From the Washington Post:
In that Jan. 25 meeting [with the President], [Senator Bernie] Sanders pushed the president to fully fund Social Security for more than seven decades by expanding payroll taxes on affluent Americans, rather than just on workers’ first $160,000 in earnings, as is the case under current law. Sanders also asked the president to back his proposal — highly unlikely to pass Congress — to not only defend existing benefits but also increase them. He wants to provide another $2,400 per year for every Social Security beneficiary.
This previously unreported discussion between Biden and his onetime presidential primary rival reflects a broader behind-the-scenes effort inside the White House to decide how, or if, the party’s message on entitlements should go beyond criticizing the GOP. ...
Biden aides have in recent weeks discussed proposing raising payroll taxes on the rich to fund Social Security, but it is unclear if the president will ultimately endorse that measure when he releases his budget in March, according to three people familiar with international deliberations. ...
“There’s a faction inside the White House that feels some need to offer a plan, though I personally feel that’s misplaced,” one senior Democratic pollster said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations with senior administration officials. “Stick to our basic message: Hands off our seniors. That’s working.” ...
Note that these are discussions about political messaging. No tax increases are happening with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. The Republican message that "We'll never agree to tax increases so
Democrats, not Republicans, must propose benefit cuts" won't ever lead
to a solution.
It's apparent to me how Social Security's long-term financing issues will be resolved. Eventually, Democrats will have a great election cycle and have enough strength in Congress to pass a bill. Until then, it's just posturing but today's political messaging can become tomorrow's enacted fix for Social Security so the posturing matters. If Democrats don't have such an election cycle in time, it's going to be a train wreck, mainly for the GOP which will be caught between its ideology and the great majority of the country which loves Social Security and doesn't want to see it cut.
2 comments:
Republican: Cutting Social Security is fixing it.
Democrat: Securing funding so Social Security can meet its obligations is fixing it.
Republican: You don’t want to fix Social Security because you won’t agree to cut it.
Democrat: You don’t want to fix Social Security because you won’t agree to fund it.
Republican: But there’s an emergency! The trust fund will run out! Quick, cut benefits!
Democrat: The trust fund won’t run out for a good while. Plenty of time for you to agree to fund it. Here’s a plan to do that.
Republican: No thanks, we’d rather see your plan to cut benefits.
Democrat: We don’t have or want a plan to cut benefits. The public doesn’t want that either. Where’s your plan to cut benefits?
Republican: Are you nuts? We don’t want to take the blame for cutting Social Security. We were hoping you would do that for us.
Democrat: So you’re saying you want to cut Social Security to fix it, but you won’t propose a plan to do that, and you want someone else to propose such a plan, so they can take the enormous public backlash instead of you?
Republican: Yes, that’s exactly it!
Democrat: Nice try, but no thanks.
no
Post a Comment