Utah's Republican Senate candidates have outlined a vision for reforming Social Security that includes raising retirement ages, private accounts and, in Mike Lee's case, taking the retirement safety net away from the federal government and letting states run it.
"Somewhere down the road we need to ask: Is the federal government the right government to be administering this?" Lee asked. "You don't find a retirement system in [the Constitution]. That, with the 10th Amendment, says it's a program best administered by the states."
Lee's proposal would mark a historic shift in the 75-year-old program, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases in 1937 is a constitutional exercise of federal power. ...
For his part, Lee also proposed significant increases in the retirement age for younger workers, suggesting that for workers 20 years from retirement, the age at which they would qualify for benefits should be raised by one year every other year.
That means a worker who is 47 years old now -- 20 years from full retirement under the current system -- would not be able to retire until he or she is 77 years old, adding an extra 10 years to their expected period of employment.
Well, that's just grand, there Mike! Gee, hardly seems worthwhile to even HAVE a Social Security program. Oh, wait! I got it! Right. Well, never mind.
ReplyDeleteNancy Ortiz
REPUBLICANS!!!
ReplyDeleteOf my mind,there are other solutions. Reduce all federal salaries at or over $100,000 dollars. Increase taxes on anyone earning over $500,000 dollars yearly. Additionally,increase taxes on any employer who has their primary employment overseas.
Slightly reduce all benefit amounts being paid.
A person at 70 should not have to struggle with an employment situation.
"Lee's proposal would mark a historic shift in the 75-year-old program, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases in 1937 is a constitutional exercise of federal power."
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken the Supreme Court has only ruled that the government has the right to collect the taxes to fund the program, not that the program itself is constitutional.
That is where Obamacare may or may not go down the drain if it is ruled people can't be charged a penalty or fee for not signing up.
Just like the Social Security program if people aren't forced to be in it you don't have a program.
Maybe having states run their own programs isn't a good idea, but these things need to be debated and changes need to be made the sooner the better and right now nothing is being done.
"Lee's proposal would mark a historic shift in the 75-year-old program, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases in 1937 is a constitutional exercise of federal power."
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled on this.
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn..."
"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."
Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html