point about avoiding making SS appear to have a significant welfare character. Raising the income cap can lead to such a characterization though if coupled with a rise in the maximum benefit allowance that impression may be avoided. What Collins’ column fails to point out is what has been said here repeatedly. By raising the rate on FICA taxable income just a very small amount the program becomes fully viable over the long term horizon.
Of course the more indirect, but far more equitable approach would be to smooth out the currently absurd inequity in income distribution. Raising the minimum wage would immediately raise FICA income to the Trust Fund. Putting more people back to work does the same thing, maybe even more so. Bringing back a strong middle class also provides higher levels of FICA flows into that Trust Fund. In short, making the economy work for all Americans, rather than just the top five or ten percent, would eliminate the so-called SS financial crisis.
Jack
just so no one accuses me of being a shill for the rich: i agree with you about raising the minimum wage and doing what we can do to increae wages and employment generally.
meanwhile SS exactly as it is, evenwithout the tiny increase in FICA that I call for, is the best insurance workers can buy against the economy remaining bad for them.
even if wages go down and therefore (therefore) the percent of wages needed to fund a basic retirement goes up, you are still going to want (need) to retire, and SS… especially in a bad for workers economy… is still going to be the best… only… guarantee that you will be able to do that… even if not as “rich” as you would like to be.
the point for me.. beyond the simple economics… is that workers who know that they are paying for it will be in a far better position to “demand” decent treatment from both the government and the corporations.
i don’t know how, or if, europeans manage a “welfare state” mentality, but America is not Europe and we are nowhere near being able to inaugurate or keep a welfare state mentality here, however much some of us might prefer that.
I can’t push that too far here, because “freedom” and “liberty” have been co-opted by the Right as “their” thing. But they have co-0pted it because it works… the people believe in it. The mistake the people make is failing to realize the Right is lying to them… using “freedom” as a slogan to hide the fact that they are stealing the people’s freedom.
It does not help that the Left, rather than attacking and exposing the lie, simply decides that “freedom” is a bad deal. Not only do I think that is probably a huge mistake in terms of what America represented to the world, it is also fatal politics…. simply handing elections to the Right.