This is Eve. I can’t stress enough how easily the much-talked-about funding shortfalls in Social Security could be fixed and even benefits improved. But since the Clinton administration, both parties have been thinking about how to privatize the program, but how to avoid responsibility has been a bit of a problem. The subheadline in this article misleadingly portrays Republicans as the only ones trying to cut or eviscerate Social Security, but it was saintly Obama who was trying to make a grand bargain. This certainly doesn’t mean the Trump campaign is on Social Security’s side, but the Democrats’ track record suggests that they aren’t either, except by marginalized progressives.
Nancy J. Altman, president of Social Security Works and chair of the Coalition to Strengthen Social Security. Originally published in A common dream
On Labor Day, we celebrate the contributions of workers. And the best way to honor those contributions is by increasing their compensation. A significant part of their compensation is deferred compensation in the form of Social Security. Working families receive Social Security while they work, and they receive benefits when they lose their jobs through old age, disability, or death, leaving behind dependents.
An increase in Social Security benefits is long overdue. Congress has not increased benefits in over half a century.
Whether to expand or cut Social Security is a matter of values, not ability to pay. The choice of values will be decided on the ballot this November. When it comes to Social Security, the two major political parties have very different values.
The Democratic Party sees expanding social security as the solution.
It’s a solution to the nation’s retirement income crisis, where too many workers cannot retire without drastically reducing their standard of living. As traditional pension plans disappear and are replaced by risky, unreliable, and inadequate 401(k)s (if at all), Social Security becomes more important than ever to the economic security of American workers.
The social security system is remarkably superior to the private sector system: it is highly efficient, secure, nearly universal, and good and fair for both long-term and mobile workers. The only drawback is that the benefits are too low. Expanding these modest social security benefits would make us all more secure.
Recognizing the increasing importance of social security to workers and their families, Some bills A bill has been introduced in this Congress to expand modest Social Security benefits, and the Biden-Harris Administration Support these efforts.
Rep. John Larson (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act,this is 185 Co-sponsorsThis bill increases benefits across the board for all current and future Social Security recipients. It improves annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to match the real costs seniors and people with disabilities face. It improves benefits for widows and widowers, students, children living with grandparents, public employees, the oldest Americans, low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and students. And it all comes down to finally making the wealthy pay their fair share.
Similarly, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Democratic Congressional Caucus) Social Security Expansion ActTheir proposals would increase Social Security benefits by $200 a month across the board, update how COLAs are determined to better reflect the costs borne by seniors and other beneficiaries, update and increase Social Security’s minimum benefits, and restore student benefits — and pay for all these increases by requiring billionaires and the very wealthy to pay their fair share, returning Social Security to long-term actuarial balance.
Additional bills have also been introduced that would make positive changes to Social Security. All of these bills would not only address our nation’s looming retirement income crisis, but also other challenges facing the country, including widening income and wealth inequality. In fact, Widening inequality Social Security costs billions of dollars every year. Billions of dollars that could be spent on expanding Social Security.
In short, Democrats want to expand Social Security and require billionaires and other ultra-rich individuals to pay their fair share to ensure that all benefits will be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future.
In contrast, Republican politicians see Social Security as a threat, not a solution, and on top of that, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to give even more tax cuts to the super-rich, and they don’t want the wealthy to pay their fair share of the costs of Social Security.
Republicans want to cut Social Security benefits, or worse, cut them. Because they don’t believe in Social Security. In fact, when Social Security first started, they called it socialism and voted against its creation. Today, their view that government is the problem and not the solution is a lie.
Consistent with that backlash, Trump included cuts to Social Security and Medicare in all four of his budget proposals during his presidency. When the cuts failed to pass, he turned to his old tactic of “starving the beast.” Believing that tax cuts would be easier to pass than cuts to benefits, he cut the income taxes used to fund Medicare and Medicaid, Cut funding for Social SecurityIt has its own dedicated revenue stream.
Donald Trump has taken on dubious powers to further his goal of undermining Social Security. Pursue your own income unilaterallyThis is unprecedented. President Trump was limited in his ability to take executive action, so he could only defer revenues. If he is re-elected, he will eliminate it.And he states: Social Security Cuts That will be on the agenda if he is elected to a second term.
This is the choice in November. Trump Vance and his Republican colleagues want to cut Social Security and give handouts to the wealthy. Harris Waltz and his Democratic colleagues want to cut Social Security and give handouts to the wealthy. I want to expand While Social Security’s modest but important benefits require people making more than $400,000 to pay their fair share.
In fact, Harris and Waltz have been arguing for this for a long time. Kamala Harris She co-sponsored the Social Security expansion bill while in the Senate, and her running mate, Gov. Tim WaltzDuring his time in Congress, he was an original co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act.
Every generation has built on the strong foundation that was laid 89 years ago when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (the first woman to serve in a presidential cabinet) signed Social Security into law. But it didn’t come without a fight.
Those of you who believe in the value of Social Security and the freedom that economic security brings, let’s honor working families by doing what we can to help ensure a landslide victory in November for the party that created Social Security and has always protected and expanded it.
