Social Security -- Congressman Rush Holt - D, NJ
April 12, 2013
Message to his website subscribers:
Social Security has always had its rabid opponents. Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, called President Roosevelt’s new Social Security program “unjust,” “a fraud on the working man,” and “a cruel hoax” that would leave retirees with nothing but “roll after roll of neatly executed IOUs.”
Alf Landon was wrong. But he at least had an excuse for his wrongness: he had never seen Social Security in action. Today’s Social Security opponents have no such excuse.
After 77 years, Social Security has compiled an overwhelming record of success. Its payments are modest, averaging only $1,265 per month, but for about 13 million seniors, such an amount is the difference between poverty and sufficiency. And notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the program remains on reasonably sound financial footing, as I have described before.
Yet opponents such as Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, want to slash Social Security by changing the rate at which benefits adapt to inflation. Sen. McConnell claims that something called “chained CPI” is a more accurate measure of inflation – ignoring evidence that most seniors experience higher inflation levels than measured under current law, due to their disproportionate use of high-cost-growth services such as health care.
While Social Security’s foes might prefer to couch their proposals in bureaucratic phrases about inflation indexes, big words can’t hide hard truths: this plan would mean a cut for America’s seniors, one that would eliminate benefits that they have earned and depend on, one that would cut the average benefit by $16,000 over a 25-year retirement.
Troublingly, President Obama, in an effort to reach political compromise, has included similar Social Security cuts in his proposed 2014 budget. Not only is it bad strategy to concede to your opponents’ demands before even sitting down at the negotiating table, but the President is flatly wrong to use seniors’ earned benefits as a bargaining chip.
I already have written the President to oppose these cuts to Social Security, and I will strongly oppose his plan in Congress.
A better way forward is the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I have cosponsored.
It would bring Social Security’s revenue back into line with historic norms by increasing the wage base that pays into the social insurance program, and it would adopt a more sensible inflation index that recognizes that seniors’ costs generally rise faster than the costs faced by younger families.
Sincerely,
Rush Holt
Member of Congress
COMMENT: The proposal mentioned JUST slows down the INCREASE in payments. Just increasing taxes to fund Social Security is NOT the answer. When Social Security was established the ranks of the over 65 year olds were small (since life expectancy was way below 65 years), but NOW life expectancy is in the 70's and constantly increasing.... TIE Social Security benefit start to life expectancy -- if it was 65y in 1936 it should be 75(?) or even 80 years now.... Let's keep the facts straight - it was built to protect the 'very old' in 1936 who in 2013 are a good 10 to 15 years 'older' thanks to Medicare and advances in medicine than their great grandparents.
Message to his website subscribers:
Social Security has always had its rabid opponents. Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, called President Roosevelt’s new Social Security program “unjust,” “a fraud on the working man,” and “a cruel hoax” that would leave retirees with nothing but “roll after roll of neatly executed IOUs.”
Alf Landon was wrong. But he at least had an excuse for his wrongness: he had never seen Social Security in action. Today’s Social Security opponents have no such excuse.
After 77 years, Social Security has compiled an overwhelming record of success. Its payments are modest, averaging only $1,265 per month, but for about 13 million seniors, such an amount is the difference between poverty and sufficiency. And notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the program remains on reasonably sound financial footing, as I have described before.
Yet opponents such as Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, want to slash Social Security by changing the rate at which benefits adapt to inflation. Sen. McConnell claims that something called “chained CPI” is a more accurate measure of inflation – ignoring evidence that most seniors experience higher inflation levels than measured under current law, due to their disproportionate use of high-cost-growth services such as health care.
While Social Security’s foes might prefer to couch their proposals in bureaucratic phrases about inflation indexes, big words can’t hide hard truths: this plan would mean a cut for America’s seniors, one that would eliminate benefits that they have earned and depend on, one that would cut the average benefit by $16,000 over a 25-year retirement.
Troublingly, President Obama, in an effort to reach political compromise, has included similar Social Security cuts in his proposed 2014 budget. Not only is it bad strategy to concede to your opponents’ demands before even sitting down at the negotiating table, but the President is flatly wrong to use seniors’ earned benefits as a bargaining chip.
I already have written the President to oppose these cuts to Social Security, and I will strongly oppose his plan in Congress.
A better way forward is the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I have cosponsored.
It would bring Social Security’s revenue back into line with historic norms by increasing the wage base that pays into the social insurance program, and it would adopt a more sensible inflation index that recognizes that seniors’ costs generally rise faster than the costs faced by younger families.
Sincerely,
Rush Holt
Member of Congress
COMMENT: The proposal mentioned JUST slows down the INCREASE in payments. Just increasing taxes to fund Social Security is NOT the answer. When Social Security was established the ranks of the over 65 year olds were small (since life expectancy was way below 65 years), but NOW life expectancy is in the 70's and constantly increasing.... TIE Social Security benefit start to life expectancy -- if it was 65y in 1936 it should be 75(?) or even 80 years now.... Let's keep the facts straight - it was built to protect the 'very old' in 1936 who in 2013 are a good 10 to 15 years 'older' thanks to Medicare and advances in medicine than their great grandparents.
Comments
Post a Comment