Let’s start here. A few days ago, a facebook friend who also happens to be a teacher posted something on her facebook page. It was a political petition which stated that someone she supported had a solution to our Social Security Crisis, which by the most generous estimates has about four years left before it begins distributing more than will be paid in, and about a decade and a half of solvency beyond that. As I said, that’s the most generous estimation, others say the bad news will be quicker in arriving, and others still say the bad news will arrive with lightning speed. In either case, what I found upon opening the link, (as fixing a disaster before it becomes a fatal disaster is something that I believe in,) was a piece of Marxist propaganda in the form of a petition stating that all would be well if we just hated some more of those rich folk, and forced them to pay just a little more. Like we’ve never heard that before.
Social Security, one of the greatest anti-poverty programs in our country’s history, is under attack by people who want us to believe the myth that it’s about to run out of money.
We are told the only way to save the program is to slash benefits. But, Social Security benefits are already inadequate.
In an era of skyrocketing medical costs, disappearing home equity, paltry 401k retirement accounts and underfunded pension plans, retirees need more money, not less. And there’s a simple change that would allow us to increase benefits without breaking the bank.
Two senators from conservative states – Tom Harkin from Iowa and Mark Begich from Alaska – ave proposed plans to increase benefits while also ensuring the increased benefits can be paid fully for decades to come. And we should support them.
Tell the Senate to support the Harkin and Begich plans to strengthen Social Security.
If you’re tired of constantly playing defense and want to change the narrative to be about how we can improve Social Security by making it fairer and more generous, then be part of the groundswell of voices supporting the Harkin and Begich bills.
While Sen. Begich’s and Sen. Harkin’s plans differ somewhat, both would make the annual Social Security cost-of-living increases larger to more accurately reflect the increased inflation faced by seniors compared to the general public.
This is the opposite of the shady attempts to cut benefits by using the so-called “chained CPI,” which is an even less accurate (and stingier) way to measure the inflation faced by seniors than what we use currently.
In addition, Sen. Harkin’s plan would increase benefits for virtually everyone by almost $800 a year.
Furthermore, both plans pay for the benefit increases while improving the long-term solvency of the program by lifting the cap on the payroll tax that funds Social Security.
Right now Social Security is funded by a payroll tax that is capped at a yearly income of $113,700. In other words, billionaires like the Koch brothers pay the same amount in Social Security tax as someone who makes $113,700 a year.
Scrapping the cap is a simple and fair way to strengthen the program.
If you’re tired of constantly playing defense and want to change the narrative to be about how we can improve Social Security by making it fairer and more generous, then be part of the groundswell of voices supporting the Harkin and Begich bills.
Tell the Senate to support the Harkin and Begich plans to strengthen Social Security.
Putting aside for the moment that nobody ever suggested slashing the benefits to save the program, that’s just pure hyperbolic trash designed to scare the snot out of old people, or the inconvenient fact that distributions from this program have not one single thing to do with need. Never mind that the mathematics of the solution offered are jaw droppingly fallacious, or that Senator Harkin’s promise of $800 per year more for each person drawing benefits amounts to nothing more than a sick joke of a gimmick in any case. There are some stark revelations admitted to here by the political left, who may have forgotten some of their previous arguments.
First, the canard that Social Security was designed to be a retirement savings plan rather than a wealth redistribution scheme has been finally jettisoned for good. The reason the hated Koch Brothers never contributed past the $113,000 cut off, earning yet again the ire of the left, is that they already have sufficient retirement plans I’m sure, and they will not by any stretch of the imagination need the government’s benefits in order to survive. In fact, the very opening paragraph refers to it as the most necessary and largest wealth redistribution program in our nation today.
Second, the unfunded liability of Social Security is well north of $100 Trillion. That’s what it is now, even before the scales tip to that imbalance of more retirees than workers, and the whole thing starts to pay out quicker than what is being collected. Our GDP at its zenith in 2007, (and no, despite being told that our economy has been gaining momentum, and despite the quantitative easing inflating our economy by an eye popping 37% so far, has not achieved that level of productivity since,) was $14.9 Trillion. So, let’s forget about taxing only the Koch Brothers and everyone else beyond the cut off margin of $113,000 at the same rate. Instead, let’s just tax every man woman and child in this country at 100%. In that instance, we would still not be able to make Social Security solvent at the current benefit structure.
Since men and women are living much longer today than they were in 1934, and since they are healthier and more productive for much longer time frames, why does it not make sense to slide the retirement age back to mirror the 1934 intention of what the program was originally designed to accomplish, or at least land in a similar time zone? That, my gentle snow flakes is the only kind of thinking that has a snowball’s chance in hell of saving this program, before the disaster occurs.
Social Security is made up of two constituent parts. I have never heard a single person who would defend even the best case scenario for either part when considered individually. It is a regressive tax, which places a heavier burden on our poorest citizens. It also contains a welfare distribution that does not consider the needs of the individuals receiving subsidies, and in fact grants larger subsidies to our wealthiest seniors, while the poorer citizens receive smaller subsidies.
Of course, there’s the small fact that Social Security in nothing more than a Ponzi scheme
