Wapo's Greg Sargent: Liberal push to expand Social Security gains steam

[flpoljunkie]

Liberal push to expand Social Security gains steam
BY GREG SARGENT

November 5

Senator Sherrod Brown is joining the push to expand Social Security, and he’s making a startling argument: Dems should go on offense on entitlements, rather than let Republicans and Beltway fiscal scolds frame the discussion as one over how much benefits should be cut, not one over whether they should be cut at all.

“There are two fundamental numbers that make this a moral case for Democrats to make,” Brown told me in an interview today. “One is that a third of seniors rely on Social Security for virtually their entire income. The other is that more than half of seniors rely on Social Security for significantly more than half their income.”

Brown is endorsing Tom Harkin’s bill to expand Social Security benefits, which would boost benefits for beneficiaries by $70 per month, change the cost-of-living calculation to keep pace with rising costs of things seniors need, and scrap the payroll tax cap to strengthen the program over the long term. The crusade to expand Social Security got started with liberal bloggers such as Atrios began pushing for it, and gained some momentum when liberal groups such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee began mobilizing behind the idea.

With Washington chatter centered on a “grand bargain” or at least a “mini bargain” that might involve entitlement cuts, expanding Social Security might seem like a dead end. But when I pushed Brown on whether Dems would rally behind the idea — after all, Chained CPI is in the President’s budget — he insisted Dems should not cooperate in allowing a “Serious” center-right consensus that equates “fiscal responsibility” with cutting entitlement benefits to reign unchallenged.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/05/liberal-push-to-expand-social-security-gains-steam/?hpid=z3

[dchill]

1. That just makes sense.

But unfortunately, it's also fair - and compassionate.

[blkmusclmachine]

21. Too bad the man in the WH does not agree.

MUST. NEGOTIATE. GRAND. BARGAIN.

[frazzled]

2. Smart move to change the dynamic and stave off cuts

There won't be an expansion (though that would be great), but proposing something that daring changes the calculus of discussions about SS altogether, and could well prevent a move to cut benefits. Republicans will have to focus on saying, "no! no! we can't expand!" instead calling for cuts and making us say "no! no!"

We need to do this more often: get the upper hand in negotiations by pushing for more than what we can hope to get on our side, thus canceling out the Republicans' attempts to gut current spending. This way, we at least maintain the status quo.

[Cosmocat]

18. Just insane, we have a democratic president and senate

and have been a pubic hair from SS cuts for four years now ...



All the bravado talk regarding republican's having their troubles, and they certainly are more fractured as a party now than ever before.

But, they STILL are driving the national discussion on this and with it public opinion.

Why - because Ds won't even DEFEND SS much less do what SHOULD be done now and talk about expanding on it.

[bvar22]

3. Maybe they can get some help from this guy.

He says great things about not cutting benefits,
and [font size=3]Raising-the Cap!!![/font]
I can get behind someone like that!

[Maedhros]

4. I don't recognize that guy. [n/t]

[Nite Owl]

5. Good move by Senator Brown

There are soooo many other things that can be cut like corporate welfare, military, level the playing field with higher taxes for the wealthy. It's their turn to suffer, they are responsible for most of the debt and should be constantly reminded. We'v given enough, they want deficit reduction then they need to step up.

[JDPriestly]

6. K&R.

[4dsc]

7. Scrap the cap, I like that

Lets hope this gets the needed support from other members of the democratic party.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Scrap the cap!!!

[WillyT]

8. HUGE K & R !!!

[toby jo]

9. 100% of that increase will cycle into the economy. Everybody wins.

Thumbs up for Sherrod Brown - he's been a great senator from Ohio. He's always on the side of the little guy, fighting these unglamorous fights, one after another. It's either old people or poor people or the just plain working class people. Reminds me of Glenn.

[TheKentuckian]

10. This exactly what kind of leadership we need. Sherrod for President, Brown will deliver.

[JEFF9K]

11. Conservative economists are almost always wrong. Liberal economists are usually right.

[ShadowLiberal]

12. I think most economists agree on raising the amount SS pays

For basically the following reasons.

1) Back then a lot of seniors had pensions to rely on for retirement, not so anymore.

2) There's growing evidence that 401K's are not good enough to replace a pension, and they were never met to be either if you read up on the history of 401K's.

3) Because a large number of seniors are poor/have little saved, it's a very effective economic boost since those seniors will spend all that extra, not to mention it'll also helping some of our most vulnerable citizens.

[BillyRibs]

13. Give that money to people who need it and

It'll get spent spurring the economy back to life. then it'll be time to change the way we do business from now on!

[Tippy]

15. K&R

[florida08]

16. Long overdue

After it's been looted and pillaged for tax cuts and other crap it's time to put back what's owed. Does anyone think that someone making 500K/year paying in only up to 106K isn't going to take it? Of course they will. Now that's a taker imo.

Thanks for posting

[exboyfil]

17. A simple argument exists for

removing the cap based on the current system. Currently those making over approximately $50K get a much lower multiplier applied to those withholding above that level. Why should that argument extend to those making over $105K.

I just don't think, even with the removal of the cap, that much additional money would be available over and above what it takes to keep S.S. solvent under current defined benefits.

[YOHABLO]

20. Because Republicans don't necessarily have to depend on SS/SSI for their financial needs.

They would rather "invest" that money for you, so they can skim as much as they can for themselves. No better example then what has happened within the last 5 years .. are we that stupid? You really want our safety net .. as meager as it is, to be controlled and manipulated by big investment banks? Laughable. SCRAP THE CAP and if they want to live in this country .. they're going to have to help those who are less fortunate or disabled. Let them whine all they want .. Dems should come out swinging on this.

[DirkGently]

19. KNR

[polynomial]

22. Social Security is for good times

What I realize is that a lot of dollars is being taken from the employee however also mandated to share by the employer. All this placed in an account before actual distributions to the government.

Look at it one at a time according to wise Geek:

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is federal legislation in the United States that mandates employers withhold a set percentage of their employees' salary each pay period. O.K. got that so that’s what FICA means.

Now looking inside FICA, FICA also requires that the employers match the employees' amount and contribute the money to a government account known as the Social Security Trust Fund. Somewhere in that backroom they talk about.

Well, well, well the best in good times are when you have a job and the company is doing well enough to be able to make that match.

From my view this sounds like a basic pension matching fund when the company is in a good economy. This is a basic mandate by the government appears to be something good for the basic citizen. Protection from free fall economist profiteers like Bush/ Cheney, Allen Greenspan, Berneke the economic free fall artisans.

This is where the money fun gets mixed in woven language that has sneaky provisions for retirement income, as well as disability insurance, Medicare and benefits for survivors.


Investopedia says:

Let’s back up to FICA were both the employee and employer share the deductions.

FICA stipulates that there is a maximum that can be allocated to Social Security, while there is no maximum on what can go toward Medicare. That begs the question can someone really over pay in Medicare? Hmmm.



Once the maximum to Social Security is achieved, the contributor's FICA payment will not increase the Social Security portion but will continue to increase the contribution to Medicare. This begs the question again about those who reach that social security cap, is the rest of money going into Medicare or any money going into Medicare by the rich?

The amount of the FICA payment depends on the income of the contributor; the higher the income, the higher the FICA payment.

So, Medicare seems to be a mix of Social Security and Medicare, moreover a little hitch in the end product related to benefits to the employer of an expense deduction for business. But what really jumps out at me is this amount for Medicare to be deducted.

Which is:

The current tax rate for social security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.

I.45% is $14.50 per thousand. Or the calculation is .0145 X 1000 = 14.50 perhaps I am wrong with this calculation but when I look at what is deducted its looks like way more money is taken out a payroll check at the discretion of the employer.

Here is something funny to think about America, we have regulations that are arbitrary regulated or the regulation has been at the discretion of the corporate profiteers with full knowledge of our past and current political representatives.

It should be written on the payroll exactly what that Medicare percentage was being deducted through each pay period but it’s not. Otherwise, small business and big business take whatever they want in Medicare deductions over decades.

Another WTF moment, so no caps on Medicare is that what it really means in the political rhetoric. This is telling me that business has the capability to do whatever it wants with Medicare money. Yikes, scam and scandals of the “don’t care” medical political society is about to appear, are they friendly spirits, not all.