Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:51 PM Mar 2013

Sanders, Reid, DeFazio Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Social Security

Sanders, Reid, DeFazio Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Social Security

WASHINGTON, March 7 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to strengthen Social Security by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax that nearly everyone else already pays.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the companion bill in the House. He joined Sanders at a news conference in the Capitol to discuss their bill to bolster Social Security without raising the retirement age or lowering benefits.

“Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. Through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American,” Sanders said. “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

Reid said, “I want to thank Sen. Sanders for his outstanding leadership in support of Social Security and the millions of Americans who rely on the program. His legislation should make people think twice before assuming that the only way to strengthen Social Security is to take away benefits that seniors have earned, or raise taxes on the middle class.”

DeFazio added, “Despite the hype, Social Security is not now, and never was, the cause of our deficit. Those spreading these false claims are the same people who have for years been working with Wall Street to privatize the program. We shouldn’t cut benefits or try to balance the budget on the backs of seniors who have earned these benefits. We can just close a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than everyone else.”

In addition to Majority Leader Reid, the Senate measure is cosponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-R.I.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Under their legislation, those with yearly incomes of $250,000 or more would pay the same 6.2 percent payroll tax already assessed on those who earn up to $113,700 a year. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only affect the wealthiest 1.3 percent of Americans, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Social Security officials say that simple change would yield about $85 billion a year to keep the retirement program strong for at least another 50 years.

The legislation is based on a proposal that President Barack Obama made in 2008 during his first campaign for the White House. (Watch the video.)

Since it was signed into law 77 years ago, Social Security has kept millions of senior citizens, widows, widowers, orphans, and the disabled out of poverty. Before Social Security, about half of senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent live in poverty and more than 55 million Americans receive retirement or disability benefits.

The most successful government program in our nation's history has not contributed to the federal deficit. It has a $2.7 trillion surplus, and it can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for at least the next 20 years, according to the Social Security Administration.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=3d71f1ec-9ff5-4443-9e1f-efc735f1bb38

Bill: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030612-SSBill.pdf

Fact sheet: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030613-SSFactSheet.pdf


66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders, Reid, DeFazio Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Social Security (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2013 OP
Awesome! I Know It Will Never Make It Through The House Currently, But Now That This Is Out There Skraxx Mar 2013 #1
Yup! n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #2
If they take it to the PEOPLE, and take to the AIRWAVES and social media, it will loudsue Mar 2013 #37
It won't survive a filibuster either. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #5
So it's really just for show. AlbertCat Mar 2013 #19
Cool. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #21
If you like theater by all means enjoy the show. AlbertCat Mar 2013 #25
It's A Good Show, And Useful In Helping to Move the Debate Skraxx Mar 2013 #40
Good. I eagerly await President Obama throwing his support behind this legislation. MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #3
Me too.... tokenlib Mar 2013 #10
Me three. But I think we'll have a long wait. forestpath Mar 2013 #23
That was the last thing that came to mind... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2013 #34
He has already publicly thrown his support behind chained CPI, NorthCarolina Mar 2013 #39
Yup, I know. My "eagerly" was snark. MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #56
I don't see him supporting anything unless Goldman Sachs gets a piece of the action. GoneFishin Mar 2013 #54
Where's the sarcasm thingie? lark Mar 2013 #57
Good on Reid, Sanders, and De Fazio Cha Mar 2013 #4
You are kicked and Rec'd, ProSense! sheshe2 Mar 2013 #6
Ah, "strengthen" in the actual, literal sense of the word. How refreshing! Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #7
I applaud this effort, but ... Scuba Mar 2013 #8
Kick! ananda Mar 2013 #9
Good that this was introduced. MineralMan Mar 2013 #11
Now wonder the ReThugs want to privatize SS. Auntie Bush Mar 2013 #12
This is such great news! TheProgressive Mar 2013 #13
Unfortunately, it will be DOA. The wealthy never pay their fair share for anything.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #14
Good. K&R nt abelenkpe Mar 2013 #15
This is why we so need to get our side out in record numbers Coolest Ranger Mar 2013 #16
THIS riqster Mar 2013 #46
Klobuchar and Franken reteachinwi Mar 2013 #17
So will those paying more also receive a larger check when they start drawing SS? 1KansasDem Mar 2013 #18
I heard about one version that would pay up to $150K a year out for higher contributors. airplaneman Mar 2013 #22
a whopping k&r... spanone Mar 2013 #20
Wonderful!!!!! And let's use a little of the money to help the JDPriestly Mar 2013 #24
I do agree that we should help the homeless; however juajen Mar 2013 #61
Why they didn't do this when the Democrats controlled Congress? n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2013 #26
It's been a long time since Dems truly controlled Congress riqster Mar 2013 #47
Very good question. I would love to see an answer for this. juajen Mar 2013 #62
Ok, DUers, we have a bill to strengthen SS - where are the 200+ DU Recs?????????? TheProgressive Mar 2013 #27
Kick! n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #29
This is what Democrats should be doing... Jasana Mar 2013 #28
It doesn't strengthen Social security. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #30
Yes, it does. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #31
nope. just another step toward undermining it. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #32
Nonsense. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #33
We've had this discussion before. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #35
Agree. ananda Mar 2013 #36
Really? ProSense Mar 2013 #38
You're both wrong. RC Mar 2013 #55
+ infinity: "The best way to save Social Security is to get our Living Wage jobs back" magellan Mar 2013 #63
Actually, ProSense Mar 2013 #66
People who make over $125,000 per year aren't "labor". It's a ridiculous argument. nt Romulox Mar 2013 #43
Enter DU's defender of top earners. She's VERY CONCERNED about removing the cap! nt Romulox Mar 2013 #42
President Obama John2 Mar 2013 #41
DINGDINGDING! We have a winner! riqster Mar 2013 #49
Several DUers *passionately* oppose Sen. Sanders on this, but not one is articulate as to why. Romulox Mar 2013 #44
Because it represents a populist solution, NorthCarolina Mar 2013 #48
I guess I have gotten behind on my reading here Samantha Mar 2013 #50
Hopefully my K&R will only be one of many as this is what we have always needed. jwirr Mar 2013 #45
He'd probably be too old, duffyduff Mar 2013 #51
Agree with you about DeFazio. classof56 Mar 2013 #59
I moved back to Jackson County from Nevada about three years ago, and duffyduff Mar 2013 #60
C'mon Obama - step up! grahamhgreen Mar 2013 #52
Show your support, go sign petition Milliesmom Mar 2013 #53
Thanks. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #64
This: CrispyQ Mar 2013 #58
Good for them. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2013 #65

Skraxx

(2,981 posts)
1. Awesome! I Know It Will Never Make It Through The House Currently, But Now That This Is Out There
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:53 PM
Mar 2013

It's out there.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
37. If they take it to the PEOPLE, and take to the AIRWAVES and social media, it will
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 10:09 AM
Mar 2013

go viral. It is the solution that people have been talking about for years. It is what the majority wants.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
19. So it's really just for show.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:25 PM
Mar 2013

It's also a good, simple, easy to understand idea.


And once again, Dems are trying to do something to help everybody..... of course Repugs will kill it. So it also sends a message. Not a bad show....

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
25. If you like theater by all means enjoy the show.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:58 PM
Mar 2013

Hell, I worked in theatre and film....

And DC is a lousy show most of the time.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
34. That was the last thing that came to mind...
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 05:15 AM
Mar 2013

I mean, he's been putting SS on the chopping block time and time again...after all.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
39. He has already publicly thrown his support behind chained CPI,
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:06 AM
Mar 2013

and, following his apparently successful dinner meetings, likely backs raising the Medicare eligibility age as well.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
54. I don't see him supporting anything unless Goldman Sachs gets a piece of the action.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 03:07 PM
Mar 2013

Wall Street has their eyes on this. That is the only reason it is being discussed now.

lark

(23,147 posts)
57. Where's the sarcasm thingie?
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 03:55 PM
Mar 2013

Obama is taking the totally opposite approach with him pushing chained CPI.

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
7. Ah, "strengthen" in the actual, literal sense of the word. How refreshing!
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 08:28 PM
Mar 2013

As opposed to "strengthen" in the euphemistic, we're-gutting-it-but-can't-use-those-words way.

PB

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
8. I applaud this effort, but ...
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 08:36 PM
Mar 2013

... would have also proposed adding the tax to Capital Gains, if for no other reason than as a starting point for negotiations.

Auntie Bush

(17,528 posts)
12. Now wonder the ReThugs want to privatize SS.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:20 PM
Mar 2013

"It has a $2.7 trillion surplus, and it can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for at least the next 20 years,"

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
13. This is such great news!
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:24 PM
Mar 2013

With Reid's support, it will be brought up in the Senate. It would be hard
for Senators to vore no knowing that a huge majority of Americans are
for strengthening SS.

The House is a different story with the Republican majority. It could be great
ammunition for the 2014 elections is they sit on it.

We all really need to push this thru!

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
14. Unfortunately, it will be DOA. The wealthy never pay their fair share for anything....
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:26 PM
Mar 2013

....but they get much more than their fair share of the profits.

It may time to form a 99% Union.

Coolest Ranger

(2,034 posts)
16. This is why we so need to get our side out in record numbers
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:08 PM
Mar 2013

for 2014. To get the house and keep the Senate.

airplaneman

(1,240 posts)
22. I heard about one version that would pay up to $150K a year out for higher contributors.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:42 PM
Mar 2013

I don't know if this version is it but the $150K one would also work to strengthen SS.
Personally I don't like means testing because it erodes support and also it spells not giving what was promised.
-Airplane

juajen

(8,515 posts)
61. I do agree that we should help the homeless; however
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 11:54 AM
Mar 2013

I supported a homeless child on my SS. So, keeping SS healthy and raising the income according to a proper cost of living index also helps this country support the homeless. SS is a winner for everybody. The rich should embrace paying payroll taxes.

In addition to supporting my homeless child, I put over 1,500 dollars a month into the economy.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
47. It's been a long time since Dems truly controlled Congress
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 12:26 PM
Mar 2013

Since the Reeps have remade themselves into a load of uncompromising f***s who will block anything that does not fit the Randian model, Dems have to have 70-80% majorities in each house of Congress to overcome the odd defection that alows Reeps to block Dem initiatives.

The person who can shut a thing down controls that thing, regardless of appearances. The Reeps control our Government and have for years. Only by getting larger majorities in every chamber will the Dems truly control Congress.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
27. Ok, DUers, we have a bill to strengthen SS - where are the 200+ DU Recs??????????
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 11:07 PM
Mar 2013

SS is our legacy. More importantly, it allows Millions of seniors to
survive in their retirement.

Please, show Congressional Democrats that We Want This....

Jasana

(490 posts)
28. This is what Democrats should be doing...
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 11:30 PM
Mar 2013

even if they can't get it passed. They need to be seen as trying to help... trying to move forward. We need to keep their feet to the fire and find every way we can to get out our voters in 2014.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
35. We've had this discussion before.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 06:55 AM
Mar 2013

First, with close to 3 trillion dollars in the SS Trust Fund, there's no rationale for increasing SS taxes *at all* at this time, and a lot of rationale for increasing income taxes at the top, where you can hit CAPITAL (not just labor), in order to repay that $3 trillion.

Increasing SS taxes hits only LABOR, and only increases the TF surplus, allowing CAPITAL to keep borrowing it in the form of lower income taxes.

And that's just the first problem with this goofy 'solution'.

ananda

(28,875 posts)
36. Agree.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 06:59 AM
Mar 2013

The conversation always needs to turn to fair taxation
and not reduction of vital safety nets.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
38. Really?
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:06 AM
Mar 2013

"And that's just the first problem with this goofy 'solution'. "

Do you still agree with this statement: "raising the cap to its original/traditional 90% is fine by me."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1839646

There is no reason that some people should have their entire income taxed and others do not.

Raising Social Security taxes on both employers and workers from 6.2 percent to around 7.6 percent would close the projected shortfall.1 But there are better ways to raise the necessary revenue. The fairest and simplest is eliminating the cap on taxable earnings, which is currently set at $110,100. Though people pay income and Medicare taxes on all earned income (and will soon pay Medicare tax on unearned income as well), earnings above $110,100 aren’t subject to Social Security tax. Scrapping the cap would close 71-87 percent of the shortfall, depending on whether or not you increase benefits for high earners to reflect their higher contributions. Other no-brainers include covering newly-hired public-sector workers who currently aren’t in Social Security (closing 6 percent of the shortfall) and subjecting Flexible Spending Accounts and other salary-reduction plans to Social Security taxes (closing 9 percent).

http://www.epi.org/blog/social-security-trustees-report/


 

RC

(25,592 posts)
55. You're both wrong.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 03:08 PM
Mar 2013

The best way to save Social Security is to get our Living Wage jobs back into this country, so people make enough to pay into Social Security in the first place.
Just raising the S/S Cap only delays the inevitable. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, it's not, but without the Living Wage Jobs for the rest of us, it is only diddling with the symptoms and makes the 'surplus' more attractive, because there is more money in it. Isn't 30+ years enough? We need to be looking the people Social Security was implemented for and work from there. We are looking at the wrong end of things here. 30+ years gives us plenty of time to develop any viable solutions that may be needed - If they are needed.

An aside, but related question -
If Corporations are people, why aren't they paying into Social Security? Why can't corporations collect Social Security?

magellan

(13,257 posts)
63. + infinity: "The best way to save Social Security is to get our Living Wage jobs back"
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 12:19 PM
Mar 2013

Even if this legislation weren't DOA, it gives no guarantees about avoiding Chained CPI or raising the retirement age.

Putting Americans back to work in jobs that earn them a living wage is the only true way to strengthen Social Security.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
66. Actually,
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:46 AM
Mar 2013
The best way to save Social Security is to get our Living Wage jobs back into this country, so people make enough to pay into Social Security in the first place.
Just raising the S/S Cap only delays the inevitable. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, it's not, but without the Living Wage Jobs for the rest of us, it is only diddling with the symptoms and makes the 'surplus' more attractive, because there is more money in it. Isn't 30+ years enough? We need to be looking the people Social Security was implemented for and work from there. We are looking at the wrong end of things here. 30+ years gives us plenty of time to develop any viable solutions that may be needed - If they are needed.


...I don't disagree. Both are needed.

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
41. President Obama
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:15 AM
Mar 2013

will be influenced by his Party. He takes the stance of moderation and compromise with the extreme rightwingers of the Republican Party but as the leader of the Democratic Party he has no choice. The Republican Party makes the mistake, thinking the President influences people in the Democratic Party who has core principles and values. To think that Democratic constituents are sheep that only follows the ordained leader at the top is a mistake. The leader can always be replaced by a better leader. The President is not a king in the Democratic Party. The Republicans need to understand that. They are dealing not with one individual, but a competing political movement of many. And the changing Demographics of this country, are on that political movement's side.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
44. Several DUers *passionately* oppose Sen. Sanders on this, but not one is articulate as to why.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:27 AM
Mar 2013

The arguments tend toward "But it will anger the rich!".

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
48. Because it represents a populist solution,
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 12:27 PM
Mar 2013

and that simply does not register in a DLC "New Dem" world.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
50. I guess I have gotten behind on my reading here
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 02:04 PM
Mar 2013

It is difficult to believe any DU'er would not support the bill under discussion in this thread.

As has often been repeated, Social Security does not add to the deficit. There is no logical reason for it to even be mentioned in this debacle of a debate about a potential Grand Bargain.

Sam

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
51. He'd probably be too old,
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 02:12 PM
Mar 2013

but I'd like it if DeFazio ran for president. I'd like it even better if the congressional boundaries were changed here in Jackson County, Oregon, so that we wouldn't be stuck with Greg Walden anymore and I could vote for him and work on his campaigns.

DeFazio is one of the few Democrats in both houses of Congress who is worth a shit these days. Most of them would sell the American people down the river for more campaign contributions so they could sell the American people further down the river.

classof56

(5,376 posts)
59. Agree with you about DeFazio.
Sat Mar 9, 2013, 07:18 PM
Mar 2013

His progressive policies and ideas are among the few that make sense in today's political arena. I'd like it a whole lot if the congressional boundaries were changed over here East of the Cascades, too. I'm sick of being in Walden's district where he has town halls in oh, say, Condon. Or maybe Fossil. He turns a blind eye to Deschutes County and I'm guessing Jackson County constituents. I support DeFazio. Wish I could vote for him, for Congress and definitely President!



 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
60. I moved back to Jackson County from Nevada about three years ago, and
Sat Mar 9, 2013, 07:20 PM
Mar 2013

I was shocked Walden lived in Hood River, hundreds of miles away from southern Oregon.

CrispyQ

(36,502 posts)
58. This:
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 06:39 PM
Mar 2013
DeFazio added, “Despite the hype, Social Security is not now, and never was, the cause of our deficit. Those spreading these false claims are the same people who have for years been working with Wall Street to privatize the program. We shouldn’t cut benefits or try to balance the budget on the backs of seniors who have earned these benefits. We can just close a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than everyone else.”


And if "The legislation is based on a proposal that President Barack Obama made in 2008 during his first campaign for the White House," why isn't the President proposing this now? Why Simpson/Bowles?

I'm writing to my senators this evening, to support this.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sanders, Reid, DeFazio In...