Sanders: A way to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years

[Donnachaidh]

http://vtdigger.org/2010/08/16/sanders-a-way-to-make-social-security-solvent-for-the-next-75-years/

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Social Security just turned 75, and all across the country, people and senior organizations are celebrating this enormous achievement. Before President Franklin Roosevelt signed the law on August 14, 1935, about half of the senior citizens in American lived in poverty. That began to change on January 31, 1940, when the first monthly retirement check, for $22.54, was issued to retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vt.

Today, more than 52 million Americans, including more than 124,000 Vermonters, receive benefits. For three quarters of a century, Social Security has been a great success doing exactly what it was designed to do. During that entire period not one American who has been eligible for Social Security has failed to receive benefits they were entitled to receive. That’s a pretty good record. Today, Social Security not only provides retirement benefits to seniors, it provides support for the disabled and widows and orphans.

Sadly, despite its enormously successful record, Social Security has in recent years become a political football. For ideological reasons there are those in Congress who believe that government should not be involved in providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. Rather, they believe in the privatization of Social Security and that workers should, if they want, invest in retirement programs administered by Wall Street and the private sector. Others are arguing that “Social Security is going bankrupt” and, at the very least, benefits should be reduced and the retirement age should be raised to 70.

Let me make it very clear that I disagree with both of those assertions. First, the Social Security system has been enormously effective and efficient for the last 75 years. It must not be privatized. Working people are entitled to the continued security that the system provides and should not be forced to be dependent for their retirement and basic needs upon the ups and downs of the stock market. Despite the deep recession that we are currently in, not one American on Social Security has failed to receive the full benefits that he/she is entitled to. Just think about what would have happened in the last several years to millions of Americans if Social Security had been privatized and all of their retirement funds had been in the stock market. Secondly, Social Security is not going bankrupt and, with modest adjustments, will be available to our kids and grandchildren.

More at the link ---

[ProSense]

1. "with modest adjustments" It's exactly what the President suggested

From the OP op-ed:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the Social Security payroll tax was applied to all income, Social Security would be solvent for the next 75 years. Right now, because of the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, someone who earns $106,800 a year pays the same amount into Social Security taxes as a billionaire. That’s wrong and unfair and must be changed. Simply applying the Social Security payroll tax to all incomes would correct this inequity and bring in enough funds to keep the system strong for the next 75 years.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

link

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Yeah, well, the president has a way of suggesting things that never

quite seem to happen.

I'm getting real tired of him coming up with good ideas, then following up with "but seriously, folks".

If he very unnecessarily throws a bone to repukes, like raising the retirement age, instead of taking the obvious and simple solution, then I'm done.

[Donnachaidh]

3. yeah, he most certainly knows how to *seem* as if he's on our side

And then, of course, slips into a back room deal with Corporate Cronies that want to benefit by the rape of the American Taxpayer. But he's got that *initial* video as *proof* that he wanted to do something.

Bait and switch politics. Very adept at that.

[ProSense]

5. "I'm getting real tired of him coming up with good ideas"

Yeah, he should get out of the ideas business and let Congress handle it.

[Donnachaidh]

4. of course he'll take credit for any bill that might actually help taxpayers

But he certainly does nothing to hinder the obstructionist pukes or the corporate cronies who want to slice the program up amongst themselves.

Slippery politics eventually sticks. :shrug: But the good programs are *not* what the slippery ones are remembered for.