From CBS News:
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill on Tuesday designed to shore up Social Security's finances in the coming decades and prevent future benefit cuts for the 70 million Americans who rely on the program. …
The legislation, called the Promise Act, would not itself raise taxes, reduce benefits or change eligibility. Instead, it would direct the bipartisan, seven-member Social Security Advisory Board to draft a bill, informed by public input, to keep the program's trust funds solvent for at least the next 50 years. …
Any proposal developed by the advisory board would be introduced in the House and Senate by congressional leaders before being considered by committees, which could hold hearings and revise the legislation. To become law, it would need a three-fifths vote in the Senate and a majority vote in the House.
The Promise Act's additional sponsors include Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana; Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia; Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina; and Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine. …
This is ridiculous. No panel of experts will come up with a bill that will draw widespread support. There’s no clever way of solving the problem that will hurt no one. You either raise taxes, which no Republican will support, cut benefits which no Democrat or Republican will support or you pay benefits out of general revenues, which no one will support as a long term solution but may have to accept. This bill is nothing more than pretending you’re doing something when you’re doing nothing.
A bill that combines tax increases and benefits cuts is a trap for Democrats. Republicans would probably provide a few votes to get such a bill passed and then campaign against Democrats for cutting benefits and raising taxes while laughing up their sleeves at the naïveté of the Democrats. Better for Democrats to wait until they control the White House and both houses of Congress so they can solve the problem with tax increases alone. Of course the filibuster stands in the way of doing this but that’s got to go at some point.
10 comments:
It wasn’t that long ago that the democrats controlled the white house and congress. What did they do? Nothing.
The solutions are known and there is no new idea out there. It is a question of choices and a willingness to accept some sort of compromise
For example, you both raise revenues by removing the cap with some sort of maximum payment so that the very few with incomes well over a million don't also receive a mammoth monthly benefit and, at the same time, cut benefits by increasing the retirement age, slowly by one month over the next 36 years along with an adjustment in the bend points so that the lowest earners receive a higher benefit to make up for the cut.
There is no one solution to make everyone happy. And, you are right, this is simply a political maneuver to say they are doing something without actually doing anything at all.
It’s too soon to start debating and voting on a solution. Just being a realist. No current or incoming member of congress will want to deal with fixing because any fix is going to p*ss off some large block of their voters. The individual exceptions will be someone who likely is in what they think is their last term and therefore re-election (translation: losing re-election) is not a concern. The fix will come in the then-current term of Congress because they are the “lucky” ducks who must deal with it.
Advisory Board to draft a bill, informed by public input. This has disaster written all over it. Isn’t this the same public that voted in this clown show TWICE? These legislatures need to get a spine and make the tough decisions on behalf of the public. Outsourcing the job is not the solution. By the way, the easy solution is to raise the cap and that doesn’t need any public input.
Why not simply raise the retirement age? People are living longer
has someone told them that there has almost never been a 7-member SSAB? The Senate would have to confirm three new members.
Bowles-Simpson plan part deux
Because first raising the retirement age to 70 is effectively a 24% cut in benefits. While life expectancy was rising until recently, a function of the poor health care in the US compared with the rest of the developed world, that is more due historically to lower numbers of child deaths, not to increased length of life for those at age 65 or more. Even when there might be that slight extension for those people, it does not mean that particularly for our clients who are disproportionately involved in physically demanding work, that they could still continue to work for more years. Actually, increasing the retirement age actually benefits us by producing more years for disability claims.
The retirement age could be raised in a reasonable manner by increasing it one month per year for the next 36 years while also adjusting the PIA bend points to only significantly impact higher earners. A reasonable compromise if coupled with a change in the cap, perhaps a total removal over time, with a total cap on individual benefits to take into account the massive benefits that could be paid to the million dollar earners who then would be taxed at the same rate as everyone else.
For all you Attorneys (eye roll)
When a politician says “we wont touch your Social Security!”
Translates to “we wont touch, improve or cut, we want NOTHING to do with ssa at all ever, political suicide”
Stating that "you are going to fix a problem" is NOT enough! just fix it!
Post a Comment