SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
retirement age
Let’s Celebrate Social Security’s 89th Birthday By Protecting and Expanding It
In this election year, voters should honor this milestone by supporting the party that is working to expand, not cut, their earned benefits.
Aug 14, 2024
On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law. Eighty-nine years later, our Social Security system is at a crossroads. Even as we rightfully celebrate the widespread, enduring popularity and success of Social Security, it is imperative we recognize the threat aimed at our earned benefits by Republican politicians.
If the Trump-Vance ticket prevails this November, former U.S. President Donald Trump will continue his long track record of trying to cut and dismantle Social Security. Don’t be fooled by his rhetoric to the contrary. When Trump was president, he proposed cuts to Social Security in every one of his budgets.
When Trump couldn’t get the cuts enacted, he employed the old tactic of “starve the beast.” Figuring that tax cuts are easier to enact than benefit cuts, he sought to hold a Covid-19 relief package hostage to Congress agreeing to cut Social Security’s dedicated revenue. When that failed, he grabbed the questionable power to go after its dedicated revenue unilaterally—something without precedent. Because Trump was limited to executive action, he was able to only defer the revenue, but he made clear that he would not just defer the revenue, but eliminate it, if he were reelected. Insufficient dedicated revenue leads to automatic cuts. Conveniently, automatic cuts means there is no one to clearly be held accountable.
Republican politicians are ignoring the will of their own voters in favor of protecting their wealthy donors.
If Trump wins again, he will be even worse. Imagine Donald Trump as president, paired with a Republican Congress dominated by Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) vision of a fiscal commission to cut Social Security behind closed doors and the Republican Study Committee’s plans to cut Social Security by $1.5 trillion over just the next decade and trillions more after that (including raising the retirement age). That would be a nightmare scenario for Social Security and the millions of Americans and their families who rely on their earned Social Security benefits.
And it is just as important to recognize the immense opportunity that is available to make Social Security even better going forward.
As a Senator, Vice President Kamala Harris cosponsored legislation protecting and expanding Social Security. And her fantastic running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, shares her commitment to Social Security. When he was in Congress he too cosponsored legislation to protect and expand Social Security.
He understands, from first-hand experience, just how important Social Security is. Here’s what he said in 2010:
As a young man watching my father die of a lengthy illness and a nine-year-old brother at home and a stay-at-home mother watching Social Security survivor benefits be there to allow my little brother to go on and go to college and my mother to go back in the workforce. Many people will say and they are absolutely right, “Pull yourself up by the bootstraps.” They were right of that. We just didn’t have any boots. They were loaned to us by Social Security. And for that we have paid that back ten times over. Our family is stronger, our community is stronger, our country is stronger.
Both Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz recognize that Social Security is the most secure, efficient, and important source of retirement income for the vast majority of Americans. But its benefits are inadequately low.
With the disappearance of traditional private-sector retirement plans, our nation is facing a retirement income crisis. Too many Americans fear that they must work until they die, because they will not be able to retire without a drastic decline in their standard of living. The solution is to expand Social Security.
Both Vice President Harris and Governor Walz understand this reality, and will fight to expand Social Security. They want to require multimillionaires and billionaires to start paying their fair share.
In stark contrast, Trump and his Republican allies in Congress support cutting Social Security and ultimately ending the program as we know it. This is laid out in the budget proposal from the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that counts about 80% of House Republicans as members. And rather than require the wealthy to pay more, they want to give huge tax breaks to the uber-wealthy. Republican politicians are ignoring the will of their own voters in favor of protecting their wealthy donors.
In this election year, voters should celebrate Social Security’s 89th birthday by supporting the party that is working to expand, not cut, their earned benefits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trustee's Report Reminds Us: Social Security's Future Is on the Ballot
If benefits were suddenly slashed, not only would members of Congress lose re-election, they likely wouldn’t be able to appear in public without being screamed at and chased down the street!
May 11, 2024
Every year, Social Security’s Board of Trustees issues a report detailing Social Security’s long-term financial outlook. This year’s report, like all its predecessors, shows that Social Security’s future is a question of values and choices, not affordability. It is a reminder that Congress must take action on Social Security sometime in the next 11 years — and our country’s two major political parties have very different visions for our Social Security system.
Democrats want to protect and expand Social Security, and pay for it by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share. Republicans want to slash Social Security’s already modest benefits, while giving massive tax handouts to the ultra-wealthy.
These competing visions should be front and center in voters’ minds because the trustees report projects that Congress must take action to prevent Social Security’s benefits from being automatically reduced by 17 percent in 2035.
There is no question that Congress will act. Around one in five Americans receive monthly Social Security benefits. That is one in three households. If benefits were suddenly slashed, not only would members of Congress lose re-election, they likely wouldn’t be able to appear in public without being screamed at and chased down the street!
The real question isn’t whether Congress will act, but what action it will take. We know what Democrats will do if they control Congress and the White House, because their position is open and transparent. It is clearly spelled out in legislation that has been introduced in Congress, in President Biden’s budget which states plainly that he supports those legislative efforts, and in the 2020 Democratic Platform.
These proposals have broad support within the Democratic Party, from progressives to moderates. They are also bipartisan in the way that matters — overwhelming support from Democratic, Republican, and independent voters.
Republicans are less open about their position, but a recent budget released by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that comprises about 80 percent of House Republicans (including every member of Republican leadership), reveals the truth. It slashes Social Security benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the next 10 years. The budget’s cuts include raising the retirement age and decimating middle class benefits. The very same budget also includes trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy and giant corporations!
The RSC budget, while cloaked in vague and intentionally misleading language, is still more honest than usual. Generally, Republicans don’t openly endorse Social Security cuts, because they know how unpopular they are even with their own voters. Instead, they talk in Orwellian language about “saving” or “strengthening” Social Security. They want Americans to think that we can no longer afford Social Security, despite the ridiculousness of that claim, in the hope that their constituents will be grateful — not furious — when they receive at least some of their earned benefits.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was uncharacteristically honest when he recently said, “There is a lot you can do… in terms of cutting” Social Security. Knowing how unpopular cuts are, Trump generally denies he wants to cut benefits. When he was president, though, he included Social Security cuts in every one of his budgets. And prior to running for president, he called for raising the retirement age and privatizing Social Security while labeling it a Ponzi scheme. He has also advocated cutting Social Security’s dedicated funding. This could lead to even deeper benefit cuts down the road, but Trump knows cutting taxes is more popular than cutting benefits.
Trump and his fellow Republicans recognize the unpopularity of their positions. That’s why many of them seek to lure Democrats to join them (hold hands and jump, as they often phrase it) in cutting benefits behind closed doors so that they can share the blame or, even better, confuse voters into blaming Democrats.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Democrats are not taking the bait. But the danger is there. Every so often, Congress must pass legislation to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debts. If the United States ever did default, it would trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe.
The last time Congress voted to avoid default, Republicans tried to hold Social Security hostage, demanding benefit cuts in return for their votes. Fortunately, President Biden called their bluff and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy folded – infuriating many of his House colleagues.
The next Congress will need to vote to raise the debt ceiling again. And to avert another attempt to take Social Security hostage, it matters who controls the House, Senate, and White House.
If Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries will be speaker. Jeffries will ensure that the House passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts to Social Security or any other vital benefits. And President Biden will unquestionably sign it. Indeed, he has promised to protect Social Security against cuts.
Moreover, Jeffries is a cosponsor of legislation to protect and expand Social Security. As Speaker, Jeffries will certainly bring that legislation up for a vote. When that happens, Republican members of Congress will be in a bind. They won’t want to require their billionaire donors to pay more, they won’t want to vote against Social Security, and they won’t want to offer their own alternative.
If the American people are clear on where their members stand and vote accordingly, Congress will enact legislation to protect and expand Social Security well before 2035. Once that happens, the annual trustees report will reveal that Social Security can pay all earned benefits for the foreseeable future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Out-of-Touch Billionaire' Larry Fink Blasted for Calling 65 a 'Crazy' Retirement Age
"I love how rich people are treated as sources of great wisdom when they obviously don't know their ass from their elbow," said one economist.
Mar 26, 2024
Larry Fink, the billionaire CEO of the world's largest asset management firm, wrote in his annual letter to investors on Tuesday that it is "a bit crazy" that 65 is viewed as a sensible retirement age in the United States, drawing swift backlash from Social Security defenders and policy analysts.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, replied that the CEO of BlackRock apparently doesn't know the U.S. already raised the full retirement age for Social Security to 67 under a law passed during the Reagan administration—a change that inflicted benefit cuts across the board.
"I love how rich people are treated as sources of great wisdom when they obviously don't know their ass from their elbow," Baker wrote on social media.
While Fink, who is 71, wrote that "no one should have to work longer than they want to," he argued that "our conception of retirement" must change, pointing specifically to the Netherlands' decision to gradually raise its retirement age and tie it to life expectancy. (Fink does not mention that life expectancy in the U.S. has been trending downward in recent years.)
"When people are regularly living past 90, what should the average retirement age be?" Fink wrote. "How do we encourage more people who wish to work longer, with carrots rather than sticks?"
Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams in response to the BlackRock CEO's letter that "Larry Fink is the definition of an out-of-touch billionaire."
"He is welcome to work as long as he wants to, but that doesn't mean that everyone else—including people who do demanding physical labor—should work until they die," said Lawson.
"Half of Americans age 65 and older are living on less than $30,000 per year. This is absurd. Congress must expand Social Security."
Roughly half of older Americans have no retirement savings, a fact that Fink acknowledged in his letter.
While progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have called on policymakers to expand Social Security benefits by forcing rich people like Fink to contribute more to the program, the BlackRock CEO argued that the private sector and federal government should team up to "ensure that future generations can live out their final years with dignity."
"What should that national effort do? I don't have all the answers," Fink added. "But what I do have is some data and the beginnings of a few ideas from BlackRock’s work. Because our core business is retirement."
Fink's letter comes days after the Republican Study Committee—a panel comprised of around 80% of the House GOP caucus—released a budget proposal calling for "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy" in a purported bid to "secure Social Security solvency for decades to come."
But progressives argue that rather than slashing benefits for new retirees to shore up the program, Congress should lift the payroll tax cap that allows the ultra-rich to pay the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $168,600 a year.
Fink, for example, has a base salary of around $1.5 million. With the current payroll tax cap in place, Fink stopped paying into Social Security less than a month and a half into 2024.
"In the U.S. today, 12 million seniors are dealing with food insecurity," Sanders wrote on social media Tuesday. "Half of Americans age 65 and older are living on less than $30,000 per year. This is absurd. Congress must expand Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular