General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSanders, 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 shouldnt 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
Skraxx
(2,981 posts)It's out there.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)go viral. It is the solution that people have been talking about for years. It is what the majority wants.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)So it's really just for show.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)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....
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)If you like theater by all means enjoy the show.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Hell, I worked in theatre and film....
And DC is a lousy show most of the time.
Skraxx
(2,981 posts)It's out there now.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I mean, he's been putting SS on the chopping block time and time again...after all.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and, following his apparently successful dinner meetings, likely backs raising the Medicare eligibility age as well.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Wall Street has their eyes on this. That is the only reason it is being discussed now.
lark
(23,147 posts)Obama is taking the totally opposite approach with him pushing chained CPI.
Cha
(297,574 posts)thank you, ProSense
sheshe2
(83,875 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)As opposed to "strengthen" in the euphemistic, we're-gutting-it-but-can't-use-those-words way.
PB
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... would have also proposed adding the tax to Capital Gains, if for no other reason than as a starting point for negotiations.
..
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)It has little chance of passing, but it starts the discussion.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)"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)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)....but they get much more than their fair share of the profits.
It may time to form a 99% Union.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)for 2014. To get the house and keep the Senate.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Turnout is the only way we can get anything done.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)got a thank you note from me.
1KansasDem
(251 posts)airplaneman
(1,240 posts)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
spanone
(135,862 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)homeless. Please? Please? Please?
juajen
(8,515 posts)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.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)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.
juajen
(8,515 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)SS is our legacy. More importantly, it allows Millions of seniors to
survive in their retirement.
Please, show Congressional Democrats that We Want This....
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Jasana
(490 posts)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)ProSense
(116,464 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)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'.
The conversation always needs to turn to fair taxation
and not reduction of vital safety nets.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"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.
http://www.epi.org/blog/social-security-trustees-report/
RC
(25,592 posts)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)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.
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.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)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.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The Congress can lead the party, and often does.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)The arguments tend toward "But it will anger the rich!".
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and that simply does not register in a DLC "New Dem" world.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
jwirr
(39,215 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)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)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)I was shocked Walden lived in Hood River, hundreds of miles away from southern Oregon.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Milliesmom
(493 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)CrispyQ
(36,502 posts)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.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,170 posts)A potent rebuttal to Eddie Munster's proposed budget.